Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey, some people in fact believe that Psychics exist (and I've had some strange run in's with people who claim to be psychic and they knew private things about me that I never told a soul), and he seems to be one of them.

Really, in the case of things like the Jedi faith (which is honestly rather interesting if you actually research it and don't just laugh it off as Star Wars nerds. Has very few actual connections to SW), what makes him any less crazy or off base than people who believe in Christianity or any other major faith. They have no more evidence than he does

i dont believe in psychics. but then we're all walking around on a giant rock that's apparently the perfect distance away from a giant ball of fire as we hurdle through the vastness of space. someday we will all die and leave the earth, what happens after (if anything) is anyone's guess.

so, i mean... gak is just a tad fethed up already.

kb305 wrote:
i dont believe in psychics. but then we're all walking around on a giant rock that's apparently the perfect distance away from a giant ball of fire as we hurdle through the vastness of space.

If you research how big the "sweet spot" for the Sun is, you'll realize that we are not the "perfect distance" from the Sun. We could have been a little bit closer to or a hell of a lot further away from the Sun, and still have liquid water/life.
Also with the estimated amount of stars (suns) in the known universe (about a sextillion) it is close to a mathematical certainty that at least one planet would be able to sport life that could evolve enough to wonder how amazing it is to such a "perfect distance" from their star.

Stop listening to creationists. They invariably lie.


....

I take offense to that but I am by no means a creationist. Do you have links to the idea that if we were further/closer it would be fine? (Just asking as I am curious) and tbh scientists have very little hard evidence of there theories as well. (Hell the theory all life came from lava conflicts with the first law I learned in biology "all life comes from life". Anyway back OT magic is real to certain extents. I have had people divine my private life without looking at me, whitnesssd what can only be described as a haunting/poltergiest / demon attack. From a religious standpoint of the Christian faith magic is obtained more or less through deals with the devil or his demons and is.viewed as evil whether used to help or harm which I find a tad odd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for him believing it? Let him. He can believe whatever makes his life easier/ have more meaning

 raiden wrote:
Do you have links to the idea that if we were further/closer it would be fine? (Just asking as I am curious)

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

If you can understand these numbers, what this source published by NASA is basically saying is that our orbit is actually more an oval and our distance to the sun changes simply by going through the year. The gap for sustainable life is much larger than most think it is. I mean, it's not a major change but in space terms it's considerable. And really, I could post link after link of Mathematical proof but...it's why too complicated (I sucked hard at Calculus) for me to understand so I won't bother hahaha.

Source: NASA and my Uncle who happens to currently studying Astronomical Physics

kb305 wrote:
i dont believe in psychics. but then we're all walking around on a giant rock that's apparently the perfect distance away from a giant ball of fire as we hurdle through the vastness of space. someday we will all die and leave the earth, what happens after (if anything) is anyone's guess.

so, i mean... gak is just a tad fethed up already.

Bit Off Topic, but I first read that as you didn't believe in physics and I was so confused.

 raiden wrote:
I take offense to that but I am by no means a creationist. Do you have links to the idea that if we were further/closer it would be fine? (Just asking as I am curious)

You can start here for a quick overview;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstellar_habitable_zone#Solar_System_estimates
And then follow the references from there.

and tbh scientists have very little hard evidence of there theories as well.

You are displaying a complete lack of understanding of what "theory" means in a scientific context.
In everyday language you can use the word; "theory" to describe a guess or an estimate or whatever cockamamie explanation you can invent. This is NOT the case in a scientific context.
In science "theory" is the highest accolade that can be bestowed.
A scientific theory can be described thusly; "a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts."

or

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

In science you simply do not get to call anything a theory before it IS supported by hard evidence. Before such support exists it is simply considered a hypothesis.

(Hell the theory all life came from lava conflicts with the first law I learned in biology "all life comes from life".

