When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?

[Tassman]

But there are scientific truths about which there is general, if not universal, agreement, such as that the earth revolves around the sun, the speed of light, that water boils at 100 degrees C at sea level, etc. This is not to say that they do not depend upon contexts, just as the fact that 2+2=4 is true within base ten, but we're not talking about philosophy of science after all, i.e the ontological status of scientific truths. We're talking about scientific claims that have been decided upon as true.

There are NEVER scientific claims that have been decided upon as true or proven. Scientific claims are always falsifiable (i.e. possibly wrong). This is why even settled science is referred to as a theory - e.g. the Theory of Evolution.

[Tassman]

That's the 'Diversity Thesis.' Because there is a difference of opinion in a matter does not mean that there is no fact of the matter. The diversity can be due to other factors.

The “fact of the matter” is that morals and ethics have evolved and varied to a degree from culture to culture over time and are grounded in the need of humanity to survive as cooperative intelligent social animals.

Genetic algorithms are too simple to be all-explanatory even within a physicalist framework.

No, in this instance they are a consequence of Natural Selection and as such based in biology, which can be empirically tested and verified.

Acquired falsifiable theories are built on a foundation of implicit knowing and knowing how.

Not so. Acquired falsifiable theories are built on a foundation of prediction-based hypotheses arising from existing objective knowledge.

No, that's not it. It's not primarily an empirically based question. We also assign plausibility and probability that aren't specifically tied to empirical evidence.

Nevertheless “the secret of the universe is popcorn” can be rejected as a claim via empirical testing.

Unless it's the assumptions that make 'objective, testable knowledge' possible in the first place.

In short, scientific hypotheses.

There is a concept called 'post-empirical science.' My point was that scientific speculation, and speculation generally, has not, is not and should not be fettered by what is considered 'empirically verifiable.'

“Post-empirical science” is a contradiction in terms. Science by its very nature I based on empirical evidence.

I'd like to put this point to rest once and for all. Not all knowledge is empirical knowledge.

True. But, unlike empirical knowledge some “knowledge” is subjective and merely depends upon unverified personal belief or opinion. It cannot be considered objective knowledge.

[seer]

There are NEVER scientific claims that have been decided upon as true or proven. Scientific claims are always falsifiable (i.e. possibly wrong). This is why even settled science is referred to as a theory - e.g. the Theory of Evolution.

So the earth revolving around the sun is not a proven fact?

[shunyadragon]

So the earth revolving around the sun is not a proven fact?

A simple fact need not be proven. This is not an issue in the discussion.

[shunyadragon]

But there are scientific truths about which there is general, if not universal, agreement, such as that the earth revolves around the sun, the speed of light, that water boils at 100 degrees C at sea level, etc. This is not to say that they do not depend upon contexts, just as the fact that 2+2=4 is true within base ten, but we're not talking about philosophy of science after all, i.e the ontological status of scientific truths. We're talking about scientific claims that have been decided upon as true.

But . . . ? Tassman has responded to this adequately.

This an OK definition, but you have not provided an 'decisive truths' yet. All you and seer have mentioned is a few facts that would be in agreement as simply objective observations.

Still waiting . . .

[seer]

A simple fact need not be proven. This is not an issue in the discussion.

It wasn't a simple fact until science figured it out. Just the opposite. So is it a proven fact?

[seer]

If you're going to allow circular logic, what do you need the LONC for?

I did not use circular reasoning, the impossibility of a square circle or the sun existing and not existing at the same moment just demonstrates the LONC. But since you don't believe that the LONC is an absolute I wonder why you would find any problem with circular logic. Why? Based on what?

[seer]

This line of thinking only shows that the behavior of the sun is predictable by the Laws of Nature, which is what we observe discriptively threough as with all science.

till waiting for you to respond to the reference as cited instead of making fallible human assertions. Your claim that the Law of Non-Contradiction would only apply if we had the absolute knowledge of God.

Science and logic cannot prove the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Still waiting . . .

If you don't believe that the LONC is an absolute Shuny then you have to believe that true contradictions, like square circles, are possible. Is that what you believe Shuny?

[Stoic]

I did not use circular reasoning, the impossibility of a square circle or the sun existing and not existing at the same moment just demonstrates the LONC. But since you don't believe that the LONC is an absolute I wonder why you would find any problem with circular logic. Why? Based on what?

You again make me wonder what you mean by "absolute". I think the LONC is based on the meaning of negation, and having a rational discussion in any language that includes negation (which includes all human languages, as far as I'm aware) implies at least provisional acceptance of the LONC. But the LONC is accepted without proof, because any attempt to prove it will be viciously circular, as you have just demonstrated. If we came across some space aliens who were more accepting of contradictions than we are (perhaps they are dialetheists), we would not be able to prove to them that contradictions are always false without begging the question.

