Why Neil DeGrasse Tyson Should Stick To Science

[JimL]

You were the one who made that claim that science can PROVE the truth. But if it is subject to revision in the future, then it is not proof of anything. It could be a close approximation of the truth, or it could be pretty far off the mark. And there is no real way to know that.

Yes, i made that claim, and i've been shown, from an absolutist's position at least, to be wrong, but the problem that i have with those of you who have shown me to be wrong is that, because of this inability of science to prove in an abolute sense, they will deny it if it doesn't suit their own unscientific subjective viewpoints. What Tyson said is for all intents and purposes true and, contrary to AP's assertion, it is true only with regards to science. Scientific claims, unlike those of theology or philosophy, isn't true because it is believed, it is true because whether it is believed or not, as a claim, it can be and has been empirically verified to be true.

[Cornell]

Yes, i made that claim, and i've been shown, from an absolutist's position at least, to be wrong, but the problem that i have with those of you who have shown me to be wrong is that, because of this inability of science to prove in an abolute sense, they will deny it if it doesn't suit their own unscientific subjective viewpoints. What Tyson said is for all intents and purposes true and, contrary to AP's assertion, it is true only with regards to science. Scientific claims, unlike those of theology or philosophy, isn't true because it is believed, it is true because whether it is believed or not, as a claim, it can be and has been empirically verified to be true.

Jim you didn't answer his question. What is the secret ingredient of science that indicates to us whether or not we found an absolute truth or at least WE KNOW we took a step closer to it? Is it a c fiber firing off a certain way in our brain? A clear and distinct perception? Intuition? Or is it a case of let's just wing it and hope for the best?

[Tassman]

And those are philosophical. Science only works because it has philosophical commitments that it accepts prior that are not dependent on the science.

Philosophy, mathematics and logic are components of science, yes. But, unlike science, none of these separate components can arrive at new knowledge about the universe because no logical argument or mathematical formula can contain more than the information contained in the premises. We have no absolutely true premises, except ones we define to be true (such as 1+1=2). Take note Cornell.

For my part, Aristotelianism and Thomism really do the best part since they all have a definition of good and can explain the nature of goodness. Naturalism is utterly bankrupt on this regard.

Aquinas bases his doctrine of the natural law on his understanding of God and God’s relation to His creation. Thus he is starting with an assumed, unverified premise and consequently, his conclusions cannot be shown to be true.

Aristotle erroneously assumed that conclusions from a logical argument revealed new truths. They didn't. His premises were based upon the knowledge of the day which was subsequently shown by science to be wrong.

Laws of logic. SOme actions are good and some are evil. Some things are beautiful and some are not. There is a real world outside of our minds and we can know it.

What is deemed "evil" or "beautiful" are opinions, not absolute truths. There are no absolute truths except what we define to be true as in mathematics.

It can’t be shown that the “real world" outside outside of our brains is anything other than natural and therefore best dealt with by science. Our brains themselves are natural, material entities. There is no credible evidence of a soul/mind being separate from our material bodies or what the connecting nexus between the immaterial "soul" and material body could be.

Sure. There are various theories of morality, so we compare them to one another, just like there are various theories on the origin of life.

Invalid comparison! The origin of life on earth is potentially resolvable by science and established as empirically verified “fact”. Conversely, “the various theories of morality” will forever remain “various theories".

To Sparko:

Yes, i made that claim, and i've been shown, from an absolutist's position at least, to be wrong, but the problem that i have with those of you who have shown me to be wrong is that, because of this inability of science to prove in an abolute sense, they will deny it if it doesn't suit their own unscientific subjective viewpoints. What Tyson said is for all intents and purposes true and, contrary to AP's assertion, it is true only with regards to science. Scientific claims, unlike those of theology or philosophy, isn't true because it is believed, it is true because whether it is believed or not, as a claim, it can be and has been empirically verified to be true.

Exactly right.

[JimL]

Jim you didn't answer his question. What is the secret ingredient of science that indicates to us whether or not we found an absolute truth or at least WE KNOW we took a step closer to it? Is it a c fiber firing off a certain way in our brain? A clear and distinct perception? Intuition? Or is it a case of let's just wing it and hope for the best?