"All life comes from life" is NOT a law of nature. Just like "theory" you need to look up what "law" means in a scientific context.
Abiogenesis is the scientific branch that deals with life coming from non-life. Look here for a primer and then follow the references;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Anyway back OT magic is real to certain extents. I have had people divine my private life without looking at me, whitnesssd what can only be described as a haunting/poltergiest / demon attack. From a religious standpoint of the Christian faith magic is obtained more or less through deals with the devil or his demons and is.viewed as evil whether used to help or harm which I find a tad odd.

I have no idea how to respond to any of this drivel. I will say that baseless assertions, anecdotal evidence and appeals to ignorance is something you need to learn about so you can avoid it in the future.

 raiden wrote:
I "all life comes from life"

This is obviously incorrect.

How else could like have originated in the first place? Look into 'Abiogenesis'.

EDIT:

Didn't see the above post.

There was a three part documentary on psykers I saw. They all had different powers mind and had even organized into groups. People who knew they were psykers didnt like them though. It wasnt very well made because people kept fighting and there was lots of things that kept getting blown up, but I suppose lots of american documentaries are like that nowadays, cops, fbi files etc. In fact my favourite guy, this one in a wheelchair who claimed he could read and control minds died in the 3rd part. They never dedicated it to him though which I found odd. Well worth a watch!

I used to work in a museum and had people coming in and talking about how they had felt the presence of the ghost of the guy who died while it was being built, or even spoken to him.

The guy was fatally injured there, but he died two days later at a hospital a mile and a half away. Why the hell would he be haunting the municiple building he happened to have fallen off? It's not like it wasn't one of a string of buildings he'd worked on.

Poly Ranger wrote:
There was a three part documentary on psykers I saw. They all had different powers mind and had even organized into groups. People who knew they were psykers didnt like them though. It wasnt very well made because people kept fighting and there was lots of things that kept getting blown up, but I suppose lots of american documentaries are like that nowadays, cops, fbi files etc. In fact my favourite guy, this one in a wheelchair who claimed he could read and control minds died in the 3rd part. They never dedicated it to him though which I found odd. Well worth a watch!

Is that connected to the ones about the man who tried to make his hometown a safer place with vigilante violence? The subject matter's pretty disturbing and there's some obvious dramatization, but I thought it was interesting how it looked at his reasoning. Lots of fear-based motivation, lots of working in the darkness.

Now, I'm not saying that there's an incarnation of Konrad Curze out there. It just makes you think, is all. There's too many obvious links to just discount it.

Steelmage99 wrote:

kb305 wrote:
i dont believe in psychics. but then we're all walking around on a giant rock that's apparently the perfect distance away from a giant ball of fire as we hurdle through the vastness of space.

Stop listening to creationists. They invariably lie.


....

Just like the evolutionists you mean? How can we tell who is lying when we don't even know what the 'truth' is?
You are now just being really insulting towards a majority of the world's population.
The only ones that are certainly not lying are the agnostics. (yay agnostics)


As for the guy in the OP, some people indeed get way over their head into fiction.
I don't know him, but if he really does nothing but 40k, it might be really good for him to find something else besides 40k to do.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Just like the evolutionists you mean? How can we tell who is lying when we don't even know what the 'truth' is?

By looking at the evidence, where we see that evolution is a well-supported explanation with virtually unanimous agreement among the people qualified to have an opinion, while creationism is laughably wrong and only supported by dishonest s who blatantly lie about things that even the average first-year biology student can explain.

You are now just being really insulting towards a majority of the world's population.

Then maybe they should stop being wrong and lying. We don't treat flat-earthism as a legitimate belief, so why should we give more credibility to a belief that has just as little evidence to support it?

The only ones that are certainly not lying are the agnostics. (yay agnostics)

I think you're having some trouble understanding the difference between lying and being wrong.

Wow this thread's intense.
I'm incline to believe that there are no psychics around.
However the next question is do we have free will or is everything determined?
I'm just kidding.
But then again feel free to discuss the matter if you like.
... it's not like you have a choice

Peregrine, as a man of science, you should know that only mathematicians can prove things. Stop being so damn absolute. It offends people and doesn't convince them that you're right.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Peregrine, as a man of science, you should know that only mathematicians can prove things.

