[Potemkin]

Quantum mechanics does not disprove determinism; in fact, it is entirely compatible with an even more rigorous determinism than the one most scientists subscribe to - 'superdeterminism'.

Superdeterminism

Notice that even scientific research presupposes a certain kind of non-deterministic free will in the experimenter, who must be free to choose which experiment to conduct. Without that freedom to choose, science itself becomes unfalsifiable.

In fact, it's possible that superdeterminism is the only reason why the universe appears to be a self-consistent and orderly place. It just appears that way to us because we have no freedom to choose to observe otherwise.

[Pants-of-dog]

You're right, in a qualified sense. I guess you didn't read where I said I was a Compatibilist-Determinist. People are moved to will what they will, but in their willing, they do so freely, without resistance.

Does it? Remains to be proven. I believe that ''free will'' is a quality that strictly speaking belongs to God alone. What we can have is a certain freedom from external compulsion, but inside, our wills ultimately are drawn to material desires, fears, and pleasures, to love of created things, unless we are moved from within to will and to love the Uncreated. Our intellects follow our wills and rationalize ''reasons'' for wanting this or that, or not wanting this or that, and this gives us the illusion that we ourselves are as gods.

Not so.

And I won't comment on dime store skepticism. As a parent to a child, I frequently use figures of speech to accomodate my children in their relative lack of understanding.

What I care about is that while you are entitled to your opinions, you aren't entitled to your own facts. I remember watching you for years now, and people similar to your style of ''debate'' are such tiresome sophists that it's hardly worth the effort to talk to you, as you don't engage anyone in good faith to begin with.

Carry on, you'll figure it out eventually one way or another. No need to reply, it would be a waste of our time.

There are relatively few facts to discuss in theological discussions. Most of the time, these discussions are about rationalising what people already want to believe.

For example, it is a fact that the Bible comtains many passages where th8nhs are hidden from God. Yet, these passages are ignored when people are rationalising their belief in god’s omniscience.

[Besoeker]

No, I pointed out the fallacies involved in scientific reasoning.

"almost all scientific reasoning is fallacious"
is exactly what you posted. That's incorrect and your weasel words won't change that.

[Pants-of-dog]

If almost all scientific reasoning was fallacious, computers would not work.

And yet here we are.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If almost all scientific reasoning was fallacious, computers would not work.

And yet here we are.

That is not true, operational success does not prove that the methods used to reach that success were logically sound.

People have used fallacious reasoning to stumble across conclusions that were valid.

The Hypothetical-Deductive method is fallacious by definition.

The inferring of causation from correlation is fallacious.

The inferring of resultant outcomes from antecedent observations is fallacious.

and

Inductive reasoning is fallacious.

All of these methods are logically fallacious and these methods are the main methods of science.

Because science is so inherently false, it cannot provide deductive certainty and is extremely limited in what it can actually demonstrate with certainty.

That it is often useful for our own operation success is quite irrelevant to this truth.

"almost all scientific reasoning is fallacious"
is exactly what you posted. That's incorrect and your weasel words won't change that.

Actually, I demonstrated such as correct.

Calling such demonstrations (weasel-words) is merely an admission of your own incompetence to counter those statements.

Furthermore, you have failed to provide evidence that my arguments contain any fallacies.

Please do so, or I shall assume your inability to defend your claims.

Thanks.

[Pants-of-dog]

That is not true, operational success does not prove that the methods used to reach that success were logically sound.

People have used fallacious reasoning to stumble across conclusions that were valid.

The Hypothetical-Deductive method is fallacious by definition.

The inferring of causation from correlation is fallacious.

The inferring of resultant outcomes from antecedent observations is fallacious.

and

Inductive reasoning is fallacious.

All of these methods are logically fallacious and these methods are the main methods of science.

Because science is so inherently false, it cannot provide deductive certainty and is extremely limited in what it can actually demonstrate with certainty.

That it is often useful for our own operation success is quite irrelevant to this truth.

Again, no one is claiming that scientific knowledge is certain. The fact that it cannot provide deductive certainty is irrelevant.

Again, contingent knowledge is not inherently fallacious. It is merely knowledge that can change if and when new information comes about.

And this contingent knowledge can be tested. And if it passes the tests all the time, then we can then use that knowledge to make our world better for us.

[Zamuel]

That is not true, operational success does not prove that the methods used to reach that success were logically sound.

People have used fallacious reasoning to stumble across conclusions that were valid.

The Hypothetical-Deductive method is fallacious by definition.

The inferring of causation from correlation is fallacious.

In short "logically sound" is fallacious to begin with ... you've destroyed your own argument.

"Round and Round and Round in the circle dance."

Zam

[Victoribus Spolia]

Again, no one is claiming that scientific knowledge is certain. The fact that it cannot provide deductive certainty is irrelevant.

It is quite relevant, as that was my argument.

contingent knowledge is not inherently fallacious. It is merely knowledge that can change if and when new information comes about.

It is fallacious if it is not qualified as being contingent and tentative. Thus, the law of gravity is only valid (non-fallacious) if it is stated as a contingent and tenative description of events so-far observed with no logical basis for believing in its guaranteed future constancy other than faith in the order that correlates to its obtaining.

And this contingent knowledge can be tested. And if it passes the tests all the time, then we can then use that knowledge to make our world better for us.

