A Hypothetical

[QUOTE="entropyecho"]

It would be irrational for him to think the Earth is flat.

Theokhoth

How come?

The methods you described for him to reach his conclusions are sensory - there is no intellectual or deductive process to reach, "truth" and so it is not rational.

:?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="leonard88"] because not being exposed to the right information would mean that what you think is true is actually true therefore with no one around anything you think is true to only you leonard88

So what is rational is based on what is true?

Then what you meant to say was "it would NOT be irrational."

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="black_tempest"] I guess that could be right, or it could be applied to anything in which a person has been raised to believe something and has never been provided sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.black_tempest

That's good, but it goes beyond a God v. Science debate.

lolquewututalkinboutwillis?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="entropyecho"]

It would be irrational for him to think the Earth is flat.

entropyecho

How come?

The methods you described for him to reach his conclusions are sensory - there is no intellectual or deductive process to reach, "truth" and so it is not rational.

:?

He sees the world around him and makes conclusions about the world based on what he sees. That would be deductive.

Indeed you are. Science inevitably comes up, but we need to get past the bare basics first.

Theokhoth

I've already pinned your argument to science, so we had might as well cut through the crap and get straight to the heart of the matter. You are proposing that science is subjective based upon one's world view. You contradict those people who claim science to be subjective.

As such, your logic is faulty. Science exists irrespective of a being's ability to produce it. The knowledge to build skyscrapers is in this universe's science but we haven't seen saber-toothed tigers or chimpanzees design and build the Empire State Building.

Okay, I would like to rephrase my answer a bit. We know the person does in this instances is make the assumption that they earth is flat. This isn't a bad assumption, it is what would naturally come about. But that doesn't make it true and he hasn't tested that idea within his full potential. Using his ability to reason, he would note that if the earth is flat, then it isn't round. Since he can't directly test to see if the earth is flat, he will test to make sure it's not round. So he does the shadow experiment and will find out that the earth is, in fact, round. bededog

What if he isn't aware of the shadow experiment? Or what if he goes about the shadow experiment wrongly and uses it to conclude that the earth is flat?

[QUOTE="leonard88"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

So what is rational is based on what is true?

Theokhoth

Then what you meant to say was "it would NOT be irrational."

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Indeed you are. Science inevitably comes up, but we need to get past the bare basics first.

tycoonmike

I've already pinned your argument to science, so we had might as well cut through the crap and get straight to the heart of the matter. You are proposing that science is subjective based upon one's world view.

No. Science is objective. I'm talking rationality, not science. Science will come up, but first we need to go through the "crap."

[QUOTE="entropyecho"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

How come?

The methods you described for him to reach his conclusions are sensory - there is no intellectual or deductive process to reach, "truth" and so it is not rational.

:?

He sees the world around him and makes conclusions about the world based on what he sees. That would be deductive.

What if he isn't aware of the shadow experiment? Or what if he goes about the shadow experiment wrongly and uses it to conclude that the earth is flat?

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="entropyecho"]

The methods you described for him to reach his conclusions are sensory - there is no intellectual or deductive process to reach, "truth" and so it is not rational.

:?

jimmyjammer69

He sees the world around him and makes conclusions about the world based on what he sees. That would be deductive.

the two are linked, but this is not inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is assuming something will happen because it's happened before, many times. Example: The sun will rise tomorrow because it rises every day.

Okay, I would like to rephrase my answer a bit. We know the person does in this instances is make the assumption that they earth is flat. This isn't a bad assumption, it is what would naturally come about. But that doesn't make it true and he hasn't tested that idea within his full potential. Using his ability to reason, he would note that if the earth is flat, then it isn't round. Since he can't directly test to see if the earth is flat, he will test to make sure it's not round. So he does the shadow experiment and will find out that the earth is, in fact, round. bededog

But he's isolated on a dessert, how would he ever come up with the shadow experiment? black_tempest

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

What if he isn't aware of the shadow experiment? Or what if he goes about the shadow experiment wrongly and uses it to conclude that the earth is flat?

bededog

Good, good. So based on all of this: would you agree that rationality is not necessarily based on what is true but on whether or not we try to the best of our ability to find out what is true?

