Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,194,739 members, 7,955,814 topics. Date: Sunday, 22 September 2024 at 04:02 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science (7300 Views)
The 10 Most AWKWARD Moments In Church / Mordern Day Jews And The Old Tesatament / Do Mordern Day Churches Use The Word 'seed' To Exploit Members? (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by DeepSight(m): 8:53am On Sep 03, 2012 |
Now another excellent example just occured to me as to why Mr. Jayriginal's position on the issue of "assumptions" and proof for the cause and effect notion, is so horribly horribly wrong.As frighteningly illogical as Jayriginal can be, I will be shocked if even he can deny this very clear example puts his position to death. The example I wish to give is that of fingerprints. It is accepted scientific knowledge that no two humans have identical finger prints - that fingerprints are all unique. This is completely accepted in science such that fingerprint evidence is used in criminal matters as binding real evidence. And yet, there has never been a time in history when all the fingerprints of all human beings have ALL been analysed so as to conclude that there are in fact no two identical fingerprints. This puts paid to Jayriginal's notion that assuming the law of cause and effect on a cosmic scale is a compositional fallacy:- Because the simple reality is that that which has been observed is that no two people have the same finger prints. Going with Jayriginal's argument, any person can sit back and say that this well known scientfic fact is only an assumption or a compositional fallacy: because the whole of humanity has not been observed - nor can ever be: because even if every person on the planet today has his fingerprints analysed, it will be impossible to analyse the finger prints of the millions of people that have lived and died or the billions more yet to be born. As such, there will NEVER be a time when the whole of humanity will have had their fingerprints analysed so as to ground the fact that no two fingerprints can EVER be the same. Nonetheless: the simple truth is that in that which we observe as true of human anatomy: no two finger prints have been observed to be the same. We thus have valid grounds for considering it true and correct to say that it is indeed true that finger prints are unique. Now, here is the core and central point: the issue of proof - if someone were to come along asking questions about the validity of the notion that finger prints are unique - ON WHOM WOULD THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIE TO SHOW THAT FINGER PRINTS ARE OR ARE NOT UNIQUE? The simple fact is that since in our common observation, finger prints as far as we know are indeed unique to each person, if any person will claim the contrary, or even say that such is a mere assumption, or does not necessarily apply to all humans, or even question the uniqueness of finger prints, then clearly, THAT person will have the burden of proof for shewing the reasons for his doubts - ALL he will have to do is to [b]show just one single example of two humans with the same finger prints, and the matter will be closed forever. How reasonable would it be for him to refuse to show such an example AND THEN contend that the well known unique nature of finger prints is a mere assumption AND THEN insist that since we have not seen all finger prints, the statement that finger prints are unique is a COMPOSITIONAL FALLACY - and wait for it - on top of all that, when we say to him that "as far as we know, finger prints are unique" - he reverts with saying that since that is only "as far as we know," then the statement that finger prints are unique is an argument from ignorance! Does this make sense to anybody? Now this is the terrifying illogic which Jayriginal has repeatedly stated with regard to the applicability of the law of cause and effect for material phenomena. Mind you, in the case of the law of cause and effect, it is far worse because cause and effect is far more intrinsic to material reality than any thing about finger prints. I also gave him an example about whether or not we have observed all the planets in the universe. Both these examples absolutely show the nonsense he is talking when he says that it is a mere assumption that the universe is caused. More importanly, they show how awfully misplaced his understanding of the terms "argument from ignorance" and "compositional fallacy" are. He does not realize that in the very s.illy way that he reads these terms, they can be applied to say that ANY statement whatsoever, is only an assumption or a compositional fallacy - or an argument from ignorance. To the extent that I have not seen all cats in the world, and no one has, it can also be said to be a mere assumption or compositional fallacy that cats have four legs. Or an argument from ignorance, as he says. Infact, his good friend Idehn, would by his own arguments, say that a cat with five legs is natural, since it can occur. Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen. Arise and greet absurdity itself. 1 Like |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by truthislight: 9:28am On Sep 03, 2012 |
^^^^ Beautifully said. I simply and only wished that your opponents are so logical. Peace men. You deserved a bottle of champagne. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by jayriginal: 12:21pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
