DARWIN VS. GENESIS

Post Reply New Topic

Well authority of holy book,or scientific community...what is the difference?

Talking about 'perpetual motion machines'...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Clock



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Electric_Bell





No.
Laws of Newtonian mechanics can be observed and verified in our 'normal' world.
They cease to work on micro and macro levels.

Quantum mechanics is only useful on interpretation of micro-world,not our ordinary level of observation.




But particulars of you are organs and tissues,therefore only your organs,cells and tissues exist,you are just your own name.



According to your own belief you are abstraction.
Your claim that you are conscious being is fact relieved only to your own internal subjective sense.
For me,you are just an object..because I can be aware only of my own conscience.

You repeatedly mistate what science claims, or pretend to disprove it in a way that only demonstrates ignorance. For example:



Here you are posing an objection that is either extremely sloppy, or dishonest. Please re-read my original post. I did not say that radiocarbon dating could be used for going back millions of years. I said that various techniques (including carbon and others) can allow us to know about what happened thousands or millions of years ago. Carbon is used to go back in recent time; it is commonly used for dating archaeological artifacts on the thousands end of the scale. Oxygen isotopes, on the other hand, give us insight into the global temperature regime as far back as the fossil record goes - oxygen isotopes are stable, but the proportion of heavy/light isotopes in marine carbonates fluctuates depending on the amount of glacial ice on Earth (the lighter water is more likely to get locked up in glacial ice during cold periods, while the heavier oxygen is concentrated because it makes water slightly less likely to evaporate under cooler conditions).




Then we agree on something. I think that people that consistently mis-state and distort a branch of science (like the geosciences), and then claim to disprove them through various feats of 'logic' cannot be trusted on that topic.


And now you are trying to poke holes in the accepted science of paleontology, because the notion that fossils are many millions of years old clashes with your ideas of Biblical creationism.

A person who takes the scientific skeptical viewpoint might well note that what you said represents the most important rule in understanding what we can of the universe. We fool ourselves. We so often come up with reasons why the things we'd like to be true are actually true. This is applicable to a great many areas, but religion and spirituality are notable among these.

That is why I suggestd that you read about various nominalist philosophies of science. No, from the standpoint of what is called "trope nominalism." my organs, cells, etc. are tropes (which, in this case, refer to attributes) of a particular (me), not particulars in themselves.

Well,even this is problematic....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating







Thats nice,but I don't see how this methods proofs that fossils existed during this period.



So,science of paleontology should not be 'poked',since we already determined the truth?

The mere fact that you as Geologist (and scientist), refuse to acknowledge an empirical fact that sediment rock strata can be created rapidly as 'irrelevant',while you consider speculation about their 'millions of years' origin as a 'valid and accepted' just show us true nature of modern science,and total lack of any possibility of self-criticism.
This just proves that modern evolution science have metaphysical system(naturalism) as its basis,and that cannot be falsified,since every evidence for falsification will be rejected as 'irrelevant'.
Only those empirical evidences that supports accepted theory will be accepted,while other empirical evidence will be ignored.
Therefore 'Monty' are you a scientist or believer?
'Believer' does not always imply theistic believer...




I cannot be defender of Biblical creationism,since Creationism also use causal fallacy,although in different form then Evolution.
The claim that God is a cause of existing species,goes beyond possible observable experience and belong to metaphysics,not science.
While Creationists hide behind religious authority of Bible,Evolutionists hide themselves behind empirical sciences of biology and paleontology ,as an excuse to draw metaphysical conclusions from them.
First tries defend theological dogma,while second tries to defend naturalist dogma.


You call me ignorant,while you try to present me as Creationist,which I am not.
This just show your dogmatic naturalist prejudice,since according to you anybody that disagrees with Evolution must necessary be Creationist.
Yes,I'm highly skeptical to all speculations about past and future...about 'order of things' and other historical and cosmological claims.
All of them cannot be verified by experience,and as such are not scientific.

My position here is not apologetic,but skeptical one.

Then it all depends on interpretation...what is universal and what is particular.

And this leads us from nominalism to hermeneutics.

A particular is a being or an entity. Getting into whether cells are beings is, as far as I know, speculative. However, if biologists generally define them as beings, I will accept it.

If you mean philosophical hermeneutics, I would agree with you, but not hermeneutic theory.

Avoiding some digressions, let's go further back in this discussion:

This is relevant to your argument in the thread A Morality Challenge for Theists:

It looks to me like the argument depends on perception directly reflecting what happens in the universe. That is not true. The currently best theories of sensory experience say a lot of it is statistical inference (link). There is no such thing as direct perception. Perception is interpretation, and if I understand correctly, the mathematics of statistical inference in perception and in reconstructing evolutionary events are based on the same theorems. If you want to exclude statistical inference as a source of knowledge, you must remove perception as well.