Not true.

Stop being so damn absolute. It offends people and doesn't convince them that you're right.

Sorry, but this is like saying "stop being so absolute about the earth not being flat".

Did I seriously just see the claim that only mathematicians can prove something?

As someone pursuing a degree in Analytical Philosophy, I'm actually quite offended. You either ignored us or lumped us in with mathematicians.

And this is why we don't discuss spiritual matters in public places.

Don't you all know the rules of public, you don't discuss

1) Politics
2) Religion
3) The Economy

outside of special areas. Otherwise this happens. And I think we've pretty much broke all of them on this forum, no wonder we're all insane

Only mathematicians can prove things, because the only kind of proof that is absolute is a mathematical proof.

Any other argument can only provide evidence for something, one way or the other. There is always the chance, no matter how small, that some evidence may come alone that runs counter to the commonly accepted truth.

Science is the search for evidence to support or disprove a theory. Analytical Philosophy should, from its name, be a form of science, although philosophy is a very soft science from all of my personal encounters with the subject.

As for you, Peregine, in the immortal words of Ian Malcolm: "Can you bring me a photon on a plate?"

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Only mathematicians can prove things, because the only kind of proof that is absolute is a mathematical proof.

Any other argument can only provide evidence for something, one way or the other. There is always the chance, no matter how small, that some evidence may come alone that runs counter to the commonly accepted truth.

Science is the search for evidence to support or disprove a theory. Analytical Philosophy should, from its name, be a form of science, although philosophy is a very soft science from all of my personal encounters with the subject.

As for you, Peregine, in the immortal words of Ian Malcolm: "Can you bring me a photon on a plate?"

Wrong. Logicians prove absolute truths without mathematics. For example, the following are incontrovertibly true, despite having no mathematical operations whatsoever:

P->Q
~Q
Therefore, ~P.

P v ~P

There are many more examples, but those are two simple, propositional logic ones. Sometime, look into predicate logic; it is even more powerful.

I've had to do many many proofs in my classes and none of them used any math at all.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Only mathematicians can prove things, because the only kind of proof that is absolute is a mathematical proof.

Which is a pointless nitpick because the levels of confidence we're talking about are around the same level of confidence you place in the statement "I just made a forum post that Peregrine quoted". We're well beyond the point of reasonable doubt of evolution, and if you want to nitpick the precise definition of "proof" with nothing more than the same old "nothing is absolutely 100% beyond any conceivable doubt" nonsense then you're no longer having a constructive discussion.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Only mathematicians can prove things, because the only kind of proof that is absolute is a mathematical proof.

Which is a pointless nitpick because the levels of confidence we're talking about are around the same level of confidence you place in the statement "I just made a forum post that Peregrine quoted". We're well beyond the point of reasonable doubt of evolution, and if you want to nitpick the precise definition of "proof" with nothing more than the same old "nothing is absolutely 100% beyond any conceivable doubt" nonsense then you're no longer having a constructive discussion.

Indeed. Hume pointed out the same problem (nowadays called The Problem of Induction) and he's right, confidence in an inductive argument can never be 100%. Meanwhile, two hundred years later, we have cars that work, but we only know the principles on which they work inductively. We also have electronics, which, again, only function based on principles we know inductively. We also have the wheel, which only functions based on principles we know inductively...

...yeah, I feel like the problem of induction is a small problem indeed.

EDIT: Incidentally, Karl Popper, one of my favorite philosophers, also neatly addressed the Problem of Induction. But it is complicated.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Only mathematicians can prove things, because the only kind of proof that is absolute is a mathematical proof.

Which is a pointless nitpick because the levels of confidence we're talking about are around the same level of confidence you place in the statement "I just made a forum post that Peregrine quoted". We're well beyond the point of reasonable doubt of evolution, and if you want to nitpick the precise definition of "proof" with nothing more than the same old "nothing is absolutely 100% beyond any conceivable doubt" nonsense then you're no longer having a constructive discussion.