Deep Sight, You have put paid to nothing. Its shocking how simple things such as this evade your grasp. Using finger prints as an example does not touch on the compositional fallacy. Whenever, you infer the whole from the parts, you commit a compositional fallacy. Simple ! Why do I need to repeat this to you ad infinitum ? I shouldnt need to tell you this but apparently everything must be simplified for you. Here goes: A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT IS NOT NECESSARILY AN INCORRECT ARGUMENT. It does however beg for better construction. As an example, if I pile 12,000 bricks on top of each other and call it "the 12 brick", and an observer pulls out a few bricks and state that the entire structure is made from bricks, he would be correct. That would not stop it from suffering from the compositional fallacy, as he is infering the whole from the part. Quite often, fallacious arguments are deeply flawed, but not always. Is this clear enough for you ? Now, if you say everything you observe in your local experience obeys the law of "cause and effect", and then on the basis of that, you give your experience universal scope, you are committing the fallacy of composition. Your position may or may not be correct, but it is certainly unconvincing when couched in those terms. Next, I ask you how you know this and you turn round to ask me how I know it isnt (when I havent said it isnt). When you ask someone to accept a proposition simply because the opposite is not known or proven, you are arguing from ignorance. This is basic Deep Sight, dont make me have to explain this again to you. You must learn how to argue. And on to the cat with 5 legs, that is unusual, but not impossible. A bad example you must agree. From ones experience it is enough to say cats have four legs ( as a general statement ) but not cats have only four legs (as an exclusive statement). The only way the exclusive statement will work is when cats are defined with four legs inclusive and being a necessary component of that definition, and as such anything more or less than four legs will exclude the specie in question from being a cat. This is what happens when you try to prove god with logic. You blunder fluently and refuse to correct yourself. 1 Like |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by jayriginal: 12:25pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
A distraction, but maybe you will get the hint. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by jayriginal: 12:43pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
And finally, on the issue of burden of proof, well I'm surprised you still say this. If you say all fingerprints are unique, you make a claim. Anyone is within their rights to ask how you know this. Your response should be to set out in detail how you acquired this knowledge in such a way that it becomes plain to the reasonable man. If your explanation is sufficient, then the matter should be settled. In fact, your response may not be a hundred percent satisfactory but it may enough to accept "generally". You dont prove your point by asking your opponent to prove the opposite or to disprove your point. If you make a highly specific assertion, you must back it up with like proof, and not generalities or fallacious arguments. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by DeepSight(m): 2:05pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
I knew beforehand ALL the responses you would give; I did not expect you to understand the subtleties: I only bothered to write all that for the benefit of third parties and not for you. I will only ask you the following: and please give me short direct unequivocal answers. Finger Prints. 1. Is it a compositional fallacy to state that all human finger prints are unique? 2. Is it an argument from ignorance to state that all human finger prints are unique? 3. Is it an assumption to state that all human finger prints are unique? 4. Have we observed all human finger prints in existence? Planets 1. Is it a compositional fallacy to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull? 2. Is it an argument from ignorance to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull ? 3. Is it an assumption to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull? 4. Have we observed all planets in the universe? Yes or no will do PLEASE. Just assume I am the id.iot and be patient enough to answer these succinctly as a charitable act to my da.ftness. Thanks. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by DeepSight(m): 2:12pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
jayriginal: Your study refers to the views and management of print impressions and not the specific questions as to actually whether there are people with exactly identical finger prints. An irrelevant distraction indeed. Especially because it tragically misses the pith of the analogy made, as you surely already know. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by DeepSight(m): 2:54pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
