We've all heard "proof of God is in the (beauty, order, complexity, etc.) all around you". This is a classic example of the (deductive) logical fallacy "Asserting the Cosequent". It goes: If A the B, B, therefore A. In this case it's: If God created the universe, then we will see (order, etc.) We do indeed see order, therefore God created the universe. Obviously nothing about B implies that ONLY A could lead to it.
One of the charges against Galileo was that science commits the fallacy of "Asserting the Consequent", and science does indeed work backward from result (B) to evaluate an hypothesis (A). Can anyone tell me how science avoids the fallacy? (note: I gave a hint in the question) This is in this section because it relates to deciding how reasonable an assertion is.
2006-09-05 08:18:44 · 10 answers · asked by neil s 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I believ in science, so their is a credible answer to this question.
2006-09-05 08:26:57 · update #1
Science offers no "proof' of anything, Christy, but you are on the right track. Best answer so far.
2006-09-05 08:29:31 · update #2
DuckPhup, not bad. Hypothesis and theory are different domains in science, however. Hypothesis becomes falsified or fact, theory is used to organize and explain a large number of facts.
2006-09-05 08:41:37 · update #3
Actually, I think that the 'Argument from Incredulity' provides a better fallacy-fit, pertaining to things like "beauty, order, complexity, etc.". It goes: "I cannot imagine how this might have come to be; therefore, God did it.' This also fits into the 'God of the Gaps' fallacy.
Anyway... science avoids 'Asserting the Consequent' when cooking up a hypothesis by first dicing the idea with Occam's Razor, and then assuring that the hypothesis has both explanatory power and predictive power. A hypothesis' predictive power is then tested, via experiment and/or observation. If it gets past that without being falsified, and survives the requisite peer review processes and duplication of experiments and observations, it may grow up to become a theory.
2006-09-05 08:35:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you are trying to say that if A = B then B must = A. Also if C = B then C must also = A. You have a poor way of expressing a mathematical concept, which is the only true science. The Science of Mathematics. It appears to me that you read too many books without understanding any of them. As a Scientist, I would have to ask you how God entered this picture in the first place, if not merely by assumption. Face it; God is just that, an assumption.
Unproven assumptions do not belong in the world of science. If God created this Universe, Who or what created God. Beings don't spring out of nothing.
Your opening statements amount to nothing more than assumptions.
You want to know how Science avoids a fallacy that does not exist.
Science does not work backwards from results. Results are merely goals in the search for knowledge that have been reached, only to open up new avenues for research and that is called "Progress".
In Truth; who or what created this universe is totally irrelevant. It exists and we exist in it. In truth there is no way that we can prove that it doesn't exist only in our imaginations.
The charge against Galileo was that he went against what the church was founded upon. And if there were more than seven Planets, there were NOT. Seven was a holy number and no church is going to put up with a destruction of it's tenents
You need to pick a different subject if you are atempting to sound intelligent about a fairy story.
2006-09-05 15:58:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Science starts with A and examines and tests B. If B seems to lead to A it is put up for peer scrutiny. Others test B and try to replicate the results. If they are similar then A.•.B is established as a theory which is tested further and if successful becomes a base of knowledge.
Religion simply states that A is true if B is true. It knows full well in advance that B is true and does not test B to find out if B leads to A, they simply position B to favor A based on speculation.
When religion postulates something truth values are assumed, not examined. Science starts with a hypothesis and establishes it's truth value through experimentation and study.
2006-09-05 15:29:37 · answer #3 · answered by ChooseRealityPLEASE 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Science avoids this fallacy because it is able to prove that A has something to do with B. Science finds the links between the 2 factors. Religion merely assumes or 'has faith' that A is linked to B.
I bet this question will go over so many peoples heads. I can't wait to see these answers...
Dragon Heart had a great point:
Logic, religion, and science: which word doesn't belong?
2006-09-05 15:26:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it doesn't,
Theory's Like Yours From Your Mind And To A Lesser Extent, Religion Are The Fallacy's.
HOPE THIS HELPS
2006-09-05 15:21:32 · answer #5 · answered by Spaghetti MY 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
lol im sorry, but when i read this question the first thing i thought was...which word does not belong. *Logic, Religion and Science*, and that would be religion.
2006-09-05 15:21:58 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is the Nile, Alex? I'll take potpourri for $200...
2006-09-05 15:22:23 · answer #7 · answered by bc_munkee 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I find the Socratic method of "teaching" to be a bit condescending, don't you?
2006-09-05 15:21:28 · answer #8 · answered by Open Heart Searchery 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
ok....that was weird and confusing. pray that God can interrpret that to me.
2006-09-05 15:21:43 · answer #9 · answered by J.C. 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
""Logic, religion and science?"" =Yes.
Your VAST KNOWLEDGE is almost overwhelming!
2006-09-05 15:23:06 · answer #10 · answered by whynotaskdon 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