Indeed. Hume pointed out the same problem (nowadays called The Problem of Induction) and he's right, confidence in an inductive argument can never be 100%. Meanwhile, two hundred years later, we have cars that work, but we only know the principles on which they work inductively. We also have electronics, which, again, only function based on principles we know inductively. We also have the wheel, which only functions based on principles we know inductively...

...yeah, I feel like the problem of induction is a small problem indeed.

Logical proofs do work on a different dynamic though.

For example, in the transformation rule you showed earlier,

P->Q
~Q
Therefore, ~P.

the conclusion was directly derived an implacable and preexisting axiom. These axioms can never vary by definition. However, evidence perceived in the physical universe in order to support a scientific proposition can change over time.
Though the proposition can be correct a hundred million times, it could be invalidated by oncoming or events or merely be wrong and lucky. The aristotelian system of astronomy allowed people to make accurate predictions of orbits, and yet its basis is deeply fallacious. The following diagram shows very well the flaws in the circular argument justifying induction.

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Only mathematicians can prove things, because the only kind of proof that is absolute is a mathematical proof.

Which is a pointless nitpick because the levels of confidence we're talking about are around the same level of confidence you place in the statement "I just made a forum post that Peregrine quoted". We're well beyond the point of reasonable doubt of evolution, and if you want to nitpick the precise definition of "proof" with nothing more than the same old "nothing is absolutely 100% beyond any conceivable doubt" nonsense then you're no longer having a constructive discussion.

Indeed. Hume pointed out the same problem (nowadays called The Problem of Induction) and he's right, confidence in an inductive argument can never be 100%. Meanwhile, two hundred years later, we have cars that work, but we only know the principles on which they work inductively. We also have electronics, which, again, only function based on principles we know inductively. We also have the wheel, which only functions based on principles we know inductively...

...yeah, I feel like the problem of induction is a small problem indeed.

Logical proofs do work on a different dynamic though.

For example, in the transformation rule you showed earlier,

P->Q
~Q
Therefore, ~P.

the conclusion was directly derived an implacable and preexisting axiom. These axioms can never vary by definition. However, evidence perceived in the physical universe in order to support a scientific proposition can change over time.
Though the proposition can be correct a hundred million times, it could be invalidated by oncoming or events or merely be wrong and lucky. The aristotelian system of astronomy allowed people to make accurate predictions of orbits, and yet its basis is deeply fallacious. The following diagram shows very well the flaws in the circular argument justifying induction.

Logical proofs and the problem of induction are unrelated.

But to address your point about induction:

I agree, induction cannot be justified. There are two ways around this problem.

1) The "No-Miracles" theory: If induction was false, our science wouldn't work as well as it does, and its predictive power would fail to the point where we would no longer trust it. This hasn't happened yet, to my knowledge. This is the simplest (although, as you say, also incredibly fallacious) argument.

2) Abandon induction as Karl Popper did. Popper did not claim that science worked through induction. Rather, Popper claimed that science worked through criticism and falsification. Basically, a number of hypotheses are proposed to explain a phenomenon (such as the color of the sky). The hypotheses can range from "There is water above the air" to "Light refracting off of the atmospheric gases in a certain way yields photons in the blue wavelength." Then, each hypothesis that has been proposed is tested, and falsification is the goal of the test. If a hypothesis is tested and has not been falsified, then it becomes a theory. If that theory is eventually falsified (as Aristotle's was) then it is discarded in favor of another hypothesis, which is then tested, et cetera. To choose between two competing theories (such as Chance vs God in the origin of life debate), it is more rational, according to Popper's model, to believe the theory which has had more attempts to falsify it; that is, has been tested more. Since the God hypothesis cannot be currently tested (and therefore, cannot be falsified), it is rational (according to Popper) to believe the Chance hypothesis, which is being tested in labs even as we speak.

