Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004  re: the statement : "There are only two things you can know for certain and neither of them can be proven with the scientific method: You exist That you did not create yourself. " ......is an example of the hazards of relying on ill-defined logical structure.... The premise "There are only two things you can know for certain" sets the standard that it proposes itself as a true statement, which is in contradiction of the two things it holds to be true.....which then means you must accept 3 things to be true, both the assertion itself and that which it asserts. Further, with this very statement you make the assertion that 'certain knowlege' is beyond scientific method. If that is the case, how do we support the notion what we know is 'certain'. This begs the question of 'a priori' truth, and the entire concept of observational evaluation which attenuates any particular insight which launched the statement that one already knows something for certain even without or in spite of evidence to the contrary. What if those 'things you can know for certain' are things which scientic methods 'disprove'? And the rules of logic, which are part and parcel of not only scientific method but the very basis of rhetoric and philosophical discourse, disallows such premises. If the statement were "There on only THREE things you can know for certain" 1) This assertion is true; 2) You exist 3) That you did not create yourself" this would be logically defensible. As it is, this statement represents many of the types of fallacious argument difficult to avoid not only in mainstream science but other matters of human endeavor such as politics, economic theory and sociological concepts. "Pure science" is a strenuous discipline the methodology of which is beyond many of us. regards from the Mud Country, J. Pedersen DC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 Cool! Aristotle ROCKS! >From: " kdp " <chirodoc1@...> > " '' " < >, " Dr. Freeman " ><drmfreeman@...> >Subject: Chiropractic logic >Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 07:23:22 -0800 > >re: the statement : > " There are only two things you can know for certain and neither of them can >be proven with the scientific method: > > > 1.. You exist > 2.. That you did not create yourself. " >.....is an example of the hazards of relying on ill-defined logical >structure.... > >The premise " There are only two things you can know for certain " sets the >standard that it proposes itself as a true statement, which is in >contradiction of the two things it holds to be true.....which then means >you must accept 3 things to be true, both the assertion itself and that >which it asserts. > >Further, with this very statement you make the assertion that 'certain >knowlege' is beyond scientific method. If that is the case, how do we >support the notion what we know is 'certain'. This begs the question of >'a priori' truth, and the entire concept of observational evaluation which >attenuates any particular insight which launched the statement that one >already knows something for certain even without or in spite of evidence to >the contrary. > >What if those 'things you can know for certain' are things which scientic >methods 'disprove'? > >And the rules of logic, which are part and parcel of not only scientific >method but the very basis of rhetoric and philosophical discourse, >disallows such premises. > >If the statement were " There on only THREE things you can know for certain " > >1) This assertion is true; >2) You exist >3) That you did not create yourself " > >this would be logically defensible. As it is, this statement represents >many of the types of fallacious argument difficult to avoid not only in >mainstream science but other matters of human endeavor such as politics, >economic theory and sociological concepts. " Pure science " is a strenuous >discipline the methodology of which is beyond many of us. > >regards from the Mud Country, > >J. Pedersen DC > W. Snell, D.C. 127-G NE 102nd Avenue Portland, OR 97220 Ph. 503-253-0827 Fax 503-253-4760 _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 JP and : AS you well know: existence is not subject to proof -- it is simply knowable. You cannot, by force of logic or science, extend the knowledge of existence. Logic is a wonderful thing much like any diversion with which we fritter away our existences, including another diversion termed scientific investigation. I only present this to briefly refocus our awareness on the big picture, that people may not be missing much in life if they choose to avoid science and logic all together. I think that as a highly trained scientist, I can safely state that I prefer science that is balanced with philosophy and art. I have observed that science, like religion, is many things to many people. Science, like other mental disciplines, are very unlikely to fundamentally change the existence we share; and, while it may make the journey’s experience more interesting to some, there are many who will travel along perfectly well without a drop of it. Willard Bertrand, D.C. Chiropractic logic re: the statement : " There are only two things you can know for certain and neither of them can be proven with the scientific method: 1. You exist 2. That you did not create yourself. " ......is an example of the hazards of relying on ill-defined logical structure.... The premise " There are only two things you can know for certain " sets the standard that it proposes itself as a true statement, which is in contradiction of the two things it holds to be true.....which then means you must accept 3 things to be true, both the assertion itself and that which it asserts. Further, with this very statement you make the assertion that 'certain knowlege' is beyond scientific method. If that is the case, how do we support the notion what we know is 'certain'. This begs the question of 'a priori' truth, and the entire concept of observational evaluation which attenuates any particular insight which launched the statement that one already knows something for certain even without or in spite of evidence to the contrary. What if those 'things you can know for certain' are things which scientic methods 'disprove'? And the rules of logic, which are part and parcel of not only scientific method but the very basis of rhetoric and philosophical discourse, disallows such premises. If the statement were " There on only THREE things you can know for certain " 1) This assertion is true; 2) You exist 3) That you did not create yourself " this would be logically defensible. As it is, this statement represents many of the types of fallacious argument difficult to avoid not only in mainstream science but other matters of human endeavor such as politics, economic theory and sociological concepts. " Pure science " is a strenuous discipline the methodology of which is beyond many of us. regards from the Mud Country, J. Pedersen DC OregonDCs rules: 1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve members will be tolerated. 2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name. 3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward, or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 Two scholars are sitting beside a tranquil pond. "Look how happy the fish are!" says one. The other replies "You are not one of the fish. How can you know that they are happy?" "You are not me," responds the first, "how do you know that I don't?" Thanks for the diversion away from everyday waking ordinarities, gentlemen! Rod , DC Chiropractic logic re: the statement : "There are only two things you can know for certain and neither of them can be proven with the scientific method: 1. You exist 2. That you did not create yourself. " ......is an example of the hazards of relying on ill-defined logical structure.... The premise "There are only two things you can know for certain" sets the standard that it proposes itself as a true statement, which is in contradiction of the two things it holds to be true.....which then means you must accept 3 things to be true, both the assertion itself and that which it asserts. Further, with this very statement you make the assertion that 'certain knowlege' is beyond scientific method. If that is the case, how do we support the notion what we know is 'certain'. This begs the question of 'a priori' truth, and the entire concept of observational evaluation which attenuates any particular insight which launched the statement that one already knows something for certain even without or in spite of evidence to the contrary. What if those 'things you can know for certain' are things which scientic methods 'disprove'? And the rules of logic, which are part and parcel of not only scientific method but the very basis of rhetoric and philosophical discourse, disallows such premises. If the statement were "There on only THREE things you can know for certain" 1) This assertion is true; 2) You exist 3) That you did not create yourself" this would be logically defensible. As it is, this statement represents many of the types of fallacious argument difficult to avoid not only in mainstream science but other matters of human endeavor such as politics, economic theory and sociological concepts. "Pure science" is a strenuous discipline the methodology of which is beyond many of us. regards from the Mud Country, J. Pedersen DC OregonDCs rules:1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve members will be tolerated.2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name.3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward, or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed. OregonDCs rules:1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve members will be tolerated.2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name.3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward, or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.