I don't see a question in the quote, do you? Btw Cornell, and its nice to meet you, but science is just the opposite of, "just winging it and hoping for the best." You seem to be suggesting that your brain is useless. So what do you use to discover truth?

[The Pixie]

And those are philosophical. Science only works because it has philosophical commitments that it accepts prior that are not dependent on the science.

What commitments are you talking about?

For my part, Aristotelianism and Thomism really do the best part since they all have a definition of good and can explain the nature of goodness. Naturalism is utterly bankrupt on this regard.

I see you qualify it "For my part..." It is, as usual, just opinion.

Why do you mention naturalism?

No. No one has doubted that science can demonstrate some things, but the claim that science is the best tool we have to demonstrate truth claims or even more bizarre, Jim's strange claim that without science you cannot prove anything to be true, has not been proven or demonstrated scientifically. We're all making philosophical arguments with one side saying philosophy does not demonstrate anything and only science does.

Well, you certainly label them philosophical arguments. Does that make them so?

We both agree that science can demonstrate some things. Logic can do that too, at least in the abstract. But besides that, you have failed to show how philosophy can demonstrate anything. Is there anything philosophical in what I have said there? Not that I can see. It is only with philosophy that I therefore conclude that only science can demonstrate things in the real world?

Absolutely. The laws of logic for instance.

Sure, in an abstract world. Thinking about it, I would agree with Tassman that Tyson was probably including the laws of logic, as they are part of the science tool box.

Also, in cases of morality, the reason we believe and teach some things are good and some things are evil is because of philosophy.

But no one can agree which philosophy tells us that.

The reality, I suggest, is that we realise some things are good and some things are evil, and then try to construct a philosophy to rationalise that. And people have their own opinion about which is best.

We are convinced that there is a real world outside our minds and we can know it because of philosophy.

On the contrary, I would say we doubt it because of philosophy. The average Joe on the street who knows absolutely nothing about philosophy is sure the world exists. It is only philosophers who agonise over whether it really does or not.

Other areas are debated, but they are held with high certainty in philosophy by various people.

Sure various people hold their own opinions with high confidence, and the opinions of other they reject out of hand. But it is just opinions.

Different opinions about matters of fact. Some opinions are closer than others. Why should I think that facts are not being dealt with? We might as well say that if there are different theories on the origins of life and one person thinks one thing and another another thing, then everything in the field is an opinion.

Except that science has that whole prediction and testing thing going on.

Did you read the link? It's actually arguing my position and if you're talking something that states it explicitly, not much. If you're talking about ideas that would have been caught by the original readers familiar with the thought of Second Temple Judaism, it would be extensive.

Yes, I know the link argues your position. Did you notice how much evidence it offered? Very, very little. that was the point.

Why did Jesus pray to God, if Jesus was the equal of God? Why did Jesus say "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" on the cross, if he was in fact god? In Luke 12:8, Jesus draws a clear distinction between himself and the Holy Spirit; bad-mouthing the Holy Spirit is blasphemy, and so unforgivable, not so for bad-mouthing Jesus.

See, we can both use scripture to argue our position. There is little evidence either way. Arianism was rejected because it was not mainstream, not because of the evidence. Just opinion.

I will start a thread up in apologetics forum on this subject. I am aware you do not post there any more, but realistically you will not be starting a thread here.

Yep. I know about them. That's one reason I debate them regularly.

On the web? Can you point me to a debate where you use scripture to prove unambiguously that Jesus is equal to God?

Once again, why this strange idea that if you have opinions, you're not dealing with matters of fact?

What? I thought that that was your position. Remember this exchange:

AP (post #142): No. Things that are a matter of opinion are matters that do not have a certain truth behind them, such as which ice cream flavor is best. WHat is a matter of fact are things that can be studied even if they can't be studied right now. It was a fact the Earth went around the sun even before we had the means to study it.

Pix: So now we argue semantics.
What do you want to call this thing where I think one thing is true and you think another is true? I know of no better word than opinion, but I am open to suggestions.

I think that they are opinions, even if you are dealing with matters of fact.

