From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Understanding the basics of logic (was: Logic and God, was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:11:45 GMT

This is long but I like it.

Drew Lawson writes:
>>What I was trying to point out here is a logic trap.  The "evolution"
>>side of this debate takes the approach of:
>>   - We will start with the assumption that there is no God, or that
>>     God is not relevant to the topic at hand.
>>   - We will not allow religious doctrines to guide our thoughts or
>>     provide possible interpretations.
>>After this, they reach a conclusion which they find logicly consistant
>>and branch out from that to the conclusion that their first point (no
>>God) is proven.  That is not logicly sound.

And Lionel Tun adds:
>This reminds me of the excellent argument I saw recently by B Bales:
>If A is -2 then, A * A = 4.
>Aha, A * A = 4.
>Therefore A _is_ -2.
>
>If the theory of evolution is true, then we will find the following
>evidence.
>We found the evidence.
>Therefore the theory of evolution is true.
>
>[other wordings of the same thing omitted]

It seems creationists slowly start to understand the simplest basics of
logic, and some do it with enthusiasm ("excellent argument").  Very good.
That's the first thing one should do before doing science, and it's the first
thing most scientists indeed did.  Though the enthusiasm for extremely simple
logic could diminish a bit as soon as you are used to more complex things.

I'll try to help.
You are right: it is impossible to PROVE the theories of evolution,
gravitation, atomic structure etc.  Proving means deductive logic.  Science
doesn't use deductive logic in this way.  We can never prove our theories
correct, we can only prove them false.

In science, *inductive* logic is used to justify theories.  Like this:

 If the theory of evolution is true, then we will find the following
 evidence.
 We found the evidence.
 Therefore the theory of evolution is *a good theory*.
 (Only a moron would say "Therefore the theory of evolution is true.")

So you once again showed with remarkably astute logic that morons who believe
in evolution are morons.  Of course there are shorter ways to prove that.
I believe you can find them for yourselves if you continue to think about it.

BTW, if there were a theory of creation, we could argue like this:

 If the theory of creation is true, then we will find the following
 evidence.
 We found the evidence.
 Therefore the theory of creation is a good theory.

Up to now, we have only seen things like this:

 If what Fledgeling Creationist A takes to be the theory of creation is
 true, then we will find the following evidence.
 We didn't find the evidence.
 Therefore what Fledgeling Creationist A takes to be the theory of creation
 is wrong.
 So Fledgeling Creationist A changes his theory so that it's not falsifiable
 any more, for example by adding "But God hides the evidence for this,"
 and from that point on it's ceased to be a theory - a theory has to be
 falsifiable - and A is a full-fledged creationist.

**Reason is the measles of creationism - one infection, and you are immune.**

Next time we learn the difference between modus ponens, modus tollens, and
modus barbara.

-- 
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Definition:  Idiot-proof  -  you are idiot-proof when you NEVER flame anybody.