For a practical demonstration how much perception may miss (or possibly fill in), have a look at this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvfHY-I_Ywk[/youtube]

Memory does the same sort of thing. Get a piece of paper and a pen and take part in the experiment in this video:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfhIuaD183I[/youtube]

I haven't read Kant. Can you tell me what would happen to his argument if you exclude perception as a valid source of knowledge? I prefer to rely on data recording that has tested as reliable and formal methods of statistical inference, not just on perception and memory.

My argument still is that by the criteria you use to deny evolutionary theory and cosmology the status of science, you must do the same to fields of inquiry which you accept as science.

I don't think you have yet answered the point that both evolutionary theory and cosmology are very much concerned with describing the present. You consider that legitimate. When present conditions depend on past conditions, it is often informative to reconstruct those past conditions. I am interested in how broadly you apply your argument that any reconstruction of past events is not science. You like Newtonian mechanics. Do you have any objections when astronomers run orbit calculations backwards to trace the origin of an object? If you do, do you also object to projecting an orbit into the future? Remember that the relevant equations don't care whether you go forward or back in time. If you think that neither reconstruction nor prediction of orbits is legitimate science, what would you use Newtonian mechanics for?


But your criterion was

That applies to Newtonian mechanics. There are counterexamples. If you want to make it context specific for Newtonian mechanics, do the same for sedimentation. Distinguish between cases where sediments are built up fast and cases where they are laid down very slowly. But there you want to rule out evidence of slow sedimentation, saying a single counterexample is enough.

Thats true.Perception just gives us empirical material (sense phenomena) that we interpret by using system of categories of reason (quantity,quality,relation and modality).
But we must have this empirical material in first place,or else we have just empty forms that make perception possible (categories).
What makes perception (and knowledge) possible in the first place is combination of direct sense data and categories of reason.If we try to use categories on empirical events that supposedly happened or should happen,but are not happening right now,we have crossed the borders of possible experience,and therefore we do not have knowledge,but speculation..that may appear reasonably at first glance.



Exactly...and many even ordinary views may differ over some very simple obsevations.
Therefore science mostly do not use heavy words like 'truth' , 'real view' and others...
But if we empirically observe things and processes that are possible to observe,and by using logic,we may get view that is considered 'objective',but this do not deny possibility of different interpretations of current empirical facts.



Knowledge starts with perception,and must remain within perception.
Perception gives us 'material' for experience,while categories of our reason gives us form.
If we do not have perception,we just have empty form of reason...
Our mind,not reason force us to constantly pass boundaries of possible experience,and to create claims and use categories of reason onto things that overpass observation with whom with started.

Capability of our reason mind to create concepts out of observation and reason,works only if these concepts have something to do with possible observations of us as humans,not with sub 'specie aeternitas' (from the eternal view)...


Lets first see this criteria,shall we....

Lets take causality for example...with two balls in snooker A and B

1.Sensual level
I see two objects in time,and that these two are moving.

2.Reasonable level
I conclude that these two are relationship,and that first ball A pushes ball B during the time moment of T.

3.Mind level
I decide that ball A causes the moving of ball B,ergo that moving of ball B is causal consequence of contact with ball A..thus creating idea of causality between these two.

Same goes for every causal relationship that I observe,or may observe.

We have level of:
Sensual perception that gives us basic material for experience...

Reason that puts various sense data in order (according to logical categories)

Mind that creates concepts out of this order.

Problem with mind is that he have habit to create concepts by only using categories of reason,and combine them,but without first and necessary condition for knowledge-sense data.

Material for concept of causality we get from observation,but mind often wants to create causal concepts where observation is impossible (past,future).

For example we have set of numbers:
1,2,3,4,5,6....etc.
In logical sense 2 is follower of number 1,since it is bigger from it.
But thats not imply that number 1 is cause of number 2.
Causality only works as empirical concept in direct observation.

If we have 1(simple organism) and 2 (complex organism) this does not imply causal relation,just logical relation where we can say that 1 can be classified as 'lower order' organism,and 2 is 'higher order' organism.

But human mind simply borrowed his concept of causality(that he took from experience) and then try to imply it on things that are given in some order.
But scientific mind cannot presume causality between things in that order (1,2,3,4,5...),since this cannot be observed amongst them.
He can only classify them in order 1,2,3,4,5...

Mind can always use categories from reason,and combine them without any empirical confirmation,and this may sound 'reasonable',since his concept is consisted out of categories of reason.
However,if we claim knowledge,this knowledge must be confirmed by experience.
Mind often use material from contemporary narrow experience to make conclusions that goes beyond this experience.

For example...