Perhaps you could make your own position clear here, AP, as you see rather confused. I know I am confused about it.

Like when philosophy came to a consensus that the logical problem of evil is not a problem for theism or that logical positivism is not a valid approach?

1. You have yet to show philosophy came to a consensus that the logical problem of evil is not a problem for theism. I pointed out that Plantinga was still discussing it as recently as 1999, and since then you have been chasing rabbits.

2. I have already agree that philosophy can show things are wrong. Science, though, can show things are right. Still waiting for that one.

Sure. There are various theories of morality, so we compare them to one another, just like there are various theories on the origin of life.

But they are just opinions (yes, even the theories on the origin of life at this stage).

I would start with the nature of the good and realize that if there is no such thing as something being really good or even perceived as good, life becomes utterly unlivable and impossible. I would then go on to demonstrate that humanity is a good thing and particularly innocent humanity and to end the life of innocent humanity is therefore wrong. This is of course a brief summation.

Is this the consensus among experts in philosophy? Or just your opinion?

Actually it includes that, but is not limited to that. My argument is simply that what Tyson said is not unique to science. It applies to every field. We could talk about truths known through literature, economics, sociology, etc.

Then do so.

No. Still missing it. Anything that is true is true whether you believe it or not. It doesn't matter what field it is or if it can be known or known with certainty or demonstrated or demonstrated with certainty.

I think you are missing what Tyson means then. He is talking about science is a body of knowledge, rather than the laws of nature. That body of knowledge is right, whether you believe it is right or not. Is there another body of knowledge for which you can make that claim?

Of course, it is trivially true that what happened in Jerusalem in ca. 30 AD happened in Jerusalem in ca. 30 AD whatever you believe. I really do not think Tyson was saying otherwise.

I'm not. I'm objecting to inconsistency of saying philosophy cannot show us anything to be true and only using philosophy to do that.

At this point I am happy to use your inability to find a single example of philosophy showing us anything is true.

Indeed, and plenty of atheists are anti-religious and have their conclusion before they start. No one in any field relies totally on rationality as we are not just rational beings.

Sure.

But science, because of the way it is done, is better than the rest. Theories are only adopted if they make bold predictions, and the predictions are shown to be good and repeatable. No other field does that, so no other field offers us the high confidence that it is right.

And the Christians changed their mind because of the evidence. I also am led by evidence. Once again, why this strange idea that science is led by evidence and other fields are not?

Science has the monopoly on a particular type of evidence. It is the prediction and testing evidence that makes science special.

[Sparko]

Yes, i made that claim, and i've been shown, from an absolutist's position at least, to be wrong, but the problem that i have with those of you who have shown me to be wrong is that, because of this inability of science to prove in an abolute sense, they will deny it if it doesn't suit their own unscientific subjective viewpoints. What Tyson said is for all intents and purposes true and, contrary to AP's assertion, it is true only with regards to science. Scientific claims, unlike those of theology or philosophy, isn't true because it is believed, it is true because whether it is believed or not, as a claim, it can be and has been empirically verified to be true.

First, Science is a branch of Philosophy (do you know what a Ph.D stands for???)

Second, like AP said, ALL facts are true whether you believe them or not. That includes philosophy claims and science claims. Science doesn't empirically verify something to be true. Empirical tests only confirm or don't confirm a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an idea. It is basically philosophical in nature. Like saying "fire can burn skin" - the empirical test of sticking your hand in fire will confirm that hypothesis. But it is not the whole truth. Whether the skin burns or not depends on the type of skin, how long the skin is in the fire, if there is a coating on the skin, what type of fire it is and how hot the flames are, etc.

So empirical evidence can only confirm a specific hypothesis or show that hypothesis to be false.

But as AP said, a logical statement, which is also a philosophical statement can be shown to be true or false.

[Apologiaphoenix]

What commitments are you talking about?

I see you qualify it "For my part..." It is, as usual, just opinion.

Once again, why should I think that because someone has an opinion on something, they are not dealing with matters of facts?

Why do you mention naturalism?

Because if we hold to the reality of goodness and love and realities of that sort, then a naturalistic framework will not explain those.

Well, you certainly label them philosophical arguments. Does that make them so?

