Just tooling around teh Interwebs, and decided to visit David Salakos Facebook page. (Ive mentioned him before, but NOTHING could prepare me for this concoction of advanced vocabulary and OBVIOUS hallucinogen usage. I think Albert Hofmann, who first synthesized LSD, was reincarnated in Britain, as David tune in, turn on, drop out Salako.) I present this - its long, but read the whole thing - in its unedited form (nods to Timothy Leary about the TITODO thing.....and, yes, I have used LSD, more than once, and the last time was almost a quarter-century ago): _________________________ Is Scientific proof by inference possible? I am debating the implication of that question with my friend(Marc O Brian) March 20, 2014 at 6:23am Marc OBrien stated the following: There are no such things as a scientific proof by inference. A theory is something reached both toward and from by inference and, mathematical inferences aside, there is no such thing as any possible inference being a proof. My response is as follows: Deduction is part of the scientific methodology. However some do not think that it should be a scientific method because it is not empirical. For it does not begin with experience/sensory experience. However there have been some scientific discoveries that have come from deduction or Apriori propositions(Apriori pertains to 1. What we take for granted before we prove it(proof is the process of ascertaining the truth), 2. Waht is true by definition and susbequently it is not contingent on sensory experience, and 3. What is based on known facts.) For example; the God particle. ....all, the Higgs boson is the only particle predicted to exist through mathematical deduction.(FROM A SITE CALLED HUBS PAGES). Mathematics and logic belong to the realm of relation of ideas. For the realm of relation of ideas pertains to: 1. Apriori. 2. Mathematics and Logic. And 3. Necessary truth. Therefore it seems that there is such a thing as scientific proof by inference. Furthermore it is possible to seek to prove the inference of deduction. For one may REASON AS FOLLOWS: 1. If A, then B. 2. A. 3. Therefore B. And then after they may seek to prove the inference by means of experience or even logic and reason. The fact is the inference from a series of propositions cannot be wrong if(and only if)it follows from true propositions by virtue of logical necessity and subsequently if an inference follows from true propositions, then it is true. If it is true then the inference can become proof. The point is this: What matters is whether we can verify the propositions that the inference follows from and the inference itself. If we can, then the inference can be used as proof. But i know that you believe that no Apriori proposition can tell us nothing about the world. For you believe in the Humean epistemical standard. And you also believe that nothing can be known beyond sensory experience. However i do not believe that the humean epistemic standard or the principle of the positivist(namely: The principle of verifiability)is rational because it is self defeating. For the principle of verifiability cannot be verified by experience itself. And the humean epistemic standard cannot be verified by sensory experience as well. I believe that scientific proof(by inference)can come from Aposteriori propositions. For example; Experimental observation is about inferring from what we are acquainted with or the things we have observed or aposteriori propositions. For we infer from what we have observe( and what we are acquainted with)in order to draw a conclusion about what we did not observe. For example; If i see shoe prints in the north pole and then i reason as follows: 1. The shoe print(that i saw in the north pole)requires an explanation. 2. The best explanation for the shoe print(that i saw in the north pole)is as follows: A human being was walking in the north pole. 3. Therefore a human caused the foot print. Now notice that i did not see the human being walking in the north pole. However based on my experience i can conclude that my inference is the best explanation and therefore it is the best proof. Now the proof may be strong or weak. But nevertheless it is still what i consider to be reasonable proof. Yes the argument above is abduction and subsequently my inference is my inference to the best explanation. So i believe(based on the situation and what we are trying to prove)that proof by inference is possible. Marc stated the following: If there was a big bang then there will be gravitational waves. There are gravitational waves, therefore there was a big bang. My response: I agree with you.. Indeed the from of the argument is invalid because it violates the rules of modus ponens. The correct form is as follows: 1. If there was a big bang, then there will be gravitational waves. 2. There was a big bang. 3. Therefore there will be gravitational waves. The form of the argument above is valid because it is consistent with the correct form for modus ponens. The correct form for modus ponens is as follows: 1. If A, then B. 2. A. 3. Therefore B. Or; 1. If there was a big bang, then there will be grvitational waves. 2. There will be no gravitational waves. 