jayriginal: Lol. Did anyone notice this joke? Plain to the reasonable man ? Plain to the reasonable man ? ? Plain to the reasonable man? ? ? Lol. So Jayriginal, it honestly misses you that this is what I have been screaming myself hoarse about. That these things are self-evidential and plain to the reasonable man. The uniqueness of fingerprints is plain to the reasonable man because no two persons have been seen with the exact same prints, ever. The validity of cause and effect is even more self-evidential and plain to the reasonable man. As such it is not that these very self-evident precepts have to be proved - rather - if anyone questions them, then he needs to disprove them - because they are self evident and plain to the reasonable man. Oya, go ahead and say that cause and effect is NOT plain to the reasonable man. In fact, that one, I double - dare you. Can anyone say that the law of cause and effect has to be proved and explained to a reasonable man - in that - it is as yet unproven or unexplained ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Is it not the case that it is rather already well proven - and needs to be disproven by anyone who questions it? In fact, i throw a challenge. I contend that there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER that has ever been as adamantly and repeatedly proven in our reality, as the law of cause and effect. NOTHING WHATSOEVER. NOT ONE SINGLE PHENOMENON AT ALL. Infact, EVERY PROVEN PHENOMENON is proven with reference to, and by the law of cause and effect. Nothing is proven without reference to that basic precept. NOTHING. I challenge Jayriginal to mention ONE such thing. Just ONE. But watch it: he will not: he will say that he has no need to produce examples! Lol! Unbelievable chap! I have explained previously to Jayriginal that the entirety of science itself, is an inquiry into causality. I honestly don't know how such a basic fact could elude him in his notions about "cause and effect being a mere assumption." I might re phrase it by equally saying that there would be no such thing as science or scientific inquiry, but for the fact of cause and effect. ALL science rests on cause and effect. ALL. Cause and effect being proven at cosmic scales is a fact because the cosmos consists of matter: and as such we know that since causality operates in reference to matter, a material universe must operate same. This is the very same way in which we can legitimately and logically infer that all planets must have a gravitational pull, even when we have not seen them all: because we know the properties of planets and the laws necessary to keep them suspended in space. I honestly cannot believe such nonsense. Especially when packaged with nonsensical and presumptuous arrogance. I am well known as a most unserious person - otherwise I would not be responding to such piffle. More serious minds than mine would simply smile and ignore this trash. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by DeepSight(m): 4:04pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
Deep Sight: I knew beforehand ALL the responses you would give; I did not expect you to understand the subtleties: I only bothered to write all that for the benefit of third parties and not for you. O, and with reference to the "subtleties" which I refer to you as missing - - - > If you answer "No" to ANY of these questions, then ponder why, and you will get it. In fact, since you are so tiresome, I should say it outright - - - > The reason is - logical inference when same elements are at play. As simple as comparing apples to apples. Simples. Regrettably, I know I will have to write an epistle on such a simple statement before you understand it. In fact, after I do that, you will still not, but I will do so anyway for the benefit of third party readers. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by jayriginal: 7:28pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
What an emotional tirade. You seem not to understand the argument from ignorance or compositional fallacy. Your finger print is a bad analogy to use to demonstrate the compositional fallacy simply because fingerprints do not add up to form anything. Stating that all fingerprints are unique will not of itself be an argument from ignorance. It becomes an argument from ignorance when you state that it must be so if one cannot prove the opposite. Elementary my dear Watson. All human fingerprints are unique, is a statement. Whether it is an assumption or not will depend on the facts behind the statement. And yes, I knew you'd stumble over the "reasonable" man test. Its an inside joke but you dont seem to understand it. Allow me to sort you out. Anyone, can make a general statement, a statement that accords with our common experience. In fact, you are on safe ground there, walking the path of least resistance. However, just because we dont know that X is there, it doesnt mean X is not there. Likewise, just because we dont know X is, doesnt mean X isnt. Sometimes, in matters like this, you undertake to exhaust every alternate possibility to show that yours must necessarily be correct. If you fail to consider any other possibility and deal with it, then you leave yourself open. Now, this is not a gamble where you bet with or against the odds. Using the finger print examples, they play the odds of any two finger prints being the same (even finger prints from the same finger). This is an "either, or" matter (at least for now). All, you have done is to superimpose your common experience; the same experience that would tell your kind of "reasonable man" that what is thrown up will always come down. No, you must look beyond common experience to discover the truth. And if common experience holds true, so be it. All you are doing is spewing generalities. What you missed is DETAIL. Detail, not generalities. All your talk about cause and effect is diversionary. Scope is important. Stop using red herrings to distract from the core of matter. Any amateur can sit down in his backyard and say "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" and deem himself a great philosopher. However, people that make it their life to research and study these things have realized that reality does not have to conform to our expectations or common experience. I have asked you to prove and what you adduce as evidence (classical physics) is widely acknowledged to have little or no application at the singularity which I believe you accept. Instead, you ask me for a counter example when I have not said there is one. You even volunteered one yourself but have so far failed to explain the cause. Your "proof" is as of yet unsatisfactory. That is the truth though you may not like it. You seek to evade core science by means of quaint philosophical devices and the regular ad hominem. Word of advice, a wise man does not speak in absolutes unless he is absolutely sure. Enough with the 10kobo philosophy. PS Oh, and speaking of foreknowledge, before the Darwins Day thread, I knew your position (and said so). Theres nothing special in that. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by DeepSight(m): 7:34pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
