Do Not Explosives Forensic Investigators Depend Upon Necessary Connections Being Valid To Produce Answers?
How could this science produce valid results if strict logic and uniformity of nature did not hold? This would include the A cannot be not A, and A is A; the law of non-contradiction and the law of identity. You cannot eat your cake and have it too. You have an obligation to recognize the authority of reason and logic since the computers you are using to answer this question depend upon their veracity. Defend your position and you assume mine.
Lodi let me write this in a way that is understandable to someone who claims to be “much older mentally than physically.”
You have a set of beliefs and on your page you state that you don’t want to talk to someone of differing beliefs because you don’t have time to talk to stupid people. If you disagree with Sowcratees’ point, then you are saying that your beliefs hold no more validity than anyone else’s.
Here is an example with your ideas to help clarify:
Let’s make A = Animals suffer when you kill them for food.
In the above premise “suffer” is our state or condition for which we are making a positive claim.
That means that “not A” (to use Sowcratees’ phraseology) = Animals do not suffer when you kill them for food.
So we have a premise or condition for which we have now negated. It can never be true that ‘A’ is equal to ‘not A.’
It becomes clear using our example that:
Animals suffer when you kill them for food does not (and never can) = Animals do not suffer when you kill them for food.
This is not a linguistical game. This is a problem many people have mainting a logical belief. The law of non-contradiction must be true or language itself and communication for that matter becomes meaningless.
Consider these statements:
1. There is no such thing as Truth.
2. All opinions are equal.
and finally,
3. People of differing beliefs can be stupid.
The first is interesting because it is making a claim that Nothing is True (capitalizations intentional). However, if the statement is to be valid, then the statement itself cannot be true. Thus, it contradicts itself, which immediately shows a problem in thought within that statement . . . which means that statement must be false.
The second is intersting much for same reason that number one is; however, it is nuanced. If what number two states is True, all opinions are equal, then how does one handle someone who states: “My opinion is that not all opinions are equal.” Again we have a contradiction. Clearly the statement that makes a positive claim must be false.
Which brings me to my third point. As you claim in your profile you don’t want to discuss your beliefs with those that believe differently than you because, amongst other reasons, they are stupid. If you do not accept the law of non-contradiction then those who believe other than what you believe cannot be stupid. If you accept that ‘A’ can ever equal ‘not A,’ then you cannot pass any meaningful judgement on the state of others beliefs. If you believe everything is True, then you must also accept that nothing is True (including your own beliefs).
You make the assumption that the conclusions produced by the investigators is meaningful (i.e. that their answers are valid for everyone). That does not give enough weight to the subjectivity of reason. I assume your position because I can admit that I am subjective, and therefore must acknowledge that the fact that we can communicate is nothing more than a subjective agreement that appears objective, but is in reality only consensus. The fact that we both use reason and logic does not make them authoritative, because our consensus is not truly objective, and therefore not truly meaningful. It may be meaningful to you and I, but who are we to say that we are the ultimate authority…that we define meaning? Therefore I have no obligation to recognize anyone’s reason or logic because there is no true objective authority that can be reached through it…only consensus. Again, I only assume your position in that I am in subjective agreement with your reasoning ability and your langauge and the tools we both use to communicate. That does not make either of us valid, nor the investigators conclusions valid, because validity can only be measured by an authority outside of our subjective consensus. It is valid *enough* to be useful to us, but not universally valid as we are not in the transcendant position to make such a claim. Therefore I say quite literally that you accept the uniformity of nature on pure faith. And that faith is shared so it is useful, but hardly authoritative.
What the hell are you talking about? I can’t possibly assume your position; it is way too contrived and contorted. I don’t think you need to worry about logical thinking; you’re safe.
This goes to Hume’s concept of causation. He didn’t have it quite right. If a causal relationship is established from event A to event B, then you have causation. But if such a relationship is not established, then the fact that A occurs prior to B does not imply causation.
All science does… Barring an error of judgement or data, conclusions based on corroborated evidence must be true; any science at any level of development depends on the laws of logic to verify these conclusions. (epistemology)
This ‘obligation’ is not ‘popular’… According to the majority of both philosophers, and the masses, ‘rational’ is a matter of opinion… Axioms are an oxymoron… The ‘good’ is either intrinsic or subjective… The consensus is the final arbiter of all issues, social or physical.
Keep fighting the good fight…