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

He sees the world around him and makes conclusions about the world based on what he sees. That would be deductive.

Theokhoth

the two are linked, but this is not inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is assuming something will happen because it's happened before, many times. Example: The sun will rise tomorrow because it rises every day.

No, this is induction:

To show: P(n) is true

How to show:

1. Show P(1) is true

2. Assume P(k) is true

3. Show that P(k+1) is true

Example:

To show: 3^n>2^n for any n in N={1,2,3,...,n,...}

1. P(1): 3^1 = 3 > 2 = 2^1, check

2. P(k): 3^k > 2^k true

3. P(k+1): 3^(k+1) = 3*3^k > 3*2^k (since 3^k>2^k) > 2*2^k (since 3>2) = 2^(k+1), check

Therefore, 3^n > 2^n

Good, good. So based on all of this: would you agree that rationality is not necessarily based on what is true but on whether or not we try to the best of our ability to find out what is true?

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] I'm not great at this stuff, but isn't that inductive reasoning rather than deductive? :?chessmaster1989

the two are linked, but this is not inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is assuming something will happen because it's happened before, many times. Example: The sun will rise tomorrow because it rises every day.

No, this is induction:

To show: P(n) is true

How to show:

1. Show P(1) is true

2. Assume P(k) is true

3. Show that P(k+1) is true

Example:

To show: 3^n>2^n for any n in N={1,2,3,...,n,...}

1. P(1): 3^1 = 3 > 2 = 2^1, check

2. P(k): 3^k > 2^k true

3. P(k+1): 3^(k+1) = 3*3^k > 3*2^k (since 3^k>2^k) > 2*2^k (since 3>2) = 2^(k+1), check

Therefore, 3^n > 2^n

Translate that into English and I'll get back to you. >_>

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

the two are linked, but this is not inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is assuming something will happen because it's happened before, many times. Example: The sun will rise tomorrow because it rises every day.

Theokhoth

No, this is induction:

To show: P(n) is true

How to show:

1. Show P(1) is true

2. Assume P(k) is true

3. Show that P(k+1) is true

Example:

To show: 3^n>2^n for any n in N={1,2,3,...,n,...}

1. P(1): 3^1 = 3 > 2 = 2^1, check

2. P(k): 3^k > 2^k true

3. P(k+1): 3^(k+1) = 3*3^k > 3*2^k (since 3^k>2^k) > 2*2^k (since 3>2) = 2^(k+1), check

Therefore, 3^n > 2^n

Translate that into English and I'll get back to you. >_>

Essentially, you want to prove a mathematical statement, designated P(n) (in my example, you want to prove P(n): 3^n > 2^n). To do so, you first prove P(1) is true. Then, assuming that P(k) is true, you prove that P(k+1) is true. Thus, you have proved that P(n) is true for any natural number n.

:P

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

He sees the world around him and makes conclusions about the world based on what he sees. That would be deductive.

Theokhoth

the two are linked, but this is not inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is assuming something will happen because it's happened before, many times. Example: The sun will rise tomorrow because it rises every day.

Sorry for copy/pasting like this, but my understanding is too hazy on this for me to explain myself. I really thinkthis was a case of inductive rather than deductive logic:

Deduction: In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called 'premises', that are assumed to be true, you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, you can begin by assuming that God exists, and is good, and then determine what would logically follow from such an assumption. You can begin by assuming that if you think, then you must exist, and work from there. In mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions, given that your premises are correct. The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable, they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.

Induction: In the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from those data. In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data. For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data. Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data. For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes. What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data. To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Good, good. So based on all of this: would you agree that rationality is not necessarily based on what is true but on whether or not we try to the best of our ability to find out what is true?

bededog

Goody! Now we can move on to the hard part.

Since we know that the rationality of a given belief is not necessarily rooted in the truth of that belief, we have to figure out whether or not that belief is true. And thus, the system we call logic is born.

Logic breaks off into two general areas: science and philosophy. Each one uses different forms of logic to discern different parts of the truth: science looks for truth of the empirical and philosophy looks for truth of the spiritual (note that when I say "spiritual" I mean nothing empirical, including ethics, religion, ideology, and so on).

So based on this, we have this little tree: Science = logic = rationality; philosophy = logic = rationality.

