Reasoning, Logic and Faith - Page 3 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 Old 02-08-2007, 06:24 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipper View Post

Actually, that one is a huge leap, because you have to first wholly define what man is. Then you have to show that Socrates fits the bill, then you have to explain what mortality is. That's a very abstract scenario so it's hard to talk about in terms of postulates.

Well, I don't think I could define anything in terms of postulates (have to look that up lol) but we certainly can define what man is, at least physiologically. It's not that far of leap at all imo. Or maybe I'm not understanding something here.



Quote:
What I'm talking about are very simple principles that have never been proven to the satisfaction of experts, but seem reasonable assumptions within their discipline and are still taken as truths for the sake of moving on, such as the belief that parallel lines never intersect, or that 1+1=2.

I don't understand how this concludes that deductive reasoning is based on inductive reasoning. I also think it would be easier to work with the example provided. I'm not a physicist but...by the definition of parellel, two parellel lines wouldn't meet. If they did they would no longer be parellel lines. Again tho, I'm not a mathemetician or a physicist so maybe there's something I don't get.
gaya is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#62 Old 02-08-2007, 06:27 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnome Chomsky View Post




More precisely, the transformational rule that is used to arrive at that conclusion is based on axioms that are assumed (but they are assumed because the "work").



ebola

Ok, so how is that inductive reasoning?
gaya is offline  
#63 Old 02-08-2007, 06:38 PM
Banned
 
flipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaya View Post


I don't understand how this concludes that deductive reasoning is based on inductive reasoning. I also think it would be easier to work with the example provided. I'm not a physicist but...by the definition of parellel, two parellel lines wouldn't meet. If they did they would no longer be parellel lines. Again tho, I'm not a mathemetician or a physicist so maybe there's something I don't get.



It doesn't - I was just presenting examples. It is true that deductive reasoning has to be based on postulates (which are unproven) so in terms of logic they can only be achieved through induction - basically building a belief on what you have experienced and the information you choose to use in your construct. This is much like religion.



So far as parallelism goes, you have given its definition, not an proof of its characteristics. Most geometricians will argue that the definition you give is only applicable in Euclidean solution spaces and is meaningless in other geometries. If you google "non-euclidean geometry" you'll find some well-thought-out descriptions of this.
flipper is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#64 Old 02-08-2007, 06:41 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipper View Post

It doesn't - I was just presenting examples. It is true that deductive reasoning has to be based on postulates (which are unproven) so in terms of logic they can only be achieved through induction - basically building a belief on what you have experienced and the information you choose to use in your construct. This is much like religion.

I can understand this when it comes to certain types of mathematics. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it as it pertains to the physical world.



Quote:
So far as parallelism goes, you have given its definition, not an proof of its characteristics. Most geometricians will argue that the definition you give is only applicable in Euclidean solution spaces and is meaningless in other geometries. If you google "non-euclidean geometry" you'll find some well-thought-out descriptions of this.



Ok, thanks for the recommended reading. I'll check it out.
gaya is offline  
#65 Old 02-08-2007, 06:53 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
This thread is blowing my mind and I love it.
GhostUser is offline  
#66 Old 02-08-2007, 06:57 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,973
>>I can understand this when it comes to certain types of mathematics. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it as it pertains to the physical world.

>>



We ASSUME that objects in the universe are set in causal relations, and thus build transformational rules into our logics which correspond roughly to causal relations among terms. This system works for us rather well, in terms of rendering our observations more ordered and allowing for manipulation of the world towards our ends. Causation as such, however, is assumed, not deduced.



ebola
Gnome Chomsky is offline  
#67 Old 02-08-2007, 07:02 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,851
What I think and know is truth, and in this I have faith.
Vegan Joe is offline  
#68 Old 02-08-2007, 07:09 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnome Chomsky View Post


We ASSUME that objects in the universe are set in causal relations, and thus build transformational rules into our logics which correspond roughly to causal relations among terms. This system works for us rather well, in terms of rendering our observations more ordered and allowing for manipulation of the world towards our ends. Causation as such, however, is assumed, not deduced.



