RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
June 6, 2020 at 9:33 am
(This post was last modified: June 6, 2020 at 9:41 am by The Grand Nudger.)
I think that it's fair to say, in all cases, that we'd have to rewrite enough to call it a new science or new math or new logic of some other x - though we have a habit of keeping the names when we learn things that overturn our previous understanding. It's happened before, we know that it could happen again. That's a big part of supernaturalists gripe about naturalism or materialism. They'll let you have the rocks, but they want the energy, lol.
If we found a precambrian rabbit the unifying theory of biology is false.
If we noticed in reality that every time we threw pebbles into a pile, four from one hand, three from the other, we ended up with a pile of ten pebbles - it would be clear that the system of numbers we use to describe those interactions is false.
Poly had a good example of the limits of propositional logic, there are tons more we could add to the pile that we already know about....and insomuch as any of our statements lean on items that may not accurately describe reality - they would be false.
The contents of logic and math are as descriptive and potentially falsifiable as the contents of any given science, or..at least, they could and should be. This is the contention of pancriticalism. We're being asked to consider the supernatural as an unfalsifiable proposition. This is being compared to the contents of science, math, and logic - and if the comparison is accurate, it's contended that the respective positions would then all be reduced to faith, or belief alike.
This obviously cannot be the case if we're able to point out both positivist and falsificationist justifications for holding a position, and can simply and honestly note the limits of any given inference, system, or observation. The contents of the supernatural remain faith based and different from the contents of science, math, or logic, until such a time as the proponents of the supernatural can do the same. It is by their own insistence alone that the propositions fail to have any merit to pancriticalism.
Just as we can set these examples up for the others, the supernaturalist must provide what they believe would constitute evidence for a thing as a sound proposition, show that this evidence has been observed, and that this evidence is not better attributed to some other thing. They must then do the same with what evidence would disqualify a thing as a sound proposition, show that this evidence has not been observed, or that this evidence is better attributed to some other thing. That's what it would take to turn the supernatural apples into cogent oranges.
If we found a precambrian rabbit the unifying theory of biology is false.
If we noticed in reality that every time we threw pebbles into a pile, four from one hand, three from the other, we ended up with a pile of ten pebbles - it would be clear that the system of numbers we use to describe those interactions is false.
Poly had a good example of the limits of propositional logic, there are tons more we could add to the pile that we already know about....and insomuch as any of our statements lean on items that may not accurately describe reality - they would be false.
The contents of logic and math are as descriptive and potentially falsifiable as the contents of any given science, or..at least, they could and should be. This is the contention of pancriticalism. We're being asked to consider the supernatural as an unfalsifiable proposition. This is being compared to the contents of science, math, and logic - and if the comparison is accurate, it's contended that the respective positions would then all be reduced to faith, or belief alike.
This obviously cannot be the case if we're able to point out both positivist and falsificationist justifications for holding a position, and can simply and honestly note the limits of any given inference, system, or observation. The contents of the supernatural remain faith based and different from the contents of science, math, or logic, until such a time as the proponents of the supernatural can do the same. It is by their own insistence alone that the propositions fail to have any merit to pancriticalism.
Just as we can set these examples up for the others, the supernaturalist must provide what they believe would constitute evidence for a thing as a sound proposition, show that this evidence has been observed, and that this evidence is not better attributed to some other thing. They must then do the same with what evidence would disqualify a thing as a sound proposition, show that this evidence has not been observed, or that this evidence is better attributed to some other thing. That's what it would take to turn the supernatural apples into cogent oranges.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!