Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 11 of 11

Thread: The Logical Absolutes = The Laws of Thought

  1. #11
    Veteran Member Petros Agapetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    05-22-2023 @ 01:22 AM
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Meta-Ethnicity
    East Caucasian
    Ethnicity
    Armenian
    Country
    Canada
    Region
    Alberta
    Taxonomy
    East Alpine - East Med
    Politics
    Secular Liberal, Progressive Leftist
    Hero
    Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Robert Spencer, Bernie Sanders, Atheism-is-Unstoppable
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    4,074
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,051
    Given: 756

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    — Why a Scientific Theory Cannot be Proven True

    Science makes no proclamations about truth! Science provides us with the best model that fits all the available evidence.
    Evidence for a proposition P is that which makes it evident that P is true, such as a collection of facts positively indicative of and exclusively concordant with only one hypothesis over any other.
    Fact = indisputable points of data, which are objectively verifiable.
    Hypothesis = a testable, demonstrable, falsifiable, and verifiable proposition or explanation.
    Theory = a framework of explanations encompassing scientific models, laws, and hypotheses; or a well-tested and repeatedly confirmed hypothesis.

    The logic of science is based on inductive generalizations of the descriptive laws of nature: knowledge based on probability.

    Deduction deals with knowledge that can be known for certain. If the premises of a valid argument are in fact true, then the conclusion necessarily and inescapably follows.

    On the other hand, inductive arguments can be either strong or weak (strongly or weakly supported by the evidence). A strong inductive argument cannot guarantee the truth of its conclusion, unlike a valid and sound deductive argument, which is truth-preserving.

    Inductive arguments have more information in the conclusion than is available is the premises — knowledge ampliative!
    P1. In the past, the future has always been like the past (nature, thus far, has been uniform).
    C. Therefore, in the future, the future will be like the past (nature will be uniform in the future).

    Notice how this argument cannot guarantee its conclusion (with certainty).
    The logic of science is based on inductive inferences and falsification (falsifiability criterion).

    A scientific statement is one which can (potentially) be falsified!
    “All swans are white” can be falsified if there were a single non-white swan. — therefore, it is a scientific statement.
    No amount of confirmatory evidence in the form of a lots of white swan can guarantee that all swans are indeed white.
    This is why a scientific theory cannot be proven true: it can merely fail to be rejected, and of course, it can be proven false.
    Last edited by Petros Agapetos; 12-27-2019 at 11:27 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What's the most logical religion?
    By Iloko in forum Religion & Spirituality
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 11-24-2021, 07:12 PM
  2. The logical fallacy that led to the modern race problem
    By Supercomputer in forum Race and Society
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-16-2019, 07:57 PM
  3. What is the formal name for this logical fallacy?
    By Bobby Martnen in forum Law & Concepts
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-13-2018, 07:57 AM
  4. Logical Fallacies Explained and Debunked
    By Petros Agapetos in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-12-2016, 05:07 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •