Dinesh D'Souza's ridiculous op-ed in USA Today
AcidRain64
yesterday. Another good read.
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Dinesh_D_Souza_s_ridiculous_op_ed_in_USA_Today
- Kyle
Sean Cassidy
talk for the skeptics on epistemology and science, and I think he would
be adept at answering D'Souza's claim:
"... science is based on an assumption that is, at root, faith-based and
theological. That is the assumption that the universe is rational and
follows laws that are discoverable through human reason."
Kelly almost seemed to ignore this claim of D'Souza's.
-
Sean Cassidy
GPG Key: 5770AEBB on subkeys.pgp.net
AcidRain64
Kelly sort of did answer it, and it's my position as well to ask, "why
should we believe otherwise?"
I might argue that "the universe is rational and follows laws that are
discoverable through human reason" is not an assumption at all.
Rather, it is a discovery. Well, not even. It is in fact a given, and
we have simply ascribed words to describe this given. It's not an
assumption, no one "thought it up." Reality is reality, and we have
simply created words to describe what we observe.
Additionally, it is not faith-based because we have no reason to
believe otherwise. We have evidence that the universe behaves the way
we "assume" it does, and have never observed it behaving in any way
contrary. And if we had, our understanding (and thus our description)
of reality/the universe would change. There is nothing "faithful"
about observing something's behavior and expecting it to behave
similarly in the future.
It's sort of like the "how do you know what you perceive is the real
reality" question. The answer is, well, we don't. It's the most
fundamental and basic "assumption" there is. For all we know, we could
be living in the matrix. But the fact of the matter is, we have never
been given reason to think this were so, and we practically can't
know. It is pure speculation and unknowable. Therefore, we should
stick to what we know, which is the reality we observe.
Also, how does one define "rationality"?
- Kyle
Sean Cassidy
assumption, but I think it's trivially found. I think the best way to
approach this is through a logical argument.
Claim: The universe is rational if it can be found that it acts
consistently.
1.) Laws of physics describe our universe in a predicable manner.
2.) These predictions are consistent.
3.) The universe acts consistently.
Therefore: The universe is rational.
Possible objections: maybe quantum mechanics? Certain particles aren't
deterministic but rather probabilistic. I think that this is a
prediction of the laws of physics still, and the prediction that it is
probabilistic is consistent. Or maybe that the claim is wrong? I think
that's what he meant by rational, though. What do you think of this
proof?
-
Sean Cassidy
GPG Key: 5770AEBB on subkeys.pgp.net
rit skeptics
consistent rules, they defeat themselves by trying to use logical
arguments to make that claim.
Sean Cassidy
argument. At least I reached the proper conclusion. :)
-
Sean Cassidy
GPG Key: 5770AEBB on subkeys.pgp.net
AcidRain64
I think. That's what I always try to get at, though I always go off on
some other tangent.. I was going to say "we don't have anything else,
there is no other reality, and all we have is human logic and
reasoning" and that would be me saying what you just did from a long
round-a-bout angle. So well said, sir.
Sean, the formal argument is good. It addresses the specific question
of the universe being rational rather well. Nice.
On Nov 9, 9:35 pm, "rit skeptics" <ritskept...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When people try to argue that the universe doesn't follow logical,
> consistent rules, they defeat themselves by trying to use logical
> arguments to make that claim.
>