Kaizen - 08 October 2009 11:51 AM

If the argument is accepted, it can lead to some pretty ridiculous things. It would mean that the next time you drive your car, assuming it still exists since the last time you saw it, you would have an equal probability of starting the car with the key in the ignition as you would by pouring kool-aid on the hood.

If my explanation is unclear, I apologize. You should probably look at the link for further clarification.

Phil

Thanks for the link! Apology accepted. Example is ridiculous. I will drop out of the thread.

StephenLawrence - 08 October 2009 01:19 PM

fotobits - 06 October 2009 04:57 AM

As for the laws of physics replacing god in our thinking, that is another bit of sophistry. The laws of physics work. We can observe and measure the universe at work. We make predictions and verify them through observations. If the observations contradict the predictions we toss out the theory that led to the predictions and develop better theories. The theories we have now have been verified countless times, and we use them because they work, knowing full well that one contradictory observation would disprove the theory. So far that has not happened with what we consider the fundamental laws of physics, thermodynamics being one such set of laws. There is no evidence of a god

Trouble is, all we are doing is discovering physical laws, so we are discovering the way the universe behaves.

What we are not doing is discovering why it behaves that way, because, as we agree, we do not know why it behaves in accordance with physical laws.

Perhaps it can be shown that there is no need for an answer to the question “why does it behave that way?” or perhaps there is reason to believe science can eventually answer the question “why does it behave that way?”

I don’t know, I just know that as things stand science doesn’t tell us why the universe behaves the way it does and I think this is important when thinking about whether to commit to naturalism and whether to be agnostic or an atheist.

Stephen

I agree science does not explain why the universe behaves as it does, and may never be able to explain the reason, though I am not willing to rule out the possibility. I will go further and state that science is our best hope of explaining why the universe behaves as it does. It may take 100 years or it may take 100,000 years, but if we keep chipping away at the how we could eventually reach the why. We could also reach a point where we realize the why is forever out of our reach. Either way, it will be the scientists who find the answers, not the philosophers who sit around discussing ideas without testing them while couching their rhetoric in obfuscatory prose to make their discourses sound significant.

Kaizen - 08 October 2009 03:01 PM

In the identification of anything within experience brings with it a certain type of understanding, not just in the object/event itself but also in its relationship to other objects within experience. Inductions are justified in that they must be invoked to allow that identification process to occur, without which there would be no coherent understanding to act upon. The “inferential byproducts” that necessarily result from identification and it’s inherent context of understanding are deduced. They are logical within a context of a certain type of understanding which is brought on by identification.

Sacrificial offerings by primitive tribes were rational within the context of their understanding. That context was provided specifically by the understanding of objects/events within their experience, which was was brought on by identification, which was the result of inductions used to allow the identities to have their meaning- the ability to distinguish or find commonalities between objects within experience.

I’m sorry to say you’ve lost me there. What do you mean by “identification”? Do you mean re-identification of the same objects over time? When we engage in inductive inferences, the reidentification is taken for granted—the conclusion of the inference quantifies over the same objects as appeared in the premises, otherwise the induction would be fallacious.

Further, I’m not sure what you mean when you say that sacrificial offerings were rational. Surely, nobody ever had sufficient reason to perform an animal or human sacrifice.

dougsmith - 09 October 2009 03:52 AM

I’m sorry to say you’ve lost me there. What do you mean by “identification”? Do you mean re-identification of the same objects over time? When we engage in inductive inferences, the reidentification is taken for granted—the conclusion of the inference quantifies over the same objects as appeared in the premises, otherwise the induction would be fallacious.

By identification, I’m talking about the mental process of determining what objects “are” (door, cat, cup, ice, etc). Not just the label but the entire meaning that comes with that label. I have this thing in my room that’s located near one of the corners and it has a “cutout” in the wall and it has hinges and a thing to turn to allow the object to move, it gives access to another room- it’s a “door”. Identifying a thing as a door clearly brings a lot of presumptions before getting to the final conclusion of “door” (what doors are for, where they come from, what variations they might come in, etc). 

So I’m saying that prior to being able to do this type of identification or distinguishing of objects from other objects (rather than everything just being a blob of meaningless chaos), we invoke inductive inferences to allow an organization and categorization of objects/events from objects/events.

Further, I’m not sure what you mean when you say that sacrificial offerings were rational. Surely, nobody ever had sufficient reason to perform an animal or human sacrifice.

I’m sorry for not being very clear. All I’m saying is that primitive tribes had basic premises that were assumed or come to in some irrational manner, but once those premises were accepted as “true”, then the sacrificial offerings did follow as logical. In that same way that if you honestly believe the bible is the “word of god”, then arguably it follows that there was a garden of eden. But I’m not saying that a belief in the garden of eden is rational.