^^^ Can you just answer the specific questions I put to you in Yes or no terms - or is that impossible? If impossible, why? |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by DeepSight(m): 7:41pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
What you miss is that comparing apples for apples is not a compositional fallacy. If I see that metal melts when subjected to heat, I can conclude that greater metal will melt when subjected to greater heat. This is apples for apples. You mis-understand the argumentative terms you use. Similarly making conclusions based on observed phenomena is not arguing from ignorance. Quite the reverse actually. As such you goof the entire argument. But to make it simple and obvious, please don't be a coward: just attempt the questions I set out on a yes or no basis: else give reasons why you can't do that. Thank you Sir. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by jayriginal: 7:45pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
Deep Sight: But I did didnt I ? Look at my response. Its embedded. Briefly, one can not answer yes or no to those questions because a statement itself is either true or false. Those are all statements. Fallacies come in by virtue of reasoning. In other words your reasons for making those statements. Not unless you go about making statements and expecting people to take them at face value. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by DeepSight(m): 7:45pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
Deep Sight: I knew beforehand ALL the responses you would give; I did not expect you to understand the subtleties: I only bothered to write all that for the benefit of third parties and not for you. THESE are the questions i would like yes or no answers to: or reasons why you can't give yes or no answers. Thanks again. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by DeepSight(m): 7:47pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
jayriginal: Please don't run away from simple questions sir. You know very well that those statements are in fact argumentative inferences from observation. So please do not cop out. Simple answers won't break your back. I ask these questions very deliberately. Thanks again. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by jayriginal: 7:49pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
Oh no. They are statements and that is all. Its not a cop out, it is cold logic. A statement is not an argument. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by DeepSight(m): 7:51pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
jayriginal: Oh no. Lol. I see you cannot answer the questions - - - > as I predicted. I am happy to leave things at that. Third party readers will draw their conclusions. Off to dinner. Good evening. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by jayriginal: 7:54pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
Nope. You cannot ask me if a statement is a fallacy. That is wrong. I didnt write the rules. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by DeepSight(m): 8:01pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
Enjoy - - - -> Deep Sight: Any honest participant knows the truth about my above quote. Enjoy. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by jayriginal: 8:29pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
You need to set out the arguments. I wouldnt want to be a meddlesome interloper. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by DeepSight(m): 8:53pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
jayriginal: You need to set out the arguments. I wouldnt want to be a meddlesome interloper. Done already. . . . exhaustively. . . . but if you choose to be escapist, no wahala. Like I said, I write not for you but for the third party reader. I am confident that third party readers will draw their conclusions appropriately. So. . . . .Enjoy! |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by jayriginal: 9:01pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
No you didnt. If you did, point me to where you did. The reason I am asking you to set them out is because I cannot be bothered with assuming what your arguments are. Anyone can make statements, but it is the reasoning behind such statements that is important. Eg consider the statement; "My cat is black". That statement is either true or false. It is not fallacious. If you dispute this and ask how I know my cat is black, suppose I reply, "It is black because it is not yellow", thats fallacious reasoning. In other words, the premise does not support the conclusion. This does nothing to affect the truth of the statement because while the reasoning is faulty, my cat may in fact be black. However, from my reasoning, you have good grounds for suspending belief in my statement. That is why I ask you to set out your arguments. I cant do much with mere statements. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by DeepSight(m): 9:11pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Deep Sight: Now another excellent example just occured to me as to why Mr. Jayriginal's position on the issue of "assumptions" and proof for the cause and effect notion, is so horribly horribly wrong.As frighteningly illogical as Jayriginal can be, I will be shocked if even he can deny this very clear example puts his position to death. Deep Sight: Set out extensively already. Can't repeat myself. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by DeepSight(m): 9:12pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