1.I observe cause-effect relationships in my everyday life,and then come to conclusion...
2.Universe must also have cause.
From partial experience I make universal conclusion,without any possibility to empirically test this conclusion...since universal claims can never be empirically tested.



Evolutionary theory and cosmology are concerned with present,through theories that speculate about past,and through universal concepts that are beyond contemporary experience.
Religion is also very much concerned about describing the present,in almost the same manner as these two.

Religion:
1.Cause of the universe is God (supernatural cause)
2.Cause of natural diversity is God (supernatural cause)

Naturalism:
1.Cause of the universe is big-bang (natural cause)
2.Cause of natural diversity is evolution (natural cause)

Problem in here is not natural/supernatural...but causal.
But ..

Science:

1.Cannot answer,since it goes beyond contemporary existing observable world.
2.Same as above.

While we are allowed to make generalisations out of observable experience and if these generalisations may apply on observable experience(like gravity),evolution/cosmology makes universal generalisations that 'works' in the beginning of time (impossible to observe),or happen through extreme long period of time (also impossible to observe).




Astronomers and Physicists makes predictions from the present observable fact and calculate how this present (that is observed) will behave in future,and this predictions makes claims that can be empirically verified.
Evolution goes from past into present.

From current observable world we cannot calculate any evolution in the past,since in present we can only observe present diversity of contemporary organisms,and through fossils we may conclude that some animal species existed,but now are extinct.
But we never can conclude process of changing from one species to another,since we can only observe variation within one specie.
So,if I observe and even measure gravitational force,than is reasonable to conclude that if gravity exist,where mass exists...then if there was an object in past that had mass (like today) its logical to conclude that gravity existed then (like today).

But Evolution theory claims that diversity of organisms is result of evolution process,that happens over extreme long period of time (cannot be observed from present),and apply this process to organisms,simply because they share traits.

So,while science makes analogy from present to past and future,evolution makes analogy from supposed process that cannot be observed in present to conclusions from supposed past to present,and try to define present (that we know for sure) with 'reconstructed past' (that we don't know for sure).




Nope,until today there are no counterexamples for Newtonian mechanics,but this doesn't mean that another form of mechanics may be discovered.
Now...
Newtonian mechanics is only workable mechanics (until now) on our ordinary level of observation.
However on micro and macro-levels of observation,this mechanics simply 'don't work',and therefore another forms of mechanics are created (quantum mechanics and relativity).

In same manner that grammar laws works in grammatic, while chemical laws works in chemistry.

However if somebody discover different form of mechanics for our 'everyday' physical world,then Newtonian mechanics may be rejected,or declared obsolete.

Even Einstein acknowledged that Newtonian mechanics remain as only workable mechanics for our ordinary world.

P.S


So,while science indeed makes predictions based on ordinary experience to future or past...these predictions are made for very limited sets of phenomena.
Cosmology/Evolution makes predictions based on 'rational speculation' to totality of objects as whole (universe/nature).

I am not sure whether we agree, because of this:

The bit I put in bold is problematic. Do you think you get direct sense data, available to conscious thought? That is not true. Sense data gets interpreted, based on statistical inference using both bottom-up and top-down data, long before it becomes available to conscious thought.


That is exactly what perception does. That is why I think Kant's scheme is based on false premises and why I asked what happens if you change those premises.


That is also true, and that is also what happens in perception.


If you use "categories of reason" to refer to conscious reasoning, and assume that until that point you get direct uninterpreted sense data, then that is wrong, according to my understanding of current research in perception.


That description would apply to mathematics, which does not depend for its truth value on correspondence with anything in the universe. It partly applies to conspiracy theories, that often have only a very tenuous connection to anything happening in the real world.


Conspiracy theories and delusions are extreme cases of that, but any form of inductive reasoning fits that description, too. The whole point of inductive reasoning is to generalize beyond the observations already made. How good your conclusions are depends both on how far you generalize beyond observation, and on the quality of your reasoning. How many of the possible alternative hypotheses have you thought of, and how well have you evaluated them?

If you want to exclude inductive reasoning from science, you are left with mathematics, which does not have any necessary connection with the world. You would have abandoned the systematic study of natural phenomena. If you permit inductive reasoning, and specifically statistical inference (as you must, if you want to use any observation as data), but you still want to exclude cosmology and evolutionary theory, you have to offer a reason why statistical inference should be so dependent on time.


Nice example. Let's try out a few variations.
1) You see ball A colliding with ball B, there is an audible click, ball A stops (in a perfectly aimed shot, else it moves of at an angle), ball B moves in a direction you expect from the angle of collisions and at the same or lower speed than ball A, with speeds and angles of the balls related in a systematic fashion.

2) Ball B moves of at a speed faster than the speed of A before the collision. Would you suspect something unusual is going on?