Now we get into the fun part. Since both science and philosophy address different areas of reality, what do we do when the two conflict with eachother?

(*WARNING, IT'S A TRICK QUESTION*)

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

No, this is induction:

To show: P(n) is true

How to show:

1. Show P(1) is true

2. Assume P(k) is true

3. Show that P(k+1) is true

Example:

To show: 3^n>2^n for any n in N={1,2,3,...,n,...}

1. P(1): 3^1 = 3 > 2 = 2^1, check

2. P(k): 3^k > 2^k true

3. P(k+1): 3^(k+1) = 3*3^k > 3*2^k (since 3^k>2^k) > 2*2^k (since 3>2) = 2^(k+1), check

Therefore, 3^n > 2^n

chessmaster1989

Translate that into English and I'll get back to you. >_>

Essentially, you want to prove a mathematical statement, designated P(n) (in my example, you want to prove P(n): 3^n > 2^n). To do so, you first prove P(1) is true. Then, assuming that P(k) is true, you prove that P(k+1) is true. Thus, you have proved that P(n) is true for any natural number n.

:P

Either you're being a smartass or my ability to translate logic into mathematics has shut down completely. :P

Now we get into the fun part. Since both science and philosophy address different areas of reality, what do we do when the two conflict with eachother?Theokhoth

[QUOTE="entropyecho"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

How come?

Theokhoth

The methods you described for him to reach his conclusions are sensory - there is no intellectual or deductive process to reach, "truth" and so it is not rational.

:?

He sees the world around him and makes conclusions about the world based on what he sees. That would be deductive.

Conclusions based on sensory experiences alone should be doubted - you are not ruling out illusions. A rational pursuit of truth should doubt every belief about reality.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] I'm not great at this stuff, but isn't that inductive reasoning rather than deductive? :?jimmyjammer69

the two are linked, but this is not inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is assuming something will happen because it's happened before, many times. Example: The sun will rise tomorrow because it rises every day.

Sorry for copy/pasting like this, but my understanding is too hazy on this for me to explain myself. I really thinkthis was a case of inductive rather than deductive logic:

Deduction: In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called 'premises', that are assumed to be true, you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, you can begin by assuming that God exists, and is good, and then determine what would logically follow from such an assumption. You can begin by assuming that if you think, then you must exist, and work from there. In mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions, given that your premises are correct. The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable, they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.

Induction: In the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from those data. In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data. For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data. Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data. For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes. What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data. To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.

Like I said, they are linked. On the one hand, it is inductive reasoning; however, inductive reasoning (by your definition) assumes that we know the answer already. In my hypothetical, we don't know the answer. The only way to come up with the answer is by concluding x based on y, which we assume to be true ("The Earth is flat beneath me, so it must be flat everywhere"). Deductive reasoning. Deductive reasononing does not always lead to the right answer.

In addition, your definitions correlate with mine. Read the green.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="entropyecho"]

The methods you described for him to reach his conclusions are sensory - there is no intellectual or deductive process to reach, "truth" and so it is not rational.

:?

entropyecho

He sees the world around him and makes conclusions about the world based on what he sees. That would be deductive.

Conclusions based on sensory experiences alone should be doubted - you are not ruling out illusions. A rational pursuit of truth should doubt every belief about reality.

The problem here is now we can never know what reality is; because evrry conclusion we reach could be part of that illusion.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Now we get into the fun part. Since both science and philosophy address different areas of reality, what do we do when the two conflict with eachother?Locke562

:D I love it when people do that. :D

What should we do?

The only way to come up with the answer is by concluding x based on y, which we assume to be true ("The Earth is flat beneath me, so it must be flat everywhere"). Deductive reasoning. Deductive reasononing does not always lead to the right answer.

In addition, your definitions correlate with mine. Read the green.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="entropyecho"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

He sees the world around him and makes conclusions about the world based on what he sees. That would be deductive.

Theokhoth

Conclusions based on sensory experiences alone should be doubted - you are not ruling out illusions. A rational pursuit of truth should doubt every belief about reality.

The problem here is now we can never know what reality is; because evrry conclusion we reach could be part of that illusion.