There is a difference between accepting the LONC because it is needed in order to have a rational discussion with another human being, and accepting that the LONC is "absolute". Some people may think it's absolute because they can't imagine doing without it, but that is merely an opinion, and I think the existence of paraconsistent logic shows that it isn't a very well informed opinion. Perhaps it's a very strongly held opinion, but not one that I'm obligated to go along with simply because I need to at least provisionally accept the LONC in order to have a discussion with them.

If "absolute" means "clearly obvious to me", then go ahead and call it absolute. Just don't expect to use that as the basis of a cogent argument for a supreme being.

[seer]

You again make me wonder what you mean by "absolute". I think the LONC is based on the meaning of negation, and having a rational discussion in any language that includes negation (which includes all human languages, as far as I'm aware) implies at least provisional acceptance of the LONC. But the LONC is accepted without proof, because any attempt to prove it will be viciously circular, as you have just demonstrated. If we came across some space aliens who were more accepting of contradictions than we are (perhaps they are dialetheists), we would not be able to prove to them that contradictions are always false without begging the question.

I have no problem using negation. They only way you have around this that I can see is that you have to accept, at least in theory, that true contradictions, like a square circle can exist. And if you undermine the LONC, the very foundation of logic, why would circular reasoning be suspect? Throw it all out.

There is a difference between accepting the LONC because it is needed in order to have a rational discussion with another human being, and accepting that the LONC is "absolute". Some people may think it's absolute because they can't imagine doing without it, but that is merely an opinion, and I think the existence of paraconsistent logic shows that it isn't a very well informed opinion. Perhaps it's a very strongly held opinion, but not one that I'm obligated to go along with simply because I need to at least provisionally accept the LONC in order to have a discussion with them.

But you are in fact suggesting that true contradictions can exist. I have asked you a number of times Stoic to present a real world example of a true contradiction using paraconsistent. You have failed to do so.

[Stoic]

I have no problem using negation. They only way you have around this that I can see is that you have to accept, at least in theory, that true contradictions, like a square circle can exist.

Yes, you have to accept, at least in theory, that true contradictions can exist. You don't have to accept any particular contradiction as true, or even possibly true, and you don't have to provide an example of a true contradiction. You just have to accept in theory that true contradictions can exist.

And if you undermine the LONC, the very foundation of logic, why would circular reasoning be suspect? Throw it all out.

If you allow circular reasoning, then anything can be proved. You can use circular reasoning to prove B, and then you can use circular reasoning to prove not-B. Or you can simply use circular reasoning to prove (B AND not-B).

People used to think that this was the case for true contradictions, also; that if you allowed even one contradiction to be true, then anything could be proved. This is called the Principle of Explosion. But then logicians figured out ways around it, like denying the validity of disjunctive syllogism or disjunction introduction (see the article).

But you are in fact suggesting that true contradictions can exist. I have asked you a number of times Stoic to present a real world example of a true contradiction using paraconsistent. You have failed to do so.

I don't need to provide an example, due to a little thing called the Burden of Proof. You asserted that the LONC is absolute. I simply doubt your assertion.

[seer]

Yes, you have to accept, at least in theory, that true contradictions can exist. You don't have to accept any particular contradiction as true, or even possibly true, and you don't have to provide an example of a true contradiction. You just have to accept in theory that true contradictions can exist.

How do you distinguish between a true contradiction and a false contradiction? What is your criterion? Your standard?

If you allow circular reasoning, then anything can be proved. You can use circular reasoning to prove B, and then you can use circular reasoning to prove not-B. Or you can simply use circular reasoning to prove (B AND not-B).

And? You are already throwing out the fundamental corner stone of reasoning, the LONC. Why is non-circular logic sacrosanct?

People used to think that this was the case for true contradictions, also; that if you allowed even one contradiction to be true, then anything could be proved. This is called the Principle of Explosion. But then logicians figured out ways around it, like denying the validity of disjunctive syllogism or disjunction introduction (see the article).


I don't need to provide an example, due to a little thing called the Burden of Proof. You asserted that the LONC is absolute. I simply doubt your assertion.

See you have no real world example! And remember you too are making a claim - that true contradictions are possible.

[Stoic]

How do you distinguish between a true contradiction and a false contradiction? What is your criterion? Your standard?




And? You are already throwing out the fundamental corner stone of reasoning, the LONC. Why is non-circular logic sacrosanct?



See you have no real world example! And remember you too are making a claim - that true contradictions are possible.

If you are just going to ignore what I write, there's no point in continuing the conversation.

[seer]

If you are just going to ignore what I write, there's no point in continuing the conversation.

Oh stop Stoic, I responded to you. You just don't seem to like questions you can't answer.

[shunyadragon]

So the earth revolving around the sun is not a proven fact?

No need for a proof, it is simply a fact.