3) A screen blocks your view of the collision. Everything else is as in case 1.

4) A screen blocks your view of the collision. Everything else is as in case 2.

You would probably conclude that in cases 1 and 3 the collision caused the changes in movement of both balls, but you would be suspicious of both cases 2 and 4. First look at your confidence (well, I expect you would be confident) that you have identified the cause of change in cases 1 and 3. When you don't see the collision, it might be that some mechanism behind the screen quietly catches ball A, creates a click, and sends out ball B at a suitable time, a suitable velocity and angle. You would not normally suspect that alternative cause, because in your experience it is rare. You do not observe a cause, you infer it. Even in scenario 1 I could come up with alternative scenarios. It would take fancier technology to produce the additional sense data, but that is no obstacle in principle. If desperate, I could invoke the action of a supernatural being who finds collisions abhorrent, and will always prevent objects from touching, but move them so that it looks as if they had collided. That alternative explanation could never be refuted.

You would be more suspicious that something other than a collision alone is responsible for the movements of the balls if ball B moves faster after the collision than ball A before it (cases 2 and 4). You would be even more suspicious if you had not seen a collision (case 4). That suspicion would be your inference based on your past observations that colliding snooker balls don't behave like this. Your attribution of cause is always an inference based on statistical patterns in past observations. All that matters for the validity of your conclusions is the reliability and validity of your observations and the validity of the reasoning, not whether you reason about past events.

At the moment you reason, the event is past anyway. All your reasoning will be about past or future events, because the present is infinitely short, while your reasoning takes finite amounts of time.


You have no other choice. By the time you start reasoning about an observation, it is already past.


Bad example, because this is about definitions that have no necessary relationship to any observation, and larger or smaller has no necessary relationship to causality. Will you choose another example?


I argue the contrary, that causality is always based on inference from a series of past observations. You can never work out causality from observation right now, both because by the time you start reasoning the observation is in the past, and because you can't constrain your reasoning enough from a single observation. You always need a series of observations of similar events.


This is a bad example. Classifications according to complexity are often based far more on intuition than any formal criterion, and it often doesn't tell you anything useful. Even if I find a measure of complexity I am willing to use, or a big enough difference that I am willing to rely on informal estimates, I would not argue that a more complex entity has to be derived from a less complex entity. At least in biology, there are so many exceptions to this rule of thumb that I would not use it to attribute causality. This reasoning is a relic from the scala naturae, which is based on theological ideas. It has made its way into popular accounts of evolutionary theory, and you can occasionally find this reasoning even among biologists, but less so than in the general population. I consider it a rule of thumb at best, with so many exceptions that you have to apply it with extreme caution, and elevating it beyond that I consider a fallacy. Will you find another example?


True for areas of reasoning differing wildly in how strict the formal constraints are, from mathematics over philosophy and theology to conspiracy theories. The less the formal constraints on reasoning, the more the quality of reasoning varies. The best of it may be equivalent whether you engage in mathematics or conspiracy theories, but the fewer the constraints, the worse the worst reasoning will be.


I disagree. My counterexample is mathematics.


If you want to predict future events, that's what you have to do.


That comes down to the question whether everything has a cause, or whether events can happen without any cause, totally randomly. That is something under discussion in quantum mechanics. Cosmologists would not be content with your point 2 in this form. A cosmological theory would have to make predictions that can be tested. They would take the form "if this is the origin of the universe, we should now expect to see this...". If an idea can't be constrained by observation, it may have a place in mathematics or philosophy, but not in the natural sciences. Your objection has been noted and taken into account in the natural sciences, including evolutionary theory and cosmology.


We need to clarify the idea of universal concept. your example above doesn't apply to the natural sciences.

The closest examples of universal concepts I can think of are conservation of energy and momentum in physics, or the claim that the necessary and sufficient conditions for evolution are heritable variation that makes a difference to survival and reproductive success, and the condition for speciation would be that some forms of divergence reduce exchange of genetic information enough that populations can form distinct clusters.

Conservation of energy and momentum are extrapolations from observation. The conditions for evolution should be mathematically provable, but I haven't seen a reference to a proof yet. Unless such a proof is produced, they have the same status as conservation of energy and momentum, they are extrapolations from past observations, and the validity of that extrapolation can be supported or refuted by observation in the same way in all these cases. Y The same goes for Newton's F = m*a. That I would see as a universal concept, a rule that is supposed to apply to everything. Or Newton's assertion that the force of gravity falls off with the square of distance. That is an extrapolation based on past observations matched to specific mathematical concepts. Whether it accurately describes the universe is currently being tested through observation of the Pioneer anomaly.

If you want to say that extrapolations of that kind are not allowed in science, you will have to throw out not just cosmology and evolutionary theory, but all of physics, and I think all of the natural sciences. You would be left only with "empty forms of reason", as you put it.


