Basic Logic III: absence of evidence

[ItsDarts]

I think that means Newton's laws were never sufficiently proven in the first place (at least to applying on a "cosmic scale"), not that they were proven and then disproven!

Come on, people. Wouldn't we like it to hold true that if a statement is proven we know it correct? That is the normal and philosophical definition of the word!

This should help explain what scientific (physical Laws) are.....

Physical Laws (Principles)

For example, "physical laws" such as the "law of gravity" (which is in fact more a "force" than a "law"), or "scientific laws" attempt to describe the fundamental nature of the universe itself. Laws of mathematics and logic describe the nature of rational thought and inference (Kant's transcendental idealism was precisely a determination of the a priori laws governing human thought before any interaction whatsoever with experience).

Within most fields of study, and in science in particular, the elevation of some principle of that field to the status of "law" usually takes place after a very long time during which the principle is used and tested and verified; though in some fields of study such laws are simply postulated as a foundation and assumed. Mathematical laws are somewhere in between: they are often arbitrary and unproven in themselves, but they are sometimes judged by how useful they are in making predictions about the real world. However, they ultimately rely on arbitrary axioms.

This leaves room for a law to be falsified.

[RickSp]

Good post Rick, however the other primise, There may be no evidence for the non-existence of god, yet you can not prove he does exist, falls into the same category. Granted, I have no reason to believe something exists if there is no evidence for it and therefore I may not care and again, I have no burden of proof. I can come to a personal conclusion that something doesn't exist until proven true.

If no evidence exists the assertion "but you can't prove it doesn't exist" is a fallacy. The burden of proof remains within the range of the know evidence.

[Zhavric]

So tell me the logic behind stating that something never existed, at any time or any place.

Please provide evidence there's any time/place where conservation of energy doesn't apply.

[Alive]

It is correct, you CENSORED.

The irony here is that you're offering the exact opposite of what you're wanting. You want to know things are correct, but you're demanding we toss out anything that's proven because it may someday be disproven. That's ridiculous.

Stop assuming motive, Zhavric. It's an annoying habit of yours.

1. If something is correct, that means it can never be incorrect, right? Do you agree or disagree?

2. If you agree, that means that something proven to be correct can never be disproven. By definition.

3. If 2, then something that can be disproven as correct can never be proven correct. Because if it did happen to be disproven, then we would know it wasn't correct; which means it never was correct in the first place, meaning it was never proven correct in the first place.

4. If disagree with 2, let's find a term we can agree on such that it means correct not only now but correct forever. Say, "absolutely correct." By the way, people who disagree with 2 are called relativists: a relativist thinks that whether something is correct depends on whether you think it to be correct (or think it proven correct) rather than whether it is correct in an absolute sense.

5. If something is proven "absolutely correct" using the meaning in 4 , it can never be disproven. If it is disproven it means it never was absolutely correct which means it never was proven absolutely correct. Basically point 3 but replace "correct" with "absolutely correct".

6. Nothing that is proven "correct" or "absolutely correct" depending on what path you took above can ever be disproven, and nothing that can ever be disproven can ever be proven "correct" or "absolutely correct."

If you disagree with anything I say here, please tell me precisely what is wrong with it. And give me the number where I get things wrong. No more abstract, unjustified assertions. No more guessing at my motive. My only motive is good logic, and you would get what I'm telling you if you talked to any real logician or even took a basic logic/philosophy class; it's not that complicated.

[Alive]

This should help explain what scientific (physical Laws) are.....


This leaves room for a law to be falsified.

Yes, and no scientist who is also a student of philosophy of science says that scientific laws are proven. Nothing in your link suggests that. Scientific laws cannot be proven! I'm willing to discuss philosophy of science in more detail if you are interested, but the relevent point for our discussion is that scientific laws are very well tested and have not been disproven, and thereby become laws, but no one who knows what they are talking about claims that they are proven. Proven has a meaning, and we should retain that meaning.

[Athena]

Yes, and no scientist who is also a student of philosophy of science says that scientific laws are proven. Nothing in your link suggests that. Scientific laws cannot be proven! I'm willing to discuss philosophy of science in more detail if you are interested, but the relevent point for our discussion is that scientific laws are very well tested and have not been disproven, and thereby become laws, but no one who knows what they are talking about claims that they are proven. Proven has a meaning, and we should retain that meaning.

I just want to add my agreement to the notion that scienfitic laws are not proven beyond a doubt. Engraved above the door of the Hollywood High School science building are the words "Science is Truth". Yet inside this building, students learn of how ideas of truth have changed with new information.

Yet in an arguement the rule still functions-

In general, no inferences can be drawn from a lack of evidence

But this doesn't mean we can't hold that there is a God, because the evidence that there is one, is the universe. God is the X factor of this universe.

On the other hand, I am not aware of solid evidence that a God ever spoke to anyone as the bible claims. The Hebrew claim to be God's chosen people, isn't supported by empirical evidence either. I know of no empirical evidence for believing the story of Adam and Eve should be interpreted literally. So arguing the bible is God's truth, seems to be an argument that lacks verifiable and empirical evidence.

[Zhavric]

If you disagree with anything I say here, please tell me precisely what is wrong with it.

There's no need. Darts smashed your argument here. Also, your argument destroys itself:

I think that means Newton's laws were never sufficiently proven in the first place (at least to applying on a "cosmic scale"), not that they were proven and then disproven!

Come on, people. Wouldn't we like it to hold true that if a statement is proven we know it correct? That is the normal and philosophical definition of the word!

As I pointed out earlier, based on this, you'll never get to step one of your argument. How would you ever know that something is correct?

Your overall argument demonstrates a misunderstanding of what is actually true and our ability to prove what is true. We really can prove things, Alive and (as Darts pointed out) we commonly refine our understanding of what is true.