ebola

I can buy that it might not always be deduced, especially since I'm only really understanding what deductive reasoning is today...plus I've cracked a bottle of wine so i'm a fuzz. I don't understand the assumption of causal relationships tho due to certain physical evidence (depending on the situation).
gaya is offline  
#69 Old 02-08-2007, 07:10 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
We ASSUME that objects in the universe are set in causal relations, and thus build transformational rules into our logics which correspond roughly to causal relations among terms. This system works for us rather well, in terms of rendering our observations more ordered and allowing for manipulation of the world towards our ends. Causation as such, however, is assumed, not deduced.



ebola



What trite psuedo-intellectual garbage! It is SCIENCE that has allowed us to establish certain truth for the first time in human history. Such certainty has been built upon the pillars of an immense body of experimental evidence, evidence that is all the more accumulating, improving our theories. Sure, our current theories may not be entirely correct, but they are approaching absolute truth. How dare you suggest that we discard the bedrock of our only valid efforts in producing REAL knowledge?



Quote:
What I think and know is truth, and in this I have faith.



Faith is inadequate, worthless. The currency of truth is experiment and reason. Its vehicle is experimental inference.
GhostUser is offline  
#70 Old 02-08-2007, 07:17 PM
Veggie Regular
 
bigdufstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipper View Post

It doesn't - I was just presenting examples. It is true that deductive reasoning has to be based on postulates (which are unproven) so in terms of logic they can only be achieved through induction - basically building a belief on what you have experienced and the information you choose to use in your construct. This is much like religion.



This is not like religion. Math is founded on deductive reasoning. Postulates are created ONLY when neccessary and when they are self evident, such as the addition postulate. One of the goals of math is to reduce the number of postulates as much as possible.



Religion, on the other hand, does not attemp to reduce the number of assumptions (I don't used the term postulate here because they are not self evident.) If religion did try to reduce the number of assumptions it would first remove all assumptions and then either reason everything (Descartes tried and didn't get to far) or make a minimal set of postulates and then find evidence or reason for whatever follows. But if religion did this it would no longer be religion, it would be math and science.
bigdufstuff is offline  
#71 Old 02-08-2007, 07:59 PM
Banned
 
flipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdufstuff View Post

This is not like religion. Math is founded on deductive reasoning. Postulates are created ONLY when neccessary and when they are self evident, such as the addition postulate. One of the goals of math is to reduce the number of postulates as much as possible.



Religion, on the other hand, does not attemp to reduce the number of assumptions (I don't used the term postulate here because they are not self evident.) If religion did try to reduce the number of assumptions it would first remove all assumptions and then either reason everything (Descartes tried and didn't get to far) or make a minimal set of postulates and then find evidence or reason for whatever follows. But if religion did this it would no longer be religion, it would be math and science.





Self-evident? Can anything be any more loaded? What does "self" mean to you?





I don't think this split thread was intended as a forum for justifying any person's contempt for religious faith. I wasn't ever trying to justify religion, just to set religion's line of reason in a perspective that could be compared to the bases of induction. You can google words like "logic" and "induction" if it's not clear.
flipper is offline  
#72 Old 02-08-2007, 08:02 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,851
PASSION Brother (Sister) it's all about PASSION.
Vegan Joe is offline  
#73 Old 02-08-2007, 08:06 PM
Banned
 
flipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 111
Given your reference to self-evidence (bigduffstuff): The only reason the writers of the US Constitution used the term "self-evident" when describing human rights, was because the original drafts referred to "God given rights" and that didn't jive with the notion of separation of church and State.



Self-evidence is a buzzword and nothing else.
flipper is offline  
#74 Old 02-08-2007, 08:10 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
PASSION Brother (Sister) it's all about PASSION.



Is it? Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so. We all possess the capacity to pass from infantile fantasy to properly discerning apprehension of the world before us, but apparently many of us fail to make use of this capacity.
GhostUser is offline  
#75 Old 02-08-2007, 08:11 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipper View Post

Self-evident? Can anything be any more loaded? What does "self" mean to you?





