Logical Fallacies, Formal and Informal

The Autonomist ^ | March, 2003 | Reginald Firehammer

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the link to the Hubble article.

[A. Pole]

Briefly and in sum: Popper's book is a scandal without extenuating circumstances; in its intellectual attitude it is the typical product of a failed intellectual; spiritually one would have to use expressions like rascally, impertinent, loutish; in terms of technical competence, as a piece in the history of thought, it is dilettantish, and as a result is worthless.

Wow!

[cornelis]

At least Locke seems to know what he's doing!

[biblewonk]

Science is blind and impotent when it comes to proving the supernatural.

[Hank Kerchief]

Science is blind and impotent when it comes to proving the supernatural.

So, what you're saying is, belief in the supernatural is unscientific. And since the supernatural cannot be proved by reason or logic, either, belief in thesupernatural is also irrational and illogical.

I guess I agree with you!

Hank

[biblewonk]

So, what you're saying is, belief in the supernatural is unscientific. And since the supernatural cannot be proved by reason or logic, either, belief in thesupernatural is also irrational and illogical.

No, I'm saying that proving and understanding all that is going on in creation with science only is like trying to see i-red, x-rays, radio waves, and gamma rays with a cheap inport 4 inch refractor telescope.

[Hank Kerchief]

No, I'm saying that proving and understanding all that is going on in creation with science only ...

I see. So what is the better method for proving and understanding all that is going on? If not science, then what method would you use?

Hank

[biblewonk]

I see. So what is the better method for proving and understanding all that is going on? If not science, then what method would you use?

That's kind of a problem isn't it. We live in a natural universe that is paralleled by a spiritual universe which, by definition, is not tangible to the natural universe. You have a spirit but that lowest level of spiritual science can't be proven. So you either have to believe the invisible, IE all that is in the bible, or reject it. There is no immediate consequence on earth for rejecting it but there is later.

[tacticalogic]

Science is blind and impotent when it comes to proving the supernatural.

And dogma is immune to reason.

[biblewonk]

And dogma is immune to reason.

Reason, yeah that's powerful. What would reason say about Adam 1 minute after he was created?

[tacticalogic]

Nothing. Dogma is immune to reason, so applying reason to it is futile - it will not produce coherent results.

[biblewonk]

Nothing. Dogma is immune to reason, so applying reason to it is futile - it will not produce coherent results.

Play on words. Reason is tied to the natural therefore it rephrases what I said in the first place.

[tacticalogic]

I'm agreeing with you. If science, and the logic it is based on cannot prove or disprove the supernatural, then belief in it must be divorced from logic. Dogma is, by definition, immune to reason. You either believe it or you don't, but you cannot test it.

[biblewonk]

You either believe it or you don't, but you cannot test it.

Yes, by definition.

[biblewonk]

Where man screws up is when he thinks he is working with a good set of tools therefore he thinks his conclusions about what he can't prove are valid. When you are limited to the optical part of the spectrum you are missing out a lot of the happenings in the astronomical universe, to analagize.

[newgeezer]

> You either believe it or you don't, but you cannot test it.

Yes, by definition.

Of course, disbelief is a belief unto itself.

I can only imagine what it was like for Paul among the Greeks since they, too, were so knowledgeable.

[tacticalogic]

What is your point? If science is blind and impotent when it comes to proving the supernatural, then the supernatural is non sequitur in a discussion of logical fallacies. The discussion of the application of logic is only valid within the parameters that can be applied.

[biblewonk]

I can only imagine what it was like for Paul among the Greeks since they, too, were so knowledgeable.

He was loathe to discuss or try and persuade them with reason. He said reason makes the Word of no effect. Or something like that.

[biblewonk]

What is your point? If science is blind and impotent when it comes to proving the supernatural, then the supernatural is non sequitur in a discussion of logical fallacies. The discussion of the application of logic is only valid within the parameters that can be applied.

"scientific method" is one of the first things mentioned in the article.

[tacticalogic]

"scientific method" is one of the first things mentioned in the article.

Yes it is. Where is "supernatural" found?