PhysicsQED: Just for the record, I don't have any dislike of Newton. The man was one of the greatest geniuses that ever lived. Even two thousand years from now, whenever anyone is compiling a list of the greatest thinkers who ever lived, he would still make the top 5 in the lists of most people that are scientifically literate. Also, quantum mechanics is not really the basis (certainly not mine, anyway) for rejecting the old Newtonian view of time. Perhaps you meant to say relativity. Even Leibniz, Newton's contemporary and a man almost as brilliant as Newton, rejected the Newtonian view of time, as did Ernst Mach in his own time, but it would take Einstein to really replace it. Einstein's use of the word "time", as I said earlier, has NOTHING to do with real time. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by jayriginal: 9:22pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
Deep Sight: But I addressed them didnt I ? At the very least, today, I dismissed of the fingerprint example in relation to the compositional fallacy. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by DeepSight(m): 9:28pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
jayriginal: Nah mate. Not even a scratch. You simply blatantly ran from the direct questions offered. But I leave it to readers to arrive at their conclusions. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by jayriginal: 9:29pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
Deep Sight: I did. That its not acceptable to you doesnt mean anything but that. Ah, I see your edit. I did not run away from nothing. The position is really simple. You want to force issues but you must play by rules. If you do, I will engage you. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by DeepSight(m): 9:42pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
jayriginal: Answer my questions mate. Can't be that hard. You're making it look hard. The questions were about planets and finger prints and I have shown in my long quotes above where I made the relevant arguments backing up those conclusions. That is why I said you know very well that those statements are argumentative inferences. Anything else is dishonesty. Read my posts: the substantive arguments are everywhere: as quoted above. Just answer the questions if you can. Simple. Don't make this another long embarrassment where you refuse when called out on simple things abeg. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by DeepSight(m): 9:55pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
Deep Sight: I knew beforehand ALL the responses you would give; I did not expect you to understand the subtleties: I only bothered to write all that for the benefit of third parties and not for you. Here are the questions again. It seems these questions have become a nightmare for you. Are you afraid of the dark? Come now, there's no bogey-man just because Nepa has taken light. Daddy is here, you are safe. Don't be afraid, answer the questions. |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by DeepSight(m): 9:58pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
Deep Sight:In fact, i throw a challenge. I contend that there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER that has ever been as adamantly and repeatedly proven in our reality, as the law of cause and effect. NOTHING WHATSOEVER. NOT ONE SINGLE PHENOMENON AT ALL. Infact, EVERY PROVEN PHENOMENON is proven with reference to, and by the law of cause and effect. Nothing is proven without reference to that basic precept. NOTHING. I challenge Jayriginal to mention ONE such thing. Just ONE. Answer please? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by jayriginal: 10:06pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
Sorry mate, but you have failed to prove your point. I havent asserted anything, Ive only questioned you. You are only playing to the gallery with this stage performance. Prove your point with specifics, not generalities. Your challenge is of no use either way because it is your assertion that is in contention not mine. Sadly, you persist with the fallacies. You need to do better than this. I have addressed all your other "questions" at one point or the other. Now, whether you find them satisfactory or not is another issue. Your issue of fingerprints is a non starter. You should rest it. I have also addressed your question on planets and gravitational pull. In addition, I have clearly defined these two; the compositional fallacy and the argument from ignorance and I have shown you how they apply to the arguments you are making. What more do you want ? |
Re: The 10 Dogmata Of Mordern Science by jayriginal: 10:39pm On Sep 03, 2012 |
Of course, with a wave of the hand, you will pronounce this to be "voodoo" . |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply)
Pope And Michael Jackson In Hell? Pls Find Time To Read This! / Doesnt God Know Those Already Going To Hell? / The Word And The Watchtower: An Exegesis Of John 1:1
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 216 |