I don't think this split thread was intended as a forum for justifying any person's contempt for religious faith. I wasn't ever trying to justify religion, just to set religion's line of reason in a perspective that could be compared to the bases of induction. You can google words like "logic" and "induction" if it's not clear.

Doesn't induction imply probable? at least?
gaya is offline  
#76 Old 02-08-2007, 08:27 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxy Methoxy View Post

Is it? Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so. We all possess the capacity to pass from infantile fantasy to properly discerning apprehension of the world before us, but apparently many of us fail to make use of this capacity.



"Inwardness in an existing subject is at it highest in passion; truth as a paradox corresponds to passion, and that truth becomes a paradox is grounded precisely in it relation to an existing subject. Thus the one corresponds to the other. By forgetting that one is an existing subject, passion is lost and in turn truth does not become a paradox; but the knowing subject becomes something fantastic rather than an existing human being, and truth becomes a fantastic object for its knowing."

From

Truth is Subjectivity,

By Soren Kierkegaard.
Vegan Joe is offline  
#77 Old 02-08-2007, 08:32 PM
Banned
 
flipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaya View Post

Doesn't induction imply probable? at least?



In a statistical sense, no. It is only meant as a starting point. In a cultural sense, probability is only a matter of what you expect.
flipper is offline  
#78 Old 02-08-2007, 08:37 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipper View Post

In a statistical sense, no. It is only meant as a starting point. In a cultural sense, probability is only a matter of what you expect.



Alright, I'm going to have to go a few pages back and read what induction means again. I thought I had it but I don't. dammit.
gaya is offline  
#79 Old 02-08-2007, 08:42 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipper View Post

In a statistical sense, no. It is only meant as a starting point. In a cultural sense, probability is only a matter of what you expect.

Ok, now. So, if it is only meant as a starting point, doesn't it need to be reasonable? And reasonable shouldn't be the interpretation of one person. Ideally (i think) it would be a general support...generally agreed upon.
gaya is offline  
#80 Old 02-08-2007, 09:05 PM
Banned
 
flipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaya View Post

Ok, now. So, if it is only meant as a starting point, doesn't it need to be reasonable? And reasonable shouldn't be the interpretation of one person. Ideally (i think) it would be a general support...generally agreed upon.



Yes. Agreed upon. Like the Catholic church agrees that Jesus was Christ the Messiah, based on reason, and general support in that school of thought. Subsequently, the Pope is Peter and represents Christ on earth.



Agreement has nothing to do with proof, particularly in science and math. I, and many other American archaeologists (and cable tv installers), believe that the western hemisphere was peopled well before 11,500 years ago even thought there is no "proof" of this. It just seems reasonable given the dynamics of global geography and movement of humans that it would happen by sheer chance, and that archaeology hasn't caught up with it yet.
flipper is offline  
#81 Old 02-08-2007, 09:12 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipper View Post

Yes. Agreed upon. Like the Catholic church agrees that Jesus was Christ the Messiah, based on reason, and general support in that school of thought. Subsequently, the Pope is Peter and represents Christ on earth.



Agreement has nothing to do with proof, particularly in science and math. I, and many other American archaeologists (and cable tv installers), believe that the western hemisphere was peopled well before 11,500 years ago even thought there is no "proof" of this. It just seems reasonable given the dynamics of global geography and movement of humans that it would happen by sheer chance, and that archaeology hasn't caught up with it yet.

I'm not speaking of a proof here, just a starting point. Does a majority agree with the logic of religous faith as a starting point? I can't imagine this being the case because faith, as far as I can tell, varies from person to person, therefore it can't really be agreed upon. Even within Catholisism there is great disagreement. Is that the case with any of the sciences? speaking of a majority not fringes.
gaya is offline  
#82 Old 02-08-2007, 09:14 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
"Inwardness in an existing subject is at it highest in passion; truth as a paradox corresponds to passion, and that truth becomes a paradox is grounded precisely in it relation to an existing subject. Thus the one corresponds to the other. By forgetting that one is an existing subject, passion is lost and in turn truth does not become a paradox; but the knowing subject becomes something fantastic rather than an existing human being, and truth becomes a fantastic object for its knowing."