If a theory makes no predictions that you can test through observation, it's not science. I have already explained a central prediction of evolutionary theory which has been tested by observations for nearly 150 years, and could have been refuted through observation at any time throughout this period, or tomorrow. You can make relevant observations.

Your reasoning depends on the notion (as you explained in a reply to someone else, perhaps nominalist), that you have to observe the whole chain of causation. I say you never observe causation, you always infer causation, you always infer it from series of past observations, and it doesn't matter how far you go into the past. It only matters how good your data and your reasoning about the data are.

Yes, causation is a theory, or a particular explanatory (theoretical) dimension, based on assumptions (such as correlation, time order, and nonspurious correlation).

Visual,Tactile,Auditive and other sensations that our conscience 'gets' is simply reaction of our senses to something that exist in objective world.
That sensations are sense data...regardless how we interpret them,at least we get something from our senses that appear into conscience.
Interpretation of what these sense data really represent does not belong to sensual perception,but reason and mind who try to 'explain them'.



So,if sense data gets interpreted before it becomes available to conscious thought,what exactly is interpreting these same sense data?



Its hardly that you may know what Kant scheme is when you haven't read him...
Basically its my fault here,since my knowledge of English language and various usage of terms in it ,whom I try to interpret literally from the concept of my language,may be seen as too narrow when I try to formulate them in English...
Sense-Perception does not interpret events,it just gives us 'material' or building blocks for knowledge,and reason tries to interpret them.
In sense perception I see shapes and colors,sounds,tactile sensations and other.
Reason tries to organize them in some order,and mind try to unify them in unified form,or 'experience' as such.
However reason and mind can only interpret events that are given through sensations that are given through senses,not through creations of fantasy.



I'm not sure what you try to suggest in here,since categories are only possible way to interpret and describe existing material things

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_%28philosophy%29







Thats where you are wrong.
Mathematic represent system of a priori judgments that are appliable and demonstrable to all experience,and therefore have always necessity.
For example 1+2=3 ....
...is necessary judgment that may be applied to any possible existing object,since mathematics goes before experience,and may be applied to every possible experience.
Numbers represents any possible existing object.
So,mathematics is one way trough which our reason tries to establish order in any possible experience.
Logic belongs to same rank.

Validity of mathematical and logical laws is empirically demonstrable through formal symbolic language and graphic entities that mathematicians use (symbols of operations,numbers,variables,constants,geometric forms..etc).
Validity of scientific laws is empirically demonstrable through experiments.





But mathematics have every possible connections with the world,since symbols and entities in mathematics represents any possible existing thing,and are therefore always universal and necessary.

1(something)+1(something)=2(something).

This claim is workable for any possible experience may there be two apples,cars,animals,cells..or anything.

Causality,for example talks about relationship between existing objects if,and only if this relationship may be empirically verified and demonstrated.
Mathematics demonstrate its truth trough empirical symbols,while causality demonstrate its truth through experiment.
So,mathematics may be formal,but its claims are not empty,since they can be empirically tested in a priori form (through symbols that replaces any possible existing object).



Most of us use inductive reasoning in everyday lives,in one form or another.
However,no matter how common is its usage,it has no logical basis,unlike analytic reasoning that is always necessary true.
Science as such is based on deduction,not induction...although Francis Bacon proposed induction as basic scientific method.
In logical sense phenomena may only be deduced,but synthetic form of reasoning (induction),since has no logical value belong to everyday life,not science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning







And we must agree that science must be based on logic,right?

Now,this is common fallacy that may be observed in evolution theory,but has no deductive(logical) value:


And this one...






Systematic study of natural phenomena is deductive,not inductive.
Everyday mind is inductive,while mind of researcher must be deductive.

Racism has its basis in inductive thinking and through generalizations that are created thanks to it.




You are confusing 'common sense' and scientific methodology.
While in our everyday lives,we always use statistical predictions based on inductive thinking,but unfortunately these are not logically based and valid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning



So,inductive reasoning is quite useful in practical,everyday sense,but not in term of strict scientific thinking.
Thinking that claim to be scientific and logical must use deduction as its basis.
Darwinism,by using induction as its basis is not scientific, nor logical.
This is why laymen with no knowledge of scientific methodology are so fascinated by Evolution,since evolution 'makes sense' to their common thinking,and then confusing this with scientific thinking.


But you have your personal memory of event.
The closer event is to present,the more is possible to understand,like claim that tomorrow will be another day.
Statistic probability for this is 99,9%.
But my claim that in 2.000.000.000 years will be another day at this time has very low probability.
The further you go from present experience in time,the less probability you get.



No,its quite good example,actually.
Numbers represent any possible observable object.

