From: Louis Newstrom (louisnews@comcast.net)
Date: Sat Jun 15 2002 - 10:45:43 MDT
From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin@tsoft.com>
> > > I don't know of any rigorous guidelines to suggest to
> > > one that an apparently completely rational argument
> > > may have a hole in it.
> > I do. It's called logic. Specifically, "syllogisms".
> > ...
> The problem is that at best, this is a rigorous procedure only
> in mathematics,
I wish I knew why you keep trying to say that logic somehow only works in a
specific area (like mathematics) and somehow doesn't apply to the real
world. Logic applies to ANY claim. It doesn't matter what the subject
being discuessed is.
> and even then, it's simply not practical for
> obtaining absolute certainty.
Again, I say NO. That's the whole POINT of logic. If you apply the rules
of logic, then YES, you can acheive ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.
> Euclid lived 23 centuries ago ...
> Nobody understood mathematical proof better than he
Perhaps this is why you keep trying to limit "proofs" to the area of
mathematics. When we say "logic", and especially "syllogisms", we are
referring the work of Aristotle, not to Euclid. Aristotle's logic applies
to ANY claim. Euclid proofs only apply to geometry AFAIK.
> But the difficulties in mathematics pale in comparison to the
> difficulties in science. There cannot be a logically or
> mathematically rigorous means to prove Darwin's theory of
> evolution, for example. Anything more complicated than very
> simple algebra and geometry is never demonstrated with
> complete formality (it would simply be impractical in terms
> of effort).
I will concede this example. The theory of evolution was not written as a
formal proof. It was written as "I believe X happens."
On the other hand, the theory of relativity WAS written as a formal proof.
Einstein started with a simple observation (that the speed of light was the
same to all observers) and from that proved (using ONLY mathematics) that
- time slows for switftly moving objects
- length contracts for swiftly moving objects
- the space around matter and energy must be curved
- time and space are interchangable
and even
- the universe must be changing size !
That was an amazing example of a proof. Scientists knew WITH CETAINTY that
it was correct, even though we couldn't measure some of the predictions
until decades later.
> The point of my post was simply that one is entitled to withhold
> judgment for a while when presented with evidence or argument
> that while appearing very persuasive, goes against deeply held
> beliefs. For a while, that is.
With your repeated claims that logic "isn't practicle" and "you can prove 1
= 2", your claim sounded more like "one must withhold judgement because you
can't trust logic".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:48 MST