No more than labeling a view as opinion makes it an opinion and not something dealing with matters of fact.

We both agree that science can demonstrate some things. Logic can do that too, at least in the abstract. But besides that, you have failed to show how philosophy can demonstrate anything. Is there anything philosophical in what I have said there? Not that I can see. It is only with philosophy that I therefore conclude that only science can demonstrate things in the real world?

Except everything here is philosophical. It's in the area of epistemology which is how we know things. Science can demonstrate some things? That's a claim of epistemology that says we can know the real world. Logic can too? That's also an epistemological claim. You say I have failed to show how philosophy can demonstrate anything? I already pointed to the laws of logic and I agree with Cornell that if X is necessarily true, non-X is necessarily false.

I also wonder if the real world includes moral truths for you or not.

Sure, in an abstract world. Thinking about it, I would agree with Tassman that Tyson was probably including the laws of logic, as they are part of the science tool box.

Which means they're part of a presupposed philosophy, so Tyson then doesn't know what science is or doesn't know what philosophy is.

But no one can agree which philosophy tells us that.

Multiple streams can tell us the same truths. How we reach those truths and see them can differ. A Platonist and an Aristotelian could agree on what the good is. They would just disagree on how it exists.

The reality, I suggest, is that we realise some things are good and some things are evil, and then try to construct a philosophy to rationalise that. And people have their own opinion about which is best.

No problem there.

On the contrary, I would say we doubt it because of philosophy. The average Joe on the street who knows absolutely nothing about philosophy is sure the world exists. It is only philosophers who agonise over whether it really does or not.

That all depends on what philosophy you bring to the table. If all that you can know is only that which is demonstrable by science, then you can never know the world exists outside your mind. Science works just fine in Berkeley's world for instance and it could conceivably work fine in the matrix and if you're a solipsist. I think of the story I heard about the Christian Science (I refer to the cult group there) professor who taught chemistry and started by saying "My religion tells me that all this matter is an illusion but it seems to work in amazingly consistent ways and I'm going to tell you about those ways in this class."

Sure various people hold their own opinions with high confidence, and the opinions of other they reject out of hand. But it is just opinions.

Why should I think that? To say it is just opinions assumes that there is no matter of fact and no opinion is closer to the truth than another.

Except that science has that whole prediction and testing thing going on.

Which is simply saying philosophy is not the best because it's not science, but we know several claims about the world without having to do repeated testing. I don't have to do a test to see if love is a good and I doubt at all that that could be overturned. I would find it more believable that an accepted scientific principle would be overturned than that.

Yes, I know the link argues your position. Did you notice how much evidence it offered? Very, very little. that was the point.

That doesn't really surprise me. If someone wants to really see the position, it's best to go to the works of leading scholars more like Bauckham and Hurtado.

Why did Jesus pray to God, if Jesus was the equal of God? Why did Jesus say "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" on the cross, if he was in fact god? In Luke 12:8, Jesus draws a clear distinction between himself and the Holy Spirit; bad-mouthing the Holy Spirit is blasphemy, and so unforgivable, not so for bad-mouthing Jesus.

Oh let's see...

Jesus was also a man distinct from the Father who living life as a perfect human would need to pray. Jesus quoted Psalm 22 before He died showing the death He was dying but also noting the victory that it ended with. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are distinct so what's the problem?

See, we can both use scripture to argue our position. There is little evidence either way. Arianism was rejected because it was not mainstream, not because of the evidence. Just opinion.

I might as well say "Why are there still apes if humans came from apes? See? We can all offer evidence either way. It's all just opinion."

I will start a thread up in apologetics forum on this subject. I am aware you do not post there any more, but realistically you will not be starting a thread here.

Probably not. Just answering here is enough of my time.

On the web? Can you point me to a debate where you use scripture to prove unambiguously that Jesus is equal to God?

Those all existed on the old TWeb so unfortunately, I cannot.

What? I thought that that was your position. Remember this exchange:

AP (post #142): No. Things that are a matter of opinion are matters that do not have a certain truth behind them, such as which ice cream flavor is best. WHat is a matter of fact are things that can be studied even if they can't be studied right now. It was a fact the Earth went around the sun even before we had the means to study it.