Exactly, there is no spoon :P

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]The only way to come up with the answer is by concluding x based on y, which we assume to be true ("The Earth is flat beneath me, so it must be flat everywhere"). Deductive reasoning. Deductive reasononing does not always lead to the right answer.

In addition, your definitions correlate with mine. Read the green.

p2rus

Once again, you assume we know what "everywhere in the world" is. Wouldn't the guy living in the desert think the desert was the whole world, regardless of whether or not he was right?

What you're saying is correct, but only if we previously know the truth of a certain matter. If we don't, then things change.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="entropyecho"]

Conclusions based on sensory experiences alone should be doubted - you are not ruling out illusions. A rational pursuit of truth should doubt every belief about reality.

entropyecho

The problem here is now we can never know what reality is; because evrry conclusion we reach could be part of that illusion.

Exactly, there is no spoon :P

:P Eventually we're going to have to assume that yes, there is a spoon; otherwise we're just wasting time. :P

Goody! Now we can move on to the hard part.

Since we know that the rationality of a given belief is not necessarily rooted in the truth of that belief, we have to figure out whether or not that belief is true. And thus, the system we call logic is born.

Logic breaks off into two general areas: science and philosophy. Each one uses different forms of logic to discern different parts of the truth: science looks for truth of the empirical and philosophy looks for truth of the spiritual (note that when I say "spiritual" I mean nothing empirical, including ethics, religion, ideology, and so on).

So based on this, we have this little tree: Science = logic = rationality; philosophy = logic = rationality.

Now we get into the fun part. Since both science and philosophy address different areas of reality, what do we do when the two conflict with eachother?

(*WARNING, IT'S A TRICK QUESTION*)

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="p2rus"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]The only way to come up with the answer is by concluding x based on y, which we assume to be true ("The Earth is flat beneath me, so it must be flat everywhere"). Deductive reasoning. Deductive reasononing does not always lead to the right answer.

In addition, your definitions correlate with mine. Read the green.

Theokhoth

Once again, you assume we know what "everywhere in the world" is. Wouldn't the guy living in the desert think the desert was the whole world, regardless of whether or not he was right?

What you're saying is correct, but only if we previously know the truth of a certain matter. If we don't, then things change.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

the two are linked, but this is not inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is assuming something will happen because it's happened before, many times. Example: The sun will rise tomorrow because it rises every day.

Theokhoth

Sorry for copy/pasting like this, but my understanding is too hazy on this for me to explain myself. I really thinkthis was a case of inductive rather than deductive logic:

Deduction: In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called 'premises', that are assumed to be true, you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, you can begin by assuming that God exists, and is good, and then determine what would logically follow from such an assumption. You can begin by assuming that if you think, then you must exist, and work from there. In mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions, given that your premises are correct. The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable, they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.

Induction: In the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from those data. In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data. For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data. Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data. For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes. What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data. To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.

Like I said, they are linked. On the one hand, it is inductive reasoning; however, inductive reasoning (by your definition) assumes that we know the answer already. In my hypothetical, we don't know the answer. The only way to come up with the answer is by concluding x based on y, which we assume to be true ("The Earth is flat beneath me, so it must be flat everywhere"). Deductive reasoning. Deductive reasononing does not always lead to the right answer.

In addition, your definitions correlate with mine. Read the green.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Goody! Now we can move on to the hard part.

Since we know that the rationality of a given belief is not necessarily rooted in the truth of that belief, we have to figure out whether or not that belief is true. And thus, the system we call logic is born.

Logic breaks off into two general areas: science and philosophy. Each one uses different forms of logic to discern different parts of the truth: science looks for truth of the empirical and philosophy looks for truth of the spiritual (note that when I say "spiritual" I mean nothing empirical, including ethics, religion, ideology, and so on).

So based on this, we have this little tree: Science = logic = rationality; philosophy = logic = rationality.

Now we get into the fun part. Since both science and philosophy address different areas of reality, what do we do when the two conflict with eachother?

(*WARNING, IT'S A TRICK QUESTION*)

bededog

Nope!

Science and philosophy both address areas of reality. If reality is objective, then both philosophy and science are objective.