Because there is an order of complexity in organisms,and since of common traits,Evolution infer causality between them because of that.
And thats clearly a fallacy.



Thats what I have implied,although I wasn't quite clear.
You first must directly observe series of events in time,and then infer causality.
But this must be done only if you already observed series of events in past.
But on what series of observations is based Evolution,or Cosmology?
You just have given facts,but you haven't observed any series of events amongst them.


Perhaps,but science has its formal constrains,or else every form of thinking would be considered as scientific.



And I have demonstrated otherwise.



On what observation is based Evolutionary process?



And this is?




This series of past OBSERVATIONS is necessary to infer causality.
As I said you must observe series of events between object A and B in time moment T,to infer causality.
But where is no observator there is no observation,just speculation.
If you go into far enough past where this chain of events is impossible to be observed,then you have no rights to infer causality,and this is exactly what evolution tries to do.



Problem here is that inductive reasoning is not logical,and therefore is not good.
Ergo,theories made by inductive reasoning are not scientific.

P.S

I found out an interesting article,that says something very similar to me...

Evolution as Pseudoscience

http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/001164.html

Neural networks with point attractor and continuous attractor states. You don't need conscious reasoning for that. You don't need to take my word for it, I gave you a reference a few days ago.


You are keen on logic. If an argument is based on demonstrably false premises, it will come to at least some false conclusions even if all the steps of reasoning are logically valid. From what you have said, I get the impression Kant started with assumptions about perception that have been proven wrong in the over 200 years since he wrote. It would be a waste of time to search for flaws in Kant's reasoning if he came to false conclusions through possibly flawless reasoning based on false premises.


I am saying that categories do not have to be based on conscious reasoning. You can see that yourself by stopping to think a moment about whatever you perceive right now. Did you make a conscious effort to classify everything you perceive? Of course not, the idea is silly. You wouldn't have the time. So if your (or Kant’s) scheme depends on all categories being established by conscious reasoning based on raw sense data that has not been interpreted in any way before, you have a problem. But if you concede that categorization is possible without conscious thought, you can't assume (as you seem to do) that you get direct sense data.


I will rephrase my statement to make it clearer.

Does the proof of mathematical theorems depend on physical evidence? Or could you do mathematics without referring to the physical universe at all? I consider the need for a physical substrate for computation and representation of your theorem to be a separate point.

Mathematicians spent a lot of time trying to derive Euclid's axiom that parallel lines never meet from his other four axioms. Then some people tried to see what happened if you assumed that parallel lines would meet. That's how non-Euclidean geometries were discovered. Would you argue that each of these geometries must apply to some space within the universe? Would you argue that every object mathematics can describe must actually exist in the physical universe? Topologists can come up with all sorts of interesting shapes in any number of dimensions. Does each of these have to exist in the physical universe?

To the best of my knowledge, the answer to both of these question is no, and that is what I meant by no necessary relationship. “Necessity” may well have a different meaning in philosophy.


We’ve been through this here When you replied, you had no objection to induction. If you do object again, please explain whether you consider F = m*a to be a deduction or an induction, and why.


Do you share that opinion?

The reason why I asked you before whether you follow Popper is that, as I understand Popper, he would exclude from science any theory that makes probabilistic predictions, because it is not strictly falsifiable. Even a result that, according to the theory, is extremely unlikely could occur by chance. Quantum mechanics is a prime example of a theory making probabilistic predictions, though you consider it a science anyway. It gets worse. As soon as you have measurement errors, probability creeps in even if a theory is absolutely deterministic. If you want to exclude everything that involves probabilistic reasoning, you have to throw out of science anything that involves statistics. What does that leave you with?


Please demonstrate that what you accept as science is based on pure deduction, and tell me where that science get the premises that you want to use for your logical reasoning, especially if you want to avoid statements of probability. If you answer nothing else, answer that. I really want to know.


Does this have any relevance other than trying to associate my argument with racism?


Unless you want to argue that memory is infallible and perception unbiased, that is besides the point.


Of course. But that was not your point. You argued for a qualitative difference, which is a totally different thing:

Which do you want to argue for, that we can’t know anything about the past because it is beyond experience, or that the further you go from present experience, the lower the probability of being right? And do you accept probabilistic reasoning as valid or not? Your quoting Popper and Miller to back your argument suggests you don’t consider probabilistic reasoning as valid at all, but that didn't stop you from accepting quantum mechanics as scientific.


Did you read what I said about complexity? That part is your fallacy. The rest depends on whether one believes that science must not use inductive reasoning. I think that idea is nonsense.




What would you count as direct observation? Are you now back to the argument that you have to be there, and that your senses and your memory will give you undistorted data?