And there I was speaking of things that are a matter of opinion. Having disagreements on an issue does not mean it is a matter of opinion. Is there a fact which ice cream flavor is best? As much as I want to say anything with peanut butter, it is not so. Is there a fact as to which philosophical system best explains reality or whether there is a God or not? Yes.
Pix: So now we argue semantics.
What do you want to call this thing where I think one thing is true and you think another is true? I know of no better word than opinion, but I am open to suggestions.

I think that they are opinions, even if you are dealing with matters of fact.

In that case, yes, but some opinions are more informed than others and we hold them with varying degrees of certainty based on the research we've done.

Perhaps you could make your own position clear here, AP, as you see rather confused. I know I am confused about it.

I hope I have. It's understandable.

1. You have yet to show philosophy came to a consensus that the logical problem of evil is not a problem for theism. I pointed out that Plantinga was still discussing it as recently as 1999, and since then you have been chasing rabbits.

The problem of evil is still discussed and Plantinga can still discuss it for those who are not familiar with it, but it is not the same as the logical problem of evil. There are many variations of the problem of evil and no doubt there are still some atheists who think that the logical problem of evil works because they have not read the best in scholarship on the issue. It's the same way that the Christ-myth theory has been completely debunked in academic circles but you still find it being discussed in some popular writings.

2. I have already agree that philosophy can show things are wrong. Science, though, can show things are right. Still waiting for that one.

I point back to what Cornell said and to the laws of logic.

But they are just opinions (yes, even the theories on the origin of life at this stage).

I wouldn't say they are just opinions because saying something is just opinions gives the impression that one idea is just as good as another. Many ideas can have good qualities to them, but they can still be wrong and there is still a matter of fact. (And no, I of course am not going to comment on origin of life theories as theories. Not my area.)

Is this the consensus among experts in philosophy? Or just your opinion?

This is my view. I think most would agree with what has been said, but some few who defend moral relativism or some form of it today would not. Nietzsche most certainly would not and would even call any atheists who want to get at goodness today fools. Get rid of God and you get rid of everything connected with him. He even wanted to get rid of grammar.

Then do so.

To what end? If something is true in literature, it is true whether you believe it or not. The same for economics, sociology, psychology, etc. It's really mind-boggling to see why some people have a hard time seeing Tyson's quote as fallacious or even as an attack on science. It's not.

I think you are missing what Tyson means then. He is talking about science is a body of knowledge, rather than the laws of nature. That body of knowledge is right, whether you believe it is right or not. Is there another body of knowledge for which you can make that claim?

Yes. All of them. If anything is a fact, it is a fact whether you believe it or not. Facts do not depend on our believing them to be so.

Of course, it is trivially true that what happened in Jerusalem in ca. 30 AD happened in Jerusalem in ca. 30 AD whatever you believe. I really do not think Tyson was saying otherwise.

Then your above point is answered. What body of knowledge is like that? You've just shown history is also like that.

At this point I am happy to use your inability to find a single example of philosophy showing us anything is true.

laws of logic again.

Sure.

But science, because of the way it is done, is better than the rest. Theories are only adopted if they make bold predictions, and the predictions are shown to be good and repeatable. No other field does that, so no other field offers us the high confidence that it is right.

That's also because of the subject matter that is being dealt with. One can't take abstract ideas that are just as real and put them in a jar or do testing on them. Does that mean we don't come to truths about those ideas? Not at all.

Science has the monopoly on a particular type of evidence. It is the prediction and testing evidence that makes science special.

I have no problem with that. When it comes to the material world, science has a monopoly, though it does depend on prior philosophy, and that does apply to effects of nature as nature. Science does not have a monopoly on economics, history, literature, etc. though it can help.

[JimL]

First, Science is a branch of Philosophy (do you know what a Ph.D stands for???)

Second, like AP said, ALL facts are true whether you believe them or not. That includes philosophy claims and science claims. Science doesn't empirically verify something to be true. Empirical tests only confirm or don't confirm a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an idea. It is basically philosophical in nature. Like saying "fire can burn skin" - the empirical test of sticking your hand in fire will confirm that hypothesis. But it is not the whole truth. Whether the skin burns or not depends on the type of skin, how long the skin is in the fire, if there is a coating on the skin, what type of fire it is and how hot the flames are, etc.