From

Truth is Subjectivity,

By Soren Kierkegaard.



Ah, existentialism. Christian existentialism, no less. No doubt, lacking expertise in modern empirical methods, and thus the very fruits of objectivity, Kierkegaard was reduced to convoluted descriptions of his personal neuroses. It is modern objectivity that gives us truth AS SUCH, shrouded in no such paradox.
GhostUser is offline  
#83 Old 02-08-2007, 09:18 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxy Methoxy View Post

Ah, existentialism. Christian existentialism, no less. No doubt, lacking expertise in modern empirical methods, and thus the very fruits of objectivity, Kierkegaard was reduced to convoluted descriptions of his personal neuroses. It is modern objectivity that gives us truth AS SUCH, shrouded in no such paradox.

I would have referred to the quote as smeared spew but this works.
gaya is offline  
#84 Old 02-08-2007, 09:22 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxy Methoxy View Post

Ah, existentialism. Christian existentialism, no less. No doubt, lacking expertise in modern empirical methods, and thus the very fruits of objectivity, Kierkegaard was reduced to convoluted descriptions of his personal neuroses. It is modern objectivity that gives us truth AS SUCH, shrouded in no such paradox.

It's still comes down to my truths verses yours, and on this matter I suppose you are God.
Vegan Joe is offline  
#85 Old 02-08-2007, 09:25 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegan Joe View Post

It's still comes down to my truths verses yours, and on this matter I suppose you are God.



I think you meant Goddess...Goddesss...
gaya is offline  
#86 Old 02-08-2007, 09:29 PM
Banned
 
flipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaya View Post

I'm not speaking of a proof here, just a starting point. Does a majority agree with the logic of religous faith as a starting point? I can't imagine this being the case because faith, as far as I can tell, varies from person to person, therefore it can't really be agreed upon. Even within Catholisism there is great disagreement. Is that the case with any of the sciences? speaking of a majority not fringes.



Yes - it is the case within sciences. Take the example of geometry.



It's important to acknowledge that in all schools of thought, including maths and sciences, the participants are working within their own universes of reason. This is why many mathematicians and scientists have been able to maintain their religious faith. They have/had the ability to make the destinction between the two systems.



I'm not likening the end-product or agenda of any religion to any math or science system, I'm just talking about the bases of the belief systems.
flipper is offline  
#87 Old 02-08-2007, 09:34 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipper View Post

Yes - it is the case within sciences. Take the example of geometry.

I can't take that example because I don't understand it or even know of it...aside from your recommended readings, which i haven't tackled yet lol.



Quote:
It's important to acknowledge that in all schools of thought, including maths and sciences, the participants are working within their own universes of reason. This is why many mathematicians and scientists have been able to maintain their religious faith. They have/had the ability to make the destinction between the two systems.

true but the same could not be said for religous folk who share the "same" religion. It is based on a subject relationship. eta: ime, that is not the case with sciences...at least not medical science, which i'm going to extend to chemistry.



Quote:
I'm not likening the end-product or agenda of any religion to any math or science system, I'm just talking about the bases of the belief systems.

But still, I don't see an equality in inductive reason between the two.
gaya is offline  
#88 Old 02-08-2007, 09:39 PM
Veggie Regular
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,032
What faith do you have to have in math?

I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
#89 Old 02-08-2007, 09:42 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by nogardsram View Post

What faith do you have to have in math?



I don't know if you directed your question at me but...I doubt I would have any faith without evidence. I use math for specific reasons, for specific results and it works. If it didn't work, I wouldn't have faith in it.
gaya is offline  
#90 Old 02-08-2007, 09:45 PM
Veggie Regular
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,032
Not at you in particular, just to anyone.



Isn't faith belief without proof? (at least in that sense, there are a variety of definitions)

I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off