Why I am not a Christian

[Whaleboy]

What do you mean by testable hypothesis?

A hypothesis that can be tested, as opposed to a hypothesis that has been tested in other words a theory. A theory that has been verified true becomes a provisionally true theory.

[Jon Miller]

what do you mean by tested?

Jon Miller

[Whaleboy]

The conclusion of the hypothesis can be tested for soundness against the premises (whether they be conceptual or empirical presumably hinges your argument). The validity of the argument (to make it a theory) involves testing the premises, IOW verification.

[Jon Miller]

ok

so I can think in my head that i makes sense for something to fall faster because it is heavier

therefore I have tested my hypothesis (it is logical) and it becomes a valid theory

you are taking us back to the dark ages man

Jon Miller

[Whaleboy]

so I can think in my head that i makes sense for something to fall faster because it is heavier

therefore I have tested my hypothesis (it is logical) and it becomes a valid theory

No, in your example you can test the hypothesis for soundness which is easy, but it remains a hypothesis, or if you want to be pedantic, a contingent theory. That is not a true theory. To test the theory in order to make it provisionally true, you take a hammer and a feather to the moon (i.e. Commander David Scott, Apollo 15) and drop them. If you did it on Earth in the 1300's and were unaware of atmospheric friction, you could test it in the air and the hammer would fall fastest and then claim that the theory were provisionally true. That is why it is called provisional you accept it until a better argument comes along.

you are taking us back to the dark ages man

Something tells me you were planning to say that irrespective of what I said

[Jon Miller]

so you complete ignore all history than?

and the difference in the success of what I call science, and philosophy? (which you insist on calling science?)

think man, don't just argue against me becuase I am telling you you are wrong

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

what I call science

which are the fields of physics, biology, etc

are all based upon experiment

ask any scientist

if they could just sit and do conceptual exercising in their heads, we would be nowhere

Jon Miller

[Whaleboy]

so you complete ignore all history than?

I'm sorry I don't entirely understand firstly how you can arrive at that conclusion and how the statement is relevant here.

and the difference in the success of what I call science, and philosophy? (which you insist on calling science?)

I have previously said that philosophy is not science, but that they both use logic and can bleed into each other, whereas you have said that logic and science are different and I have argued against that point.

think man, don't just argue against me becuase I am telling you you are wrong

Look I don't want to blow my own trumpet but we've had a good thread so far, one of the best debates I've had on the OT in a long time, and I have been civil, I've been reasonable and I've tried to engage with the opponents argument to the best of my ability, which one can't do by acting like the baby without its bottle, I honestly don't think I am as you charge.

what I call science

which are the fields of physics, biology, etc

are all based upon experiment

ask any scientist

if they could just sit and do conceptual exercising in their heads, we would be nowhere

That to me seems a little empty and opaque. Again you differentiate between the manners of logic... would you say that quantitative logic (mathematics) and qualitative logic (language) are incompatible, and that only one or the other can be used in either field (science and philosophy respectively, even if you were to assume that science is a manner of applied logic)? Again you need to deconstruct the experiment and see what it is about experiment that makes it useful, namely that it allows us to test predictions.

You also seem to have this prejudice against "conceptual exercising" in this context, I'd ask you to perhaps elaborate upon or at least defend it (the prejudice that is).

Also again I'd ask of you to try and keep your responses to one post, otherwise we risk hitting 500 posts prematurely and this thread getting closed.

[Jon Miller]

dude

mathematics isn't even logic

you don't know what logic is

a lot of mathematics is based upon induction, which is not based on logic

physics goes beyond mathematics

Jon Miller
(as far as my words and frustration level, I have been up a long long time, also, oyu seem to be being needlessly obtuse)

[Jon Miller]

Here is a helpful link

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/mathematcs_branchesofmathematics.asp

mathematics /= logic

if you have taken physics classes (which I beleive you have), you would know that physics doesn't always follow the laws of mathematics

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

you basically have a completely different deffinition than everyone else

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empirical%20

Jon Miller

[Whaleboy]

you don't know what logic is

a lot of mathematics is based upon induction, which is not based on logic

I've also taken logic and critical thinking courses, enough to know that inductive logic is, strangely, logic . I think it would help you to read on the distinction between a sound argument and a valid argument, since it covers this quite nicely. I'll also turn your argument on its head and ask "what is not logic?".