Empirical evidence is nice until you realise that we don't even know if the "empirical" exists. Like the other guy pointed out. We have to assume it's real. . . but we can't do that empirically. That leaves us one option.:D

If they both address areas of reality, then they can't contradict eachother. The empirical and the non-empirical should pretty much agree with eachother.

Now, pay attention to this part because it's going to start looking like I'm advocating Social Darwinism. I am NOT saying that if we come to an empirical conclusion about reality that the philosophical conclusion must line up with it (i.e. if we conclude that a certain genetic race is inferior, we should wipe it out). Nor am I saying that if we conclude something to be morally acceptable, there must be empirical data to coincide with it.

I'm saying that what we conclude, empirical or philosophical, must be reasonable.

Now, would you agree that we are sometimes wrong about conclusions regarding empirical data?

I bet hillbillies who got their elementary school diploma (it's an accomplishment) in the deep south think the world is flat, let alone a guy who grows up in a desert with no education. TwiztidJoker

Hm, I live in the South. . .

He probably would have no idea about anything scientific whatsoever. However if he wanted to question if the Earth was fkat or not all he would have to do is look at the horizon and see how it curves.

Well, I need to go to bed! I'll be back tomorrow, assuming people still give a crap about the meaning of the universe. :P

Probably should have done this in the morning.

[QUOTE="bededog"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Goody! Now we can move on to the hard part.

Since we know that the rationality of a given belief is not necessarily rooted in the truth of that belief, we have to figure out whether or not that belief is true. And thus, the system we call logic is born.

Logic breaks off into two general areas: science and philosophy. Each one uses different forms of logic to discern different parts of the truth: science looks for truth of the empirical and philosophy looks for truth of the spiritual (note that when I say "spiritual" I mean nothing empirical, including ethics, religion, ideology, and so on).

So based on this, we have this little tree: Science = logic = rationality; philosophy = logic = rationality.

Now we get into the fun part. Since both science and philosophy address different areas of reality, what do we do when the two conflict with eachother?

(*WARNING, IT'S A TRICK QUESTION*)

Theokhoth

Nope!

Science and philosophy both address areas of reality. If reality is objective, then both philosophy and science are objective.

Empirical evidence is nice until you realise that we don't even know if the "empirical" exists. Like the other guy pointed out. We have to assume it's real. . . but we can't do that empirically. That leaves us one option.:D

If they both address areas of reality, then they can't contradict eachother. The empirical and the non-empirical should pretty much agree with eachother.

Now, pay attention to this part because it's going to start looking like I'm advocating Social Darwinism. I am NOT saying that if we come to an empirical conclusion about reality that the philosophical conclusion must line up with it (i.e. if we conclude that a certain genetic race is inferior, we should wipe it out). Nor am I saying that if we conclude something to be morally acceptable, there must be empirical data to coincide with it.

I'm saying that what we conclude, empirical or philosophical, must be reasonable.

Now, would you agree that we are sometimes wrong about conclusions regarding empirical data?

This is exactly what I imagine this distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning is supposed to highlight. I can assume the existence of the flying spaghetti monster and draw the conclusion that, as he is said to be enormous, he could easily squash me - this would be deductive reasoning, which is apparently dominant in much theology. The theory that the flying spaghetti monster exists, however, is not a reasonable inductive conclusion (i.e. from sense data).

I don't know if you could say that a theory about the FSM addresses any area of reality, but then again, maybe deductive logic isn't necessarily about addressing anything real.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Translate that into English and I'll get back to you. >_>

Theokhoth

Essentially, you want to prove a mathematical statement, designated P(n) (in my example, you want to prove P(n): 3^n > 2^n). To do so, you first prove P(1) is true. Then, assuming that P(k) is true, you prove that P(k+1) is true. Thus, you have proved that P(n) is true for any natural number n.

:P

Either you're being a smartass or my ability to translate logic into mathematics has shut down completely. :P

Okay, to be fair, I am kind of being a smartass. I'm talking about mathematical induction, while you are talking about inductive reasoning :P.

well it makes sense to assume that he would assume the same as anyone who lived in similar situations long ago, that the earth/ground/thing he stood on was flat eccept for a few higher areas, hills/mountains/things that were higher than the flat areas.

It would be considered a theory... just like when people actually thought that.