I never denied this claim.

[Victoribus Spolia]

In short "logically sound" is fallacious to begin with ... you've destroyed your own argument.

What fallacy did I commit to destroy my own argument?

Please explain this claim.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is quite relevant, as that was my argument.

It is fallacious if it is not qualified as being contingent and tentative. Thus, the law of gravity is only valid (non-fallacious) if it is stated as a contingent and tenative description of events so-far observed with no logical basis for believing in its guaranteed future constancy other than faith in the order that correlates to its obtaining.

I never denied this claim.

I learnt that scienitific knowledge is contingent in grade 10.

It is one of the very first things you learn, and it is repeated in later science classes and in philosophy classes.

You not knowing this is not an argument and does not make scientific reasoning fallacious.

It is incorrect to claim that all knowledge that is not proven and provable is fallacious.

Finally, it is more than just faith to believe in scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is tested experimentally, and is accepted only after it passes the tests.

[Rancid]

Quantum mechanics does not disprove determinism; in fact, it is entirely compatible with an even more rigorous determinism than the one most scientists subscribe to - 'superdeterminism'.

Superdeterminism

Notice that even scientific research presupposes a certain kind of non-deterministic free will in the experimenter, who must be free to choose which experiment to conduct. Without that freedom to choose, science itself becomes unfalsifiable.

In fact, it's possible that superdeterminism is the only reason why the universe appears to be a self-consistent and orderly place. It just appears that way to us because we have no freedom to choose to observe otherwise.

[One Degree]

:eek:

Don’t google it. It just gets worse.

[One Degree]

The universe you see and the universe I see are not the same. We can not prove if either is correct. This means we must determine the universe, it does not determine us. If it determined us, why would our views differ?

[Rich]

Quantum mechanics does not disprove determinism; in fact, it is entirely compatible with an even more rigorous determinism than the one most scientists subscribe to - 'superdeterminism'.

Superdeterminism

Phew! So God can get back to his well earned slumber? Einstein rightly recognised that Quantum mechanics had created a nightmare universe for God. Like your Sunday morning lie-in being interrupted by a trillion, trillion, trillion postmen.

Notice that even scientific research presupposes a certain kind of non-deterministic free will in the experimenter, who must be free to choose which experiment to conduct. Without that freedom to choose, science itself becomes unfalsifiable.

In fact, it's possible that superdeterminism is the only reason why the universe appears to be a self-consistent and orderly place. It just appears that way to us because we have no freedom to choose to observe otherwise.

No its God that rolls the dice not us. Randomness / predetermination has nothing to with free will. Or as some one else said: "Man can get what he wants, but he can't will what he wills". When I run the programme:

object MyApp extends App { println("Hello World!") }

The computer has complete free will to print what ever it wants. It just chooses to print "Hello World" nearly every time. It has no less free will than when I run the programme:

object MyOtherApp extends App { println(if (scala.util.random.nextInt(2) == 0) "Hello World!" else "Good morning!") }

Apologies if I upset anyone by not leaving the IO to the end of the world. It was not my intension to cause offence to those of the functional programming faith.

[Zamuel]

What fallacy did I commit to destroy my own argument?

You say:

That is not true, operational success does not prove that the methods used to reach that success were logically sound.

Then you say: (I'm going to try and keep this simple)

The inferring of resultant outcomes from antecedent observations is fallacious.

"Est ergo sum." a definitive logical statement. Fallacious? Consider, "If thus" (antecedent observations) "then thus" (resultant outcome) is pure (and sound) logic. You introduce "sound logic" as a determined value and then disqualify it as fallacious.

Zam

[Zamuel]

The universe you see and the universe I see are not the same. We can not prove if either is correct. This means we must determine the universe, it does not determine us. If it determined us, why would our views differ?

Very Logical !

Zam

[Potemkin]

"Est ergo sum." a definitive logical statement. Fallacious? Consider, "If thus" (antecedent observations) "then thus" (resultant outcome) is pure (and sound) logic. You introduce "sound logic" as a determined value and then disqualify it as fallacious.

You should look up the difference between analytic and synthetic propositions, Zam.

[Victoribus Spolia]

It is incorrect to claim that all knowledge that is not proven and provable is fallacious.

If it is claimed as proven and provable, when it is not, then it is indeed fallacious.

"Est ergo sum." a definitive logical statement. Fallacious? Consider, "If thus" (antecedent observations) "then thus" (resultant outcome) is pure (and sound) logic. You introduce "sound logic" as a determined value and then disqualify it as fallacious.

I actually don't understand what you are saying here. "If thus, then thus" as a temporal statement is not pure/sound logic if it is drawing a definite inference from observed correlations (which is my point).

"est ergo sum" is not referring to a inductive inference based on observation, "ergo" is being used to say that the subject (operating as a premise) necessitates the predicate (operating as a conclusion), which has nothing to do with inferring a definite relationship from an observed phenomena.

If I understand what you are saying, you are conflating two separate points.

[Pants-of-dog]

If it is claimed as proven and provable, when it is not, then it is indeed fallacious.

Since science does not claim this, scientific knowledge is not fallacious.

[Besoeker]

If it is claimed as proven and provable, when it is not, then it is indeed fallacious.

It saddens me that there people like you who pontificate about science yet clearly have no clue about it.