oyu seem to be being needlessly obtuse

I'm being as concise as I can be while covering my words such that I don't allow assumptions to creep in, weakening my flank, as it were, to certain semantics which can disrupt proceedings .

physics goes beyond mathematics

How so? (excepting applied mathematics and the ends of the experiment?)

you would know that physics doesn't always follow the laws of mathematics

If you mean uncertainty principle or the use of infinities, you'll know that formerly it is a mathematical principle used under given circumstances and secondly, that infinites are used and derived frequently in mathematics. If you mean that sometimes results do not match the mathematical theory, you know as well as I do about wildcards in experiments .

you basically have a completely different deffinition than everyone else

As a matter of fact, for my first use of the term I always check in the dictionary (the Websters and OED definition is better). I fail to see how my definition of empirical (perhaps you could tell me how you see it?) differs from any standard dictionary definition?

[Jon Miller]

here is the deffinition of emperical

" 1.
1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine."

as you can see, it relies upon there being an experiment

it is what the difference is between science, and mathematics and philosophy

we had philosophy and mathematics since ~1000 BC, we have had what I and everyone else calls science since ~1600 AD

now which has been more successful?

it wasn't until science came along, and required experimental observations, that we began to make the advances as technological acheivements that we did

in the discussion of what mathematics is it points out the difference clearly there also, foundations or logic is one of the branches of mathematics

if you had studied your math (which I have, as I have a degree in math) you would know that some hard mathematicians like to base everything on logic, and some areas (especially analysis) fail it (you are correct that some consider induction to be logic also, however not all hold this view)

and if you have done physics, you would know that all the time you do things that math tells you is wrong, or that you can't do, you do them and because you like the answer you roll with it and publish it

basically it seems like everyone but you says that science is emperical

and it has to be noted that historically, the successes that we attribute to science did not come about until things were done emperically

your statement, which is that it does not need to be emperical, is a backwards movement back to the time before the enlightenment

I haven't even gotten into the weaknesses of logic as far as being the only thing you use is (see Goedel's incompleteness theorem)

Jon Miller
(you appear to not be using the same definition of logic as everyone else also, somehow I am not surprised, you will find that it is easier to discuss things with people, and understand them, if you use the commonly held definitions)

[Jon Miller]

there is a difference

what we call science requires empericism to be what it is

if you lose empericism, you lose everything

Jon Miller

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
No it is not. Science does not deal with things that can not have experiments made about them.

Jon Miller

This paints you into an interesting position. Are you therefore saying that any supposition that arises that cannot be experimented for is, ergo, equally valid scientifically with its gainsaying?

I'm drawn back to our friends, the invisible, undetectable little elves who dance on electrons, making them spin for us. Since we can't disprove the little gnomes exist, is a lack of belief in them just as "unscientific" as a belief in them?

It seems to me that you're special pleading for god. Perhaps this is because you haven't defined god--can we get a definition of it? Unless you don't have a definition for god, in which case the entire discussion is pointless.

In order for a god to be completely untestable, it has to be completely undetectable. For this to be true, said god cannot manifest any observable effect on the natural world. If that's the case, then god is 100% irrelevant. Science decrees that such things are to be tossed out of any explanations, naturally, since if they were a necessary part of an explanation, they would, by definition, be detectable. Ergo, believing in a god as an explanation for something is unscientific, just as surely as believing in the elves is. I have never seen anyone give a cogent explanation as why god is somehow a more logical belief than the elves, just gotten handwaving dismissals of it. Well, no more dismissals! We must deal with the damnable elves!

Now, the lack of belief in god is also the more scientifically reasonable position, since everything we currently know about our universe indicates there is no need for a god. We no longer need god to explain how magnetism works, or how wind and fire work, or how atoms work, etc. God was invoked as an explanation as to how everything came to be just as it was. Through science, such explanations have been rendered old wives tales. This is where the definition of god is important, because mankind has been defining god for thousands of years. And all the definitions have ended up being shown untrue, until it has retreated to god being an unknowable, undetectable, untestable...something that is vaguely responsible for something (though nobody can seem to agree what) and is now not doing much of anything that we can see. I think it's then fairly scientific to believe, based on observation, that any tenet that has been forced into such a rout by the advance of science--to the point of irrelevancy--is probably false.