QUICK LESSON IN LOGIC

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

STOLTZFUS (past)
What I quite clearly stated is that we cannot be certain at this time and by
the methods of evaluation available to us that electrons physically exist.
The whole point of what I wrote is that just because we don't have the means
to prove something *yet*, it DOESN'T mean we will never be able to prove it
later, as technology improves.

POOBAH (past)
Jacob, the scientific method can *never* prove anything, it can only
disprove something. The best the scientific method can do is to show that
there is a high degree of correlation between a theoretical model & observed
behavior.

The fact that you don't understand this is disturbing. You say you are at

STOLTZFUS
Assertion:  "Jacob doesn't understand logic, science, the scientific
method." I know you made other assertions, but I leave them out because some
of them are in fact true (such as my ignorance of textual/biblical
criticism -- although I do believe I understand the principles of textual
criticism, even if I am not skilled in their use).

Let us examine the evidence.

POOBAH
Yes, let's examine the evidence, shall we? First of all, my statement was no
assertion, it was a conclusion; a conclusion based on the idiotic statement
you made above in the section labeled past. And yes, I say idiotic because
if you have studied as much as you say, there's no way I can call it
ignorant.

Do you dispute my characterization of the scientific method? If so, tell us
why I am wrong. If not, then I'm sure you will admit your statement is a
mischaracterization, and it is easy for you to understand why I would
conclude you don't understand what you're talking about. Why don't you ask
your professors about my statement of the scientific method and see what
they say. Then think about how it would even be possible to "prove that
electrons physically exist." If the fact that you're sitting there reading
this message on a computer built based on our understanding of electrons
flow & quantum theory doesn't "prove" the existence of electrons to you, I
don't know what would.

(Hint: You are requiring a deductive conclusion from an inductive method).

The simple conclusion is that based on the fact that you think that science
at some point may be able to prove *anything* shows that you don't
understand how to apply the scientific method.

In any event, I am more interested in hearing how you plan on defending the
superiority of your understanding of Christian revelation if our poor reason
is too feeble to see that the book is perfect when it looks to us like it
contains historical mistakes, contradictions, an evil god, and utter
nonsense. You're quick to criticize logic when it is uncomfortable for you,
but I'm sure you're ready to use it to diss other religions or points of
view.

• Previous message: QUICK LESSON IN LOGIC
• Next message: QUICK LESSON IN LOGIC
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]