The Political Discussion Thread

[Giantevilhead]

That's not a rationalization for the two processes of rationalization. If that was, philosophers would have stopped searching for that answer long ago. Think you're still talking about why it has value to scientists which doesn't validate the process used by the scientists. It's kind of like the truth value table of a logical statement:

A --> B

Three different things have truth values in that, A, B, and the whole statement if A then B. If we accept B as true, which in the scientific case is the results/conclusions of scientific experimentation, that in now way entails the truth of the whole statement, nor A. But disregarding that, the results of such a method in no way rationalizes the method nor the validity of the using of those logic rules or truth tables. I'm saying you can't determine rationality by using rationality, that would be circular. Granted there are some in between steps like observation, causality, predictive behavior, whatever, it still comes back to a circle no matter how intricate or large it is.

Except A is the results/conclusions of scientific experimentation. If (A) the results/conclusions of scientific experimentation yields useful results then (B) the scientific method has to be true. You can prove A without B. A is true, therefore B is true.

[jmoz]

In propositional logic, in the A --> B situation, A can be true but in no way implies B is true, nor B being true in no way implies A true. And in your designation of A and B, A is true because it yields useful results? You can't prove A without B, you have to use B to even get A. If you can get A without B, then what process were you using to get A in the first place? How does that imply the scientific method to be true unless you're defining the truth of the scientific method be determined by 'useful results'. It doesn't validate the process because the scientific method uses deductive and inductive reasoning, which I've said have no rationalization.

[SF_and_Coffee]

Uh, I took the A --> B logic material in school, and in that statement, you do not need B in order to evaluate the truth of A.

[jmoz]

Was talking about his particular designation of A and B, he has to use the scientific method to get 'useful results'.

[SF_and_Coffee]

Doesn't matter what A and B represent; in "If A then B" you don't need B to determine whether A is true.

[jmoz]

sigh, I knoooooooow, was talking about his particular designation of A and B. I know, I took logic. And if you want to press the matter further, using A and B and and the deductive steps of logic, you don't ever determine the truth values of A or B, you presuppose the truth values of A and B.

[SF_and_Coffee]

Yes, but in this context, I don't think "presuppose" means what you seem to think it means, that's all.

[jmoz]

Presuppose- 2. Tacitly assume at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action that something is the case.

Now you're just arguing for argument's sake or trying to get the last word or something.

[SF_and_Coffee]

No, actually I'm not. In the case of a logical argument, an assumption does not mean blindly taking something on faith.

Let's say you have an apple sitting in front of you. The apple is red; you can see this with your own eyes. You want to make a logical statement that starts from the premise that the apple is, in fact, red. Does that really mean that you're taking it on faith that the apple is red, just because you can call it an assumption or presupposition?

[Giantevilhead]

In propositional logic, in the A --> B situation, A can be true but in no way implies B is true, nor B being true in no way implies A true. And in your designation of A and B, A is true because it yields useful results? You can't prove A without B, you have to use B to even get A. If you can get A without B, then what process were you using to get A in the first place? How does that imply the scientific method to be true unless you're defining the truth of the scientific method be determined by 'useful results'. It doesn't validate the process because the scientific method uses deductive and inductive reasoning, which I've said have no rationalization.

You're simplifying the scientific method way too much. It's not a simple A -> B situation. In science, observations are made of a particular phenomenon. A falsifiable hypothesis is created to explain that phenomenon. The hypothesis is then tested. If the hypothesis has not been falsified, then it is used to make predictions about that type of phenomenon in the future. The initial observation does not need a hypothesis.

Science doesn't say that if the theory of gravity is true then there is gravity. It says that since we have made consistent observations of the phenomenon of gravity then we can formulate a theory about gravity through extensive testing which can then explain the phenomenon and make predictions about it in the future.

[lordofseas]

No, actually I'm not. In the case of a logical argument, an assumption does not mean blindly taking something on faith.

Let's say you have an apple sitting in front of you. The apple is red; you can see this with your own eyes. You want to make a logical statement that starts from the premise that the apple is, in fact, red. Does that really mean that you're taking it on faith that the apple is red, just because you can call it an assumption or presupposition?

A colorblind person would not see the apple as red. Does that mean you're wrong? No.

"Newton observed that color is not inherent in objects. Rather, the surface of an object reflects some colors and absorbs all the others. We perceive only the reflected colors.

Thus, red is not "in" an apple. The surface of the apple is reflecting the wavelengths we see as red and absorbing all the rest. An object appears white when it reflects all wavelengths and black when it absorbs them all.

About 8% of men and 1% of women have some form of color impairment. Most people with color deficiencies aren't aware that the colors they perceive as identical appear different to other people. Most still perceive color, but certain colors are transmitted to the brain differently."

Therefore, faith is not required, only science.

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

A colorblind person would not see the apple as red. Does that mean you're wrong? No.

"Newton observed that color is not inherent in objects. Rather, the surface of an object reflects some colors and absorbs all the others. We perceive only the reflected colors.

Thus, red is not "in" an apple. The surface of the apple is reflecting the wavelengths we see as red and absorbing all the rest. An object appears white when it reflects all wavelengths and black when it absorbs them all.

About 8% of men and 1% of women have some form of color impairment. Most people with color deficiencies aren't aware that the colors they perceive as identical appear different to other people. Most still perceive color, but certain colors are transmitted to the brain differently."

Therefore, faith is not required, only science.

I could argue with you but I won't .

[SF_and_Coffee]

A colorblind person would not see the apple as red. Does that mean you're wrong? No.

"Newton observed that color is not inherent in objects. Rather, the surface of an object reflects some colors and absorbs all the others. We perceive only the reflected colors.

Thus, red is not "in" an apple. The surface of the apple is reflecting the wavelengths we see as red and absorbing all the rest. An object appears white when it reflects all wavelengths and black when it absorbs them all.

About 8% of men and 1% of women have some form of color impairment. Most people with color deficiencies aren't aware that the colors they perceive as identical appear different to other people. Most still perceive color, but certain colors are transmitted to the brain differently."

Therefore, faith is not required, only science.

Your last sentence is precisely my point. The rest? Immaterial to the discussion, for general purposes, but some people will still argue it.

[Rickington]

Since we're going off-track. I will post a new topic for discussion:

What do you think the repercussions of the 2011 Libyan "no fly zone" conflict will be?

I realize there was a similar thread that discussed this which was closed...

I want to make one thing clear first: any post that violates the thread rules WILL be reported.

[s09119]

Since we're going off-track. I will post a new topic for discussion:

What do you think the repercussions of the 2011 Libyan "no fly zone" conflict will be?

We already have a thread for this--

--oh wait...