So empirical evidence can only confirm a specific hypothesis or show that hypothesis to be false.

But as AP said, a logical statement, which is also a philosophical statement can be shown to be true or false.

Yes, and as I said, no kidding. But only science, as you yourself admit above, can confirm whether or not an idea is true whether one believes it to be true or not. One may believe that fire can burn skin, but until it is put to the test you can't know that it burns skin. Only when and if an hypothesis can be tested is it known to be true or false, i.e so long as reality isn't a simulation.

[Tassman]

First, Science is a branch of Philosophy (do you know what a Ph.D stands for???)

Science originated as natural philosophy. But by introducing empirical activity deriving from experiment it developed into a separate discipline in its own right.

Second, like AP said, ALL facts are true whether you believe them or not. That includes philosophy claims and science claims. Science doesn't empirically verify something to be true. Empirical tests only confirm or don't confirm a hypothesis.

Indeed. But science has the methodology to empirically test the claims and establish them as fact beyond reasonable doubt, whereas philosophy does not; it is reason-based.

A hypothesis is an idea. It is basically philosophical in nature. Like saying "fire can burn skin" - the empirical test of sticking your hand in fire will confirm that hypothesis. But it is not the whole truth. Whether the skin burns or not depends on the type of skin, how long the skin is in the fire, if there is a coating on the skin, what type of fire it is and how hot the flames are, etc.

So empirical evidence can only confirm a specific hypothesis or show that hypothesis to be false.

But as AP said, a logical statement, which is also a philosophical statement can be shown to be true or false.

It can show a statement to be a "true or false" logically consistent argument, but no more than this. In a philosophical argument, a true conclusion depends upon a true premise. And philosophy doesn't have the mechanism to arrive at true premises. Its axioms are based on the world-view of the day. Only science has the capacity to test the facts of that world-view and in so doing it can acquire new knowledge which transforms it. The Copernican/Galilean discovery of the heliocentric universe as opposed to the earth-centred universe is an example.

[Tassman]

Because if we hold to the reality of goodness and love and realities of that sort, then a naturalistic framework will not explain those.

Of course a naturalistic framework will explain those; it’s the only thing which can reasonably explain it. What do you think the naturally evolved attributes of nurturing, bonding and mutual reciprocity are all about? These are natural human instincts and are found among ALL the primates and other social animals as well. They are the basis of what we experience as “goodness” and “love” and the precursors of our moral code. We don't need divine revelation to inform us that "torturing babies for fun" is bad. We instinctively know it and are revolted by the very notion of it.

I might as well say "Why are there still apes if humans came from apes? See? We can all offer evidence either way. It's all just opinion."

No, it’s not “just opinion”.

Humans are not descended from any modern species of ape; modern apes and humans are descended from some long-extinct common ancestor pre-dating both. This is “fact” and not in dispute; it's supported by considerable evidence. Science can establish these “facts” philosophy (and Creationists) cannot.

“Evidence of common descent of living things has been discovered by scientists working in a variety of fields over many years. This evidence has demonstrated and verified the occurrence of evolution and provided a wealth of information on the natural processes by which the variety and diversity of life on Earth developed. This evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis, the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent: making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes…”.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I have no problem with that. When it comes to the material world, science has a monopoly, though it does depend on prior philosophy, and that does apply to effects of nature as nature. Science does not have a monopoly on economics, history, literature, etc. though it can help.

Aren't “economics, history, literature, etc.” part of the material world? Do you suggest they are part of a non-material world? What is the substantiated evidence for a “non-material world”?

[Sparko]

Yes, and as I said, no kidding. But only science, as you yourself admit above, can confirm whether or not an idea is true whether one believes it to be true or not. One may believe that fire can burn skin, but until it is put to the test you can't know that it burns skin. Only when and if an hypothesis can be tested is it known to be true or false, i.e so long as reality isn't a simulation.