[Alive]

There's no need. Darts smashed your argument here.

No, he didn't. Read my reply to it. I love how you make yourself out to be this expert in logic, yet you can't even debate me in a logical sense, ever. Every single discussion we have ends with you making blind assertions that I am wrong, and me using logic to show that actually it is you who are wrong.

As I pointed out earlier, based on this, you'll never get to step one of your argument. How would you ever know that something is correct?

So you're saying it is impossible to ever prove something to be absolutely correct?

Your overall argument demonstrates a misunderstanding of what is actually true and our ability to prove what is true. We really can prove things, Alive and (as Darts pointed out) we commonly refine our understanding of what is true.

No, read Darts' link again. It does not mention true ever. Figure out the difference between science and proven truths.

Two can play the link game:

Truth and proof in science.

Truth and proof in science.[/url]
]Scientific theories have various degrees of reliability and one can think of them as being on a scale of certainty. Up near the top end we have our theory of gravitation based on a staggering amount of evidence; down at the bottom we have the theory that the Earth is flat. In the middle we have our theory of the origin of the moons of Uranus. Some scientific theories are nearer the top than others, but none of them ever actually reach it.

http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default

We don't prove theories (and hypotheses) true. We just use the observations to convince ourselves (and others) that we have a good idea. Scientists have a lot of confidence in scientific theories, because they know there is a lot of evidence to back them up.

This is what actual teachers of science are teaching students of science. You should have learned this stuff back in high school under the scientific method. Philosophers have known since at least the 18th century that scientific (inductive) "proof" can never be as reliable as mathematical/logical proof, and we could never know if a scientific theory is actually true.

Read: Problem of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Get the basics right!

[5010]

Right. The certainty of proof is not the cause of a truth but the cause of belief in a truth. Truth and belief in truth have no causative relationship.

For example, a sperm cell entering an egg cell establishes paternity. That is a truth regardless of anyone's belief. If you are a technician who performs IVF, the cause of your belief in the paternity is based on your certainty about the specimen's donor. Your testimony can cause belief in others based on their certainty about your honesty and your certainty about the donor.

[Man of Thoughts]

There are exceptions to the argument from ignorance where we can conclude a thing does not exist if we do not have no [sic] evidence for it.

So what you are asserting is that even though argument to ignorance is a fallacy, there are certain circumstances when it is permissible, particularly in "existential claims" (a sort of claim that asserts the existence of someone or something) in which the burden of proof lies in the one making the assertion. In other words, you are asserting that a claim of the existence of someone or something is false until proven
true. So for instance, if one asserts that the Flying Spaggetti Monster exists, then, unless it is has been proven true, it is false.

However, curious consequences follows if one is to accept your claim that "existential claims are false until proven true." Say for instance there was a Medieval Priest who asserts that there are "beings that are so small you cannot see with the naked eye." Well, if we were living in the Middle Ages, which of course did not have microscopes, the priest couldn't prove his claim and thus it would be false. And yet, we know for a fact that microorganisms do in fact exist. Thus, the "existential claims are false until proven true" will lead us to believe that an unsupported claim that happens to be true is false.

[Fangrim]

Please provide evidence there's any time/place where conservation of energy doesn't apply.

Example: the Earth
It doesn't apply for the supposed "closed" system, the Earth, because it is not, in fact, closed. It gets energy from the sun.
If, however, we did not recognize that the Earth is an open system, we would be unable to apply the law of conservation of energy. Energy would be popping "out of nowhere." If we had no knowledge of the sun at the present time, scientists would be utterly perplexed as to why energy is not being conserved, with it just popping up.
Of course, we know that energy is actually coming from the sun, and thus the law of conservation of energy still holds true, just only for a closed system in its entirety.


This is the point at which you misuse the law of conservation of energy. It only applies to a closed system, for an open system "breaks" the law, with energy coming in, or even going out, creating fluctuations in the energy of that system.

God could very well have created the world in a way that he "opened" the system to another source of energy, perhaps himself. And if God is supposed to have a very, very large amount of energy, he could very well create the world while still abiding by the law of conservation of energy, since energy is just being transferred from God to the universe.
At least, that's one theory, and it's a theory that still abides by this law of conservation that you love so much.

[Fangrim]

Incomplete. Let's go back to the original claim from the link.

1. Person X claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine
2. Person X cannot (or will not) provide evidence that his perpetual motion machine works
3. A working perpetual motion machine would violate the laws of thermodynamics
4. Therefore, Person X is incorrect in his claim.

The laws of thermodynamics are proven. Period. Your claim implies they're unproven.

I cannot for the life of my comprehend why you, Kame, Fonceai and a few others refuse to accept such a basic concept as this. Help me understand it: Why do you need to ignore evidence / treat proven things as though they're not proven?

As near as I can figure, you have a flawed understanding of "proven"... because things may be proven different later, we should treat every claim, no matter how rock solid, as "unknown". That's just silly.

I imply no such thing. I accept that the law of conservation of energy is indeed proven, but obviously only in the realms that it is proven to hold true: namely, closed systems.
I don't ignore evidence, in fact, I take it at greater honesty than you do. You still ignore the fact that the law of conservation only applies to closed systems.

I say no such thing, and imply no such thing as "we should treat every claim...as "unknown."
I simply stand by the obvious: until a claim is proven, it is unproven. If you want to call it unknown, go ahead, but once a claim is proven, it is no longer unknown, and obviously no longer unproven.
Even if theists fail to meet their burden of proof, and fail to prove God exists, atheists would still have to meet their own burden of proof if they wished to prove that God does not exist. If atheists are not content with God's unproven status, they need to provide evidence.