Take your snooker ball example. You claim that ball A colliding with ball B caused the change in the motion of both balls. How do you know? Can you deduce this? And what will be the level of detail? I could play the game that creationists play with fossils. If you can prove to my satisfaction that the collision was at least a probable cause, I ask how you know that a collision can transfer energy and momentum from one ball to another. What is the mechanism. If you tell me about the elastic properties of the balls, I ask you how you know about them. And so on. At what level of detail would you say you have observed the cause? And how direct will that observation be?


We've been through this weeks ago. I do not remember you disputing my argument, or even commenting on it. Here it is again:




There is a difference between observing “in time moment T” and going “far enough into the past where this chain of events is impossible to be observed”. One means that any time difference at all makes observation impossible. The other means you can deal with some time difference that you have not specified. Can you pick one of these possibilities and stick to it, or make clear if you change your mind? I can’t check your deductions if you keep changing the premises.


I invite you again to show me how F = m*a, which you accept as scientific, can be deduced, and from what premises. Please try the same for conservation of energy and momentum, unless you consider them unscientific.

If i don't need conscious reasoning for interpretation, then what is the point of awareness in the first place?

And if you try to interpret awareness (that represent one of major part of subjectivity) with neural networks and their connection(that belong to physicality,thus objectivity) you make a fallacy of identification of subject with object.
Besides that, I wonder if I have this conversation with you or with your neural networks?



How can you know that Kant's arguments are based on demonstrably false premises?
Are you saying that reason,mind and categories that we all use regularly are false?

Kant started with what is primary in perception,subject that has this perception in the first place.

And I'm well aware of naturalistic/materialistic theories about perception that you most probably represent.
In true knowledge in its scientific form,subject must be aware of objects of his knowledge.

Sub-conscience is not relavant in scientific knowledge,since if I'm not aware of my knowledge,I cannot claim that I posses it in the first place.

Naturalistic and materialistic idea about perception try to equate subject with physicality(objectivity),and this is wrong.
Neural networks,as part of objectivity cannot 'interpret' anything since by definition only subject can be an interpretator.
Its same as if you try to say 'quality is quantity' or to define phenomena of colors,through phenomena of gravitation.
Subject is separate thing from object,on ontological and logical level.




Stopping of thinking process is not stopping of awareness.
Mind does not do the thinking,reason do...
Mind simply put things together.
Categories are inherited parts of our subjectivity,and without them experience (in its human form) would be impossible,since through them our subjectivity articulate what it perceive.


Yes.
Physical evidence of mathematics is its symbolic material representation through numbers,formulas and figures.



Problem is that it is not a separate point.
That 'physical substrates' are necessary if you wanted to empirically demonstrate mathematical principles,who are on other hand unthinkable without its own symbols.



Parallel lines will never met in so called 'flat space',however if we presume that space is curved,than lines could met.
So,both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry work in its own field.



As I already said above-No.
But both of them must necessary be applied in cases for which they are created.
They are just applied for two different kinds of spaces.



Every object in Mathematics can be applied in all possible experience.
So,every form of Mathematics can be applied to experience.
Numbers,for example are symbols for any possible existing object..so yes Mathematical objects denote any possible existing object,and all possible forms of combinations between existing objects.

Geometrical objects,for example do not represent physical objects as such,but represent every possible logical relationship between objects in space.

So,in sense Geometry is logical topology of space (or spaces).



Off course not,but if some of that objects really exist,than by logical necessity he must fit into at least one of them.
In strict sense topology is not about shapes of physical objects (thats irrelevant) but with their relationships within any space.



Its clearly a deduction,since we start with what is universal (Force) and go to the particulars from which this universal is consisted (mass times acceleration)...famous Newton's second law.
In same manner that we say that tissue is made out of cells,and thats clearly deductive,scientific and demonstrable.



Probabilistic predictions in Quantum mechanics are about behavior of particles itself,and their trajectories that cannot be accurately measured.
On other side claim in quantum mechanics that particles behave unpredictably is actually quite predictable,since they always and necessary behave unpredictable,and this is confirmed by observation.
So in a sense quantum mechanics is mechanics of chaos.
Falsiability of quantum theory is alternative of discovering patterns in behavior of quantum particles.
If you try to research chaos,then only way of logical approach to chaos is probability.




Ok.
Deduction is reasoning from universal to particular.
We have given observable facts and we analyze them.

LeVerrier applied Newton's theory (general principle) to deduce the existence, mass, position, and orbit of Neptune (specific conclusions) from perturbations in the observed orbit of Uranus.

Premises are observation,and that observation is defined through analysis.
In deductive reasoning, the evidence provided must be a set about which everything is known before the conclusion can be drawn.
And how do we get evidence?
Through empirical observation.
We go from what is observable,and then analyze them in logical order.