You changed what I said. I didn't say ONLY SCIENCE can confirm whether an idea is true. I said science can only confirm an idea with empirical evidence. Two completely different things. There are many ways besides science to confirm an idea is true, such as logic, match, philosophy, testimony.

but science can only confirm what you are testing, nothing else. it is a very narrow field. You can't test for something until you have a clear plan and theory that needs testing. And you can't even get to that without philosophy. Science can only test natural things and processes. Without having the idea that fire can burn or that fire is hot, you can't even begin to test it. That idea comes from philosophy. So even science requires philosophy. But philosophy doesn't require science. You can test philosophical ideas using other means.

[Tassman]

You changed what I said. I didn't say ONLY SCIENCE can confirm whether an idea is true. I said science can only confirm an idea with empirical evidence. Two completely different things. There are many ways besides science to confirm an idea is true, such as logic, match, philosophy, testimony.

but science can only confirm what you are testing, nothing else. it is a very narrow field. You can't test for something until you have a clear plan and theory that needs testing. And you can't even get to that without philosophy. Science can only test natural things and processes. Without having the idea that fire can burn or that fire is hot, you can't even begin to test it. That idea comes from philosophy. So even science requires philosophy. But philosophy doesn't require science. You can test philosophical ideas using other means.

Nope! That won’t do it. Logic can only show an argument to be logically consistent, not “true”. Same with maths because we have no absolutely true premises, other than what we define to be true (such as 1+1=2). Philosophy depends upon the established knowledge of the day in order to form its premises and only science can empirically test that knowledge. And, personal testimony can only show what an individual subjectively believes to be true and there are many delusional people around.

[Sparko]

Nope! That won’t do it. Logic can only show an argument to be logically consistent, not “true”. Same with maths because we have no absolutely true premises, other than what we define to be true (such as 1+1=2).

We don't DEFINE math premises. we discover them. And logic and math do PROVE arguments to be true.

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

Here you go Jim

If JimL is human then JimL is not non-human.

Is that a true statement? Or is it just logically consistent?

[Tassman]

We don't DEFINE math premises. we discover them. And logic and math do PROVE arguments to be true.

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

Mathematics is a process of deductive logic. It's useful for establishing the deductive link between scientific hypotheses and empirically tested facts. But mathematics and logic alone cannot "prove" scientific propositions or generate new truths about nature. They are, however, useful scientific tools in ensuring self-consistency and preventing errors of false inference.

Here you go Jim

If JimL is human then JimL is not non-human.

Is that a true statement? Or is it just logically consistent?

Whether or not Jim is a human or not is a deductive argument based upon the premise of what it is to be a human being. But logic, in and of itself, cannot determine what a human being is.

[Sparko]

Mathematics is a process of deductive logic. It's useful for establishing the deductive link between scientific hypotheses and empirically tested facts. But mathematics and logic alone cannot "prove" scientific propositions or generate new truths about nature. They are, however, useful scientific tools in ensuring self-consistency and preventing errors of false inference.



Whether or not Jim is a human or not is a deductive argument based upon the premise of what it is to be a human being. But logic, in and of itself, cannot determine what a human being is.

I never said they could prove scientific propositions alone. Science is just one branch of reasoning, you also have philosophy and math. Each has it's own uses and can be used in the other disciplines as well as stand on it's own. Science is about learning about our physical universe. But it can't tell us about non-physical things like math or reasoning itself. And philosophy can tell us about such things, and about truth, but sometimes science is useful to confirm parts of it. Math tells us about logical calculations and can help us come up with theories and ideas about how various thing work in relation to each other, or it can be totally abstract. Sometimes it overlaps with philosophy and sometimes with science.

But without philosophy you can't even come up with a hypothesis to test with science. You have to use reason and come up with an idea that needs testing before you can test it.

And the argument about whether JimL is human or not has absolutely NO IMPACT on whether "If JimL is human then he is not non-human" is a true statement. It would be true in either case. If I change it to say "If JimL's dog is human, then his dog is not non-human" it is just as true a statement.

It requires no science or empirical evidence to prove, the logic stands alone, unassailed. It is the law of non-contradiction. It is true upon the face of it. Something cannot be "A" and "non-A" at the same time.