3. Therefore there was no big bang. The argument above is valid because its form is consistent with the correct form for modus tollens. But YOUR MAIN POINT IS AS FOLLOWS: You are trying to demonstrate is that the argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent and subsequently the inference does not follow by virtue of logical necessity. Understood! However it does not prove that scientific inference by proof is impossible. I suspect that that is what you are trying to illustrate as well. No. On the contrary all that you have demonstrated is that the argument is invalid and therefore the inference cannot be used as proof. But you have not shown that if the arguments form is valid(and that if the premises are sound)that it would not make a difference. Marc stated the following: If it was raining then the roads will be wet. The roads are wet. Therefore it was raining. These argument forms are not valid - the form is called the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The roads being wet would not be sure proof that it had been raining - there could always be some other explanation. There being gravitational waves, logically, cannot be sure proof of there having been a big bang. My response: Yes i have covered that above. Indeed; It does not follow that(it rained)just because the road is wet. For there can be other explanations as well. Yes, as a result of that(the conclusion of the argument does not necessarily follow by virtue of logical necessity). Marc stated the following: But the big bang theory so far seems the best explanation for all the facts, considered holistically, including this newest one. My response: Firstly you are an empiricist(and all empiricists do not believe that anything can be known beyond sensory experience)and subsequently(since NO human was alive to observe the big bang)it follows that you cannot know that THE big bang occurred. So; how do you KNOW that the big bang theory is the best explanation. The fact is that you cannot know that it is the best explanation and yet you call it the best explanation. And the fact is the phrase(the best explanation) cannot tell us anything if we do not know that it is the best explanation. For the best explanation is always the one that is consistent with what we know. Or it is the one that we can verify or prove. If we cannot verify or prove our explanation then it cannot be the best explanation. And thus the best explanation is always about the assumptions of a consensus or it is their preferred explanation and subsequently the best explantion is subjective. The fact is science assumes absolute materialism and physicalism as its starting point. However the scientific methodology(namely; data obtained from observation)cannot prove their philosophical assumptions. My point is as follows: Such starting points can influence ones perception of what constitutes the best explanation. The same is true if one is an Atheist. But also; You have not provided any reason for WHY God cannot be the best explanation for how the universe(all of space, energy, matter, and TIME)began to exist or came into being and subsequently you are assuming that the big bang theory is the best explanation. On the contrary i belive that the best explanation for how the universe(or all of space, time, energy, and matter)came into being is God. And i will defend that proposition(namely: God is the best explanation for the origin of our universe)as follows: Abductive argument for the existence of God. Firstly(by definition): Abduction is inference to the best explanation. My abductive argument is as follows: 1. The(coming into being)of space/time requires an explanation.(that is, the space/time continuum) 2. The best explanation for the coming into being of space/time is God. 3. Therefore God exists. Next; Let us consider Premise/reason 2 by asking the following question: Why is God the best explanation? Answer: Because: 1. The Space/time continuum began to exist.(Time is the realm of 1. Impermanence, 2. Changeability, and 3. Limited duration) 2. Every thing that begins to exist requires a cause. 3. Therefore the space/time continuum requires a cause. Next; The conclusion implies that the cause of space/time exists outside space/time. For to suggest that the cause is part of the effect implies that the cause is an effect. However such a proposition violates two laws of logic; namely: 1. The law of non contradiction. And 2. The law of identity. For the cause cannot be cause and effect at the same time. And the cause cannot have the essence of both cause and effect at the same time. Furthermore to suggest that the cause existed in the effect implies that it also began to exist with the effect. Thus how can it be responsible for producing the effect and subsequently how can it be the cause? Therefore, the cause(of the space/time continuum) must exist out-side the space/time continuum(or the effect). The logical implication of that is as follows: 1. The cause must be timeless and spaceless. 2. The cause is not spatio-temporal. 3. The cause is not subject to a limited duration. 4. The cause is immutable. 5. The cause is eternal. 6. The cause did not begin to exist. 7. The cause is immaterial. 8. The cause has no beginning and end. 9. The cause transcends the scientific laws that govern the universe. And 10. The cause is supernatural. Now we know(on the basis of the scriptures) that there is only one cause that fits the characterization above. We call that cause God. Furthermore we know that no physical cause or object fits the characterization above, and subsequently God is the best explanation for what we observe or the existence of the space/time continuum. Thus the scripture is right. For it tells us that we can know about Gods nature by perceiving nature. That kind of revelation of God(by means of nature)is known as General revelation. It is General because it is accessible by all truthful humans. Based on my whole reasoning it is reasonable to conclude that the big bang theory is not the best explanation. Marc stated the following: Good theories have good predictive success. But then Ptolemys theory had great predictive success as did the luminiferous ether theory. My response: I agree.
Posted on: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:34:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015