The second method provides a mode for science to progress without requiring inductive reasoning. In fact, it proposes that you specifically seek out the counter-example to a theory, rather than repeatedly looking for evidence in support of it.

Given that I just read that as 'Abbadon induction', I think I'm going to forgo attempting intelligent conversation in favour of closing my eyes.

Gods know I'm only smart enough to stir the bucket, someone else will have to interpret the signs that come out of it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Only mathematicians can prove things, because the only kind of proof that is absolute is a mathematical proof.

Which is a pointless nitpick because the levels of confidence we're talking about are around the same level of confidence you place in the statement "I just made a forum post that Peregrine quoted". We're well beyond the point of reasonable doubt of evolution, and if you want to nitpick the precise definition of "proof" with nothing more than the same old "nothing is absolutely 100% beyond any conceivable doubt" nonsense then you're no longer having a constructive discussion.

Indeed. Hume pointed out the same problem (nowadays called The Problem of Induction) and he's right, confidence in an inductive argument can never be 100%. Meanwhile, two hundred years later, we have cars that work, but we only know the principles on which they work inductively. We also have electronics, which, again, only function based on principles we know inductively. We also have the wheel, which only functions based on principles we know inductively...

...yeah, I feel like the problem of induction is a small problem indeed.

Logical proofs do work on a different dynamic though.

For example, in the transformation rule you showed earlier,

P->Q
~Q
Therefore, ~P.

the conclusion was directly derived an implacable and preexisting axiom. These axioms can never vary by definition. However, evidence perceived in the physical universe in order to support a scientific proposition can change over time.
Though the proposition can be correct a hundred million times, it could be invalidated by oncoming or events or merely be wrong and lucky. The aristotelian system of astronomy allowed people to make accurate predictions of orbits, and yet its basis is deeply fallacious. The following diagram shows very well the flaws in the circular argument justifying induction.

Logical proofs and the problem of induction are unrelated.

But to address your point about induction:

I agree, induction cannot be justified. There are two ways around this problem.

1) The "No-Miracles" theory: If induction was false, our science wouldn't work as well as it does, and its predictive power would fail to the point where we would no longer trust it. This hasn't happened yet, to my knowledge. This is the simplest (although, as you say, also incredibly fallacious) argument.

2) Abandon induction as Karl Popper did. Popper did not claim that science worked through induction. Rather, Popper claimed that science worked through criticism and falsification. Basically, a number of hypotheses are proposed to explain a phenomenon (such as the color of the sky). The hypotheses can range from "There is water above the air" to "Light refracting off of the atmospheric gases in a certain way yields photons in the blue wavelength." Then, each hypothesis that has been proposed is tested, and falsification is the goal of the test. If a hypothesis is tested and has not been falsified, then it becomes a theory. If that theory is eventually falsified (as Aristotle's was) then it is discarded in favor of another hypothesis, which is then tested, et cetera. To choose between two competing theories (such as Chance vs God in the origin of life debate), it is more rational, according to Popper's model, to believe the theory which has had more attempts to falsify it; that is, has been tested more. Since the God hypothesis cannot be currently tested (and therefore, cannot be falsified), it is rational (according to Popper) to believe the Chance hypothesis, which is being tested in labs even as we speak.

The second method provides a mode for science to progress without requiring inductive reasoning. In fact, it proposes that you specifically seek out the counter-example to a theory, rather than repeatedly looking for evidence in support of it.

Karl Popper's idea seems to run into difficulty when forced to choose from a selection of ideas remaining sound within the test parameters, as will almost always occur in nature.

To use Wesley C. Salmon's argument, either the Popper's theories' the whole selection principle has no rational value, or it makes the inductive claim that surviving being disproven makes it valid for the future.

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Only mathematicians can prove things, because the only kind of proof that is absolute is a mathematical proof.

Which is a pointless nitpick because the levels of confidence we're talking about are around the same level of confidence you place in the statement "I just made a forum post that Peregrine quoted". We're well beyond the point of reasonable doubt of evolution, and if you want to nitpick the precise definition of "proof" with nothing more than the same old "nothing is absolutely 100% beyond any conceivable doubt" nonsense then you're no longer having a constructive discussion.