For example:
1.There are single cell organisms,and there are multi-cell organisms.
2.What is single is of less order from plural.
3.Therefore single cell organisms are of lower order from multi cell ones.

This deductive reasoning has been use by Linneus and other in his classification of living organisms.



Nope.Racism just show how generalizations are made out of particulars.

One Jew is revolutionary,another Jew is revolutionary...ergo all Jews are revolutionary.
And this is wrong asumption.
Or even generalizations that all African-Americans are black...but there are some African-Americans that are albino.

This is the same as in cosmology,since I constantly observe causality within my experience,then jump to conclusion that everything in Universe must have cause,or origin... (including species).



We can only argue about past that is part of our experience(past that we experienced),but to argue about past that 'happened' when we didn't even existed as humans (according to that assumption) is not only scientific,but its not even rational in common sense of the world.
Probabilistic reasoning is valid in everyday life,since we don't use strict epistemological rules in our daily business.
However,if we try to claim scientific and logical validity of something,we must reject probability.
Claim of quantum theory that behavior of particles are probabilistic and not certain, is certain in itself and verifiable.

If something is behaving chaotically,then its logical to conclude that there is nothing certain about this something,just probable.
This claim comes from definition of chaos,and therefore is deductive and consistent.

On other hand if you claim that Evolution exist (although you cannot empirically demonstrate this) and have supposed mechanisms of evolution (that doesn't demonstrate that they are mechanisms of evolution) then you have inconsistency.



Through your senses.You must see and hear something in time,so that you may conclude you have witnessed the event.



You obviously very loosely read my posts.
As I said no matter how similar is something to other,and no matter how big correlation is you cannot infer causation between them.
When I used that example in the beginning of our conversation,you simply turn this argument into some irrelevant ethical discussion,thus turning attention from its relevance to evolutionary theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlatio ... _causation




Besides that you want to force me into ditch,trough misconceptions of what I have said:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf44082-0-135.html


To which you have said:



Now,I didn't said that you directly observe causality as such,but that you observe series of events to whom you infer causality.
But then you deny that we can even observe events,and that memory is not good for reconstructing events.

If this causality is so problematic even on most simplest observation level (what even Hume implies),what gives you the right to infer causality in theoretic events that happened millions of years ago ?

When i started this discussion,I have claimed that causal arguments are not valid in science,if the events that are part of causality cannot be empirically verified.
If I create conditions for electrolysis of ordinary water,and separate water into two gases-Oxygen and Hydrogen,I can say that electrolysis is cause of separation of these two gases from water.
How do I know that?
I have watched that.
If I have witnessed these events,I can connect these sensations in mind as 'causality'.
How can I claim this is true?
Because it can be repeated through experiment.

If you through experiment can create new specie,separate from its ancestor,from previous form,then you have verified evolution.
In what experiment you can verify this,since this process must be extremely long?

If you have fossils,what events you have witnessed among these fossils,to claim causality between them?


So,are you saying that because sensations are given in time,you cannot claim that you observe them?
Your thoughts are given in time,does this mean that you never have observe your own thoughts,just statistical reference between them?
Even this statistical evaluation is given in time,does this statistics exist at all?

Seriously...

If I have witnessed to event,at least I have some right to say something about event.
As I remember even in court witnesses are used to verify the event.

If I heard ringing for example that last about 1 minute,you can say that you haven't really hear ringing,since every sound has passed in time,so if you deny any claim that has been observed in time what gives you the right to defend the claim about something that was not even observed in time.

P.S

I have said that scientific discovery must be defended by observation(unlike evolution),in which you have denied possibility of observation.
When I have said that Evolution is not according to Logic,you tried to disprove credibility of mathematics(that is pure logic) since it has nothing to do with observable world.

So,since we do not have observation,nor logic...on what is based your claims?

Mathematic is not natural science,it represents pure logical thinking,and therefore is not dependent on material objects.
Biology is natural science,and its dependable on observations,since its empirical science.

But what exactly is Evolution (naturalism)?
Since when you are obviously skeptical to both observation and logic.


P.P.S

Only thing that is constant in our conversation is that you will always have opposite attitude from me.
When I tried to show that induction is logically invalid,you have claimed that induction is necessary for observations,and when I tried to show that logic must be confirmed by observation you have denied possibility of observation...

Since at the beginning of our conversation you have talked about truth and logic,and how creationism is false....
You claim that evolution is true and neccesary,and can be logically explained,I have simpler question for you.
Can you logically prove me that you exist?

Oh,yes I forgot this:



From the concept of force,you can deduce thats equal to mass times acceleration,without even necessity of empirically discover this since purely analytical.

You just need to have empirical concept of force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force



All of these statements are purely deductive,since from definition of force he deduced mass and acceleration.

Autistics are can be resistant against brainwashing yet they are not totally immune.