Indeed. Hume pointed out the same problem (nowadays called The Problem of Induction) and he's right, confidence in an inductive argument can never be 100%. Meanwhile, two hundred years later, we have cars that work, but we only know the principles on which they work inductively. We also have electronics, which, again, only function based on principles we know inductively. We also have the wheel, which only functions based on principles we know inductively...

...yeah, I feel like the problem of induction is a small problem indeed.

Logical proofs do work on a different dynamic though.

For example, in the transformation rule you showed earlier,

P->Q
~Q
Therefore, ~P.

the conclusion was directly derived an implacable and preexisting axiom. These axioms can never vary by definition. However, evidence perceived in the physical universe in order to support a scientific proposition can change over time.
Though the proposition can be correct a hundred million times, it could be invalidated by oncoming or events or merely be wrong and lucky. The aristotelian system of astronomy allowed people to make accurate predictions of orbits, and yet its basis is deeply fallacious. The following diagram shows very well the flaws in the circular argument justifying induction.

Logical proofs and the problem of induction are unrelated.

But to address your point about induction:

I agree, induction cannot be justified. There are two ways around this problem.

1) The "No-Miracles" theory: If induction was false, our science wouldn't work as well as it does, and its predictive power would fail to the point where we would no longer trust it. This hasn't happened yet, to my knowledge. This is the simplest (although, as you say, also incredibly fallacious) argument.

2) Abandon induction as Karl Popper did. Popper did not claim that science worked through induction. Rather, Popper claimed that science worked through criticism and falsification. Basically, a number of hypotheses are proposed to explain a phenomenon (such as the color of the sky). The hypotheses can range from "There is water above the air" to "Light refracting off of the atmospheric gases in a certain way yields photons in the blue wavelength." Then, each hypothesis that has been proposed is tested, and falsification is the goal of the test. If a hypothesis is tested and has not been falsified, then it becomes a theory. If that theory is eventually falsified (as Aristotle's was) then it is discarded in favor of another hypothesis, which is then tested, et cetera. To choose between two competing theories (such as Chance vs God in the origin of life debate), it is more rational, according to Popper's model, to believe the theory which has had more attempts to falsify it; that is, has been tested more. Since the God hypothesis cannot be currently tested (and therefore, cannot be falsified), it is rational (according to Popper) to believe the Chance hypothesis, which is being tested in labs even as we speak.

The second method provides a mode for science to progress without requiring inductive reasoning. In fact, it proposes that you specifically seek out the counter-example to a theory, rather than repeatedly looking for evidence in support of it.

Karl Popper's idea seems to run into difficulty when forced to choose from a selection of ideas remaining sound within the test parameters, as will almost always occur in nature.

To use Wesley C. Salmon's argument, either the Popper's theories' the whole selection principle has no rational value, or it makes the inductive claim that surviving being disproven makes it valid for the future.

When confronted with multiple theories that are all tested and none are falsified, then you would rationally choose the one that has been tested more. When confronted with multiple theories that have equal amounts of testing and have not been falsified, then you need not subscribe to one, and if you do, you must be prepared to discard it in the case that another test is ran on the alternative theory (therefore making it the more stringently tested one) or the subscribed-to theory is falsified.

The selection principle, therefore, does have rational value in reducing the options open to the individual through a rigorous system. At worst, the individual is selecting arbitrarily (or not at all) among the most rigorously tested theories imaginable (perhaps choosing to endorse them all as different alternatives until further data is collected), and at best choosing the single most rigorously tested theory as the one to believe in.

It is faulty to assume that one must come to a single, correct, theory all of the time - it is possible for several theories to be in contention at one time. Popper's only stipulation is that they must all be equally well-tested, and any other theories that are less-well-tested or not tested at all are just as irrelevant as theories that have been falsified.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Only mathematicians can prove things, because the only kind of proof that is absolute is a mathematical proof.

Which is a pointless nitpick because the levels of confidence we're talking about are around the same level of confidence you place in the statement "I just made a forum post that Peregrine quoted". We're well beyond the point of reasonable doubt of evolution, and if you want to nitpick the precise definition of "proof" with nothing more than the same old "nothing is absolutely 100% beyond any conceivable doubt" nonsense then you're no longer having a constructive discussion.

Indeed. Hume pointed out the same problem (nowadays called The Problem of Induction) and he's right, confidence in an inductive argument can never be 100%. Meanwhile, two hundred years later, we have cars that work, but we only know the principles on which they work inductively. We also have electronics, which, again, only function based on principles we know inductively. We also have the wheel, which only functions based on principles we know inductively...

...yeah, I feel like the problem of induction is a small problem indeed.

Logical proofs do work on a different dynamic though.

For example, in the transformation rule you showed earlier,

P->Q
~Q
Therefore, ~P.

the conclusion was directly derived an implacable and preexisting axiom. These axioms can never vary by definition. However, evidence perceived in the physical universe in order to support a scientific proposition can change over time.
Though the proposition can be correct a hundred million times, it could be invalidated by oncoming or events or merely be wrong and lucky. The aristotelian system of astronomy allowed people to make accurate predictions of orbits, and yet its basis is deeply fallacious. The following diagram shows very well the flaws in the circular argument justifying induction.

Logical proofs and the problem of induction are unrelated.

But to address your point about induction:

I agree, induction cannot be justified. There are two ways around this problem.

1) The "No-Miracles" theory: If induction was false, our science wouldn't work as well as it does, and its predictive power would fail to the point where we would no longer trust it. This hasn't happened yet, to my knowledge. This is the simplest (although, as you say, also incredibly fallacious) argument.

2) Abandon induction as Karl Popper did. Popper did not claim that science worked through induction. Rather, Popper claimed that science worked through criticism and falsification. Basically, a number of hypotheses are proposed to explain a phenomenon (such as the color of the sky). The hypotheses can range from "There is water above the air" to "Light refracting off of the atmospheric gases in a certain way yields photons in the blue wavelength." Then, each hypothesis that has been proposed is tested, and falsification is the goal of the test. If a hypothesis is tested and has not been falsified, then it becomes a theory. If that theory is eventually falsified (as Aristotle's was) then it is discarded in favor of another hypothesis, which is then tested, et cetera. To choose between two competing theories (such as Chance vs God in the origin of life debate), it is more rational, according to Popper's model, to believe the theory which has had more attempts to falsify it; that is, has been tested more. Since the God hypothesis cannot be currently tested (and therefore, cannot be falsified), it is rational (according to Popper) to believe the Chance hypothesis, which is being tested in labs even as we speak.

The second method provides a mode for science to progress without requiring inductive reasoning. In fact, it proposes that you specifically seek out the counter-example to a theory, rather than repeatedly looking for evidence in support of it.

Karl Popper's idea seems to run into difficulty when forced to choose from a selection of ideas remaining sound within the test parameters, as will almost always occur in nature.

To use Wesley C. Salmon's argument, either the Popper's theories' the whole selection principle has no rational value, or it makes the inductive claim that surviving being disproven makes it valid for the future.

When confronted with multiple theories that are all tested and none are falsified, then you would rationally choose the one that has been tested more. When confronted with multiple theories that have equal amounts of testing and have not been falsified, then you need not subscribe to one, and if you do, you must be prepared to discard it in the case that another test is ran on the alternative theory (therefore making it the more stringently tested one) or the subscribed-to theory is falsified.

The selection principle, therefore, does have rational value in reducing the options open to the individual through a rigorous system. At worst, the individual is selecting arbitrarily (or not at all) among the most rigorously tested theories imaginable (perhaps choosing to endorse them all as different alternatives until further data is collected), and at best choosing the single most rigorously tested theory as the one to believe in.

It is faulty to assume that one must come to a single, correct, theory all of the time - it is possible for several theories to be in contention at one time. Popper's only stipulation is that they must all be equally well-tested, and any other theories that are less-well-tested or not tested at all are just as irrelevant as theories that have been falsified.

So the first problem is which one of a collection of surviving theories or models to test. One way to make an intelligent selection, rather than a backward-looking choice of the theory which has been tested the most, would be to make a forward-looking choice about which theory when disproved in the next test would contribute most to the current knowledge. In other words, the "informational size" of the potential failed experiment should be as large as possible. For example, the complement of a general theory is smaller than the complement of a specific theory (say, a subset of the general theory) and thus leads to more specific knowledge (a finer partition of the state space). Yet disproving the specific theory, as subset of the general theory, is actually enough to disprove the general theory. Now, if two theories are overlap-free, then preferences might vary and one should prefer to test the one which yields a higher ex-post informativeness relative to relevant choices.

This leads us to the second problem, which theory to work with if no more testing is allowed at all. In that case, one should go with some notion of robustness, i.e., choose the theory that likely yields reasonable decisions even if disproved later. For example, given N models one could maximize the payoff over the outcomes that a decision under model i would yield in the event that the worst model j for that decision is actually true. Then in this way select the model k (of all the models i considered) that selects a decision which performs relatively well under all models j.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Just like the evolutionists you mean? How can we tell who is lying when we don't even know what the 'truth' is?

That's relatively easy to demonstrate evolution. You can actually show it happening in organisms that have a very fast reproductive cycle such as bacteria, viruses or at the larger scale, fruit flies. It's also makes a lot of sense - organisms vary in their traits with each generation but do get passed on. If a trait is unfavourable to continued survival, that trait is less likely to be passed on and is eventually weeded out.

So if the Theory of Evolution can both be demonstrated and is a logical consequence of observable fact, there is good reason to believe it is true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This whole tread makes me want to re-watch The Men Who Stare At Goats.

Weird and amusing film for anyone who hasn't seen it. Not at all what I expected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Logicians prove absolute truths without mathematics. For example, the following are incontrovertibly true, despite having no mathematical operations whatsoever:

P->Q
~Q
Therefore, ~P.

P v ~P

There are many more examples, but those are two simple, propositional logic ones. Sometime, look into predicate logic; it is even more powerful.

I've had to do many many proofs in my classes and none of them used any math at all.

As someone with a bit of background in mathematics I really hate to break this to you, but Propositional Calculus / Logic, which you are using above, is a branch of mathematics.

please remember that the theory of natural selection and the theory of evolution are separate. I may not claim to know more than a basic understanding of biology (physics and chem can go to hell, I hated those classes in college lol) but I remember that. I would actually like to know how/why animals (bar humans) are ingrained with knowledge the moment they are born. How they know to do things (such as a bird building a nest) anyone have anything on this?

people use Darwin's theory to support evolution.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
We also have electronics, which, again, only function based on principles we know inductively.

Actually, electronics has moved beyond inductive reasoning. A lot of modern electronics, e.g. CPUs, are now operating on principles that were never derived inductively, but were arrived at through wholely theoretically derived predictions based on quantum theory. I.e. whilst the origins of much modern technology are inductive, we have now moved into deductive reasoning for much of it. If you want to argue that it's still inductive because of some earlier derived bases to conclude from, then you're at the point where you're denying that anything can be deductive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 raiden wrote:
please remember that the theory of natural selection and the theory of evolution are separate. I may not claim to know more than a basic understanding of biology (physics and chem can go to hell, I hated those classes in college lol) but I remember that. I would actually like to know how/why animals (bar humans) are ingrained with knowledge the moment they are born. How they know to do things (such as a bird building a nest) anyone have anything on this?

people use Darwin's theory to support evolution.

Natural Selection and Theory of Evolution are closely intertwined. What you're highlighting is that I'm talking about micro-evolution having been demonstrated, not macro-evolution. If anyone has ever come up with a good argument how micro-evolution can exists and macro-evolution does not, I've yet to hear it.