C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
"All inductive arguments are formal fallacies."
What do you think of this statement and why?
What do you think of this statement and why?
Inductive Arguements
- Thread starter C. Matthew McMahon
- Start date
- Status
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Is that not inductive argument? Is it not reasoning from particulars to principles? All we are getting is the consequent of the syllogism; but in a syllogism the principle is in the first or second antecedent.
So, then, is this not a fallacious argument by its own standards?
So, then, is this not a fallacious argument by its own standards?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I agree.
Are we talking of Hume's problem of induction or G H Clark's attack on the scientific method? I tend to agree with both.
I hope I am on the right track; I will give it a whirl:
Having observed that all argumetns to unobserved matters of fact depend upon the relation of cause and effect, Hume remarks..."all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past...If there be any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can five rise to no inference or conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any argumetns from experience can prove this resemlbence to the past to the future; since all these arugments are founded on the supposition of that resembleance (iv. ii. 32)."
I would say it is fallacious to an extent, at least for the unbeliever anyway. Am I correct that the assumption is being made that the future will be like the past because it has alwayws been that way? Is this assuming the truth of what we are trying to prove, that the future will be like the past?
On the other hand, I could have just misread the question. You could be referring to Clark on induction which, unfortnately, I do not have on me at the moment.
Are we talking of Hume's problem of induction or G H Clark's attack on the scientific method? I tend to agree with both.
I hope I am on the right track; I will give it a whirl:
Having observed that all argumetns to unobserved matters of fact depend upon the relation of cause and effect, Hume remarks..."all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past...If there be any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can five rise to no inference or conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any argumetns from experience can prove this resemlbence to the past to the future; since all these arugments are founded on the supposition of that resembleance (iv. ii. 32)."
I would say it is fallacious to an extent, at least for the unbeliever anyway. Am I correct that the assumption is being made that the future will be like the past because it has alwayws been that way? Is this assuming the truth of what we are trying to prove, that the future will be like the past?
On the other hand, I could have just misread the question. You could be referring to Clark on induction which, unfortnately, I do not have on me at the moment.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
It seems to me that both inductive and deductive reasoning in and of themselves are fallacious. But when used as reasoning tools to study God's infallible revelation both in Word and nature, they are not fallacious because they are grounded in truth and intended for that purpose of helping us understand all that God has given us. Just a thought...
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I think, Patrick, that you misunderstood my reasoning. I was mocking the idea that deductive reasoning is fallacious. I think it is valid; it's all the stuff that people impose upon it that is fallacious. God's revelation of Himself in His Word and in creation are reliable. So reason of itself is reliable; and reason requires both deduction and induction. It is people who are not reliable.
Don't believe me, though. I am not reliable either.
Don't believe me, though. I am not reliable either.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
The quote was Clark's statement in "Three Types of Religious Philosophy."
For my "Philosophy Class" I basically have to read all of Clark's works that pertain to philosophical ideas (there are 8 for this class - about 2500 pages total).
For my "Philosophy Class" I basically have to read all of Clark's works that pertain to philosophical ideas (there are 8 for this class - about 2500 pages total).
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
This should be an interesting discussion.
How would one deal with this portion of the WCF?
5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture. (1 Tim. 3:15) [i:8cd347a368]And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man"(tm)s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, [b:8cd347a368]are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God[/b:8cd347a368][/i:8cd347a368]: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (1 John. 2:20, John 16:13""14, 1 Cor. 2:10""12, Isa. 59:21)
Also, inductive arguments presuppose order and design. In the Christian worldview we can buttress inductive arguments because we have a Creator who has given us a created order and rules it by providence.
What would life be like if we did not reason inductively? So much for science. One could not even find the Bible that was on the nightstand the night before. Why? Because it came through sense experience that it was there and also that it would be there tomorrow henceforth begging the question of continuity.
There are numerous critiques of Gordon Clark (this is from a quote of his...) but here is a fair and charitable investigation of what he meant when he said:
[quote:8cd347a368]the fact of sin is really irrelevant. Those who stress human depravity in this argument give the impression that Adam before the fall was and the elect in heaven will be able to construct valid arguments, based on sensations, to prove the veracity of God. But the crushing and basic reply to the Montgomery position is [b:8cd347a368]that all inductive arguments are formal fallacies.[/b:8cd347a368] Historical arguments to prove the resurrection and all sensory arguments to prove its significance are as bad as and indeed worse than trying to prove that a triangle contains two right angles with a protractor. The method is impossible, and it is impossible for an innocent Adam as for guilty Barabbas. Sin cannot make a valid argument fallacious, nor can perfect righteousness make a fallacy valid.[/quote:8cd347a368]
http://www.geocities.com/underhoot/hoover.htm
For an opposing view of Clark there is always Van Til. Notice in this quote that he argues for historical apologetics i.e. the uses of evidence! (Of course from a Christian worldview.)
[quote:8cd347a368](d) Implied in the previous points is the fact that I do not artificially separate induction from deduction, or reasoning about the facts of nature from reasoning in a priori analytical fashion about the nature of human-consciousness. I do not artificially abstract or separate them from one another. On the contrary I see induction and analytical reasoning as part of one process of interpretation. I would therefore engage in historical apologetics. (I do not personally do a great deal of this because my colleagues in the other departments of the Seminary in which I teach are doing it better than I could do it.) Every bit of historical investigation, whether it be in the correctly Biblical field, archaeology, or in general history, is bound to confirm the truth of the claims of the Christian position. But I would not talk endlessly about facts and more facts without ever challenging the non-believer"(tm)s philosophy of fact. A really fruitful historical apologetic argues that every fact is and must be such as proves the truth of the Christian theistic position.
Defense of the Faith Abridged Edition Chapter 9[/quote:8cd347a368]
How would one deal with this portion of the WCF?
5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture. (1 Tim. 3:15) [i:8cd347a368]And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man"(tm)s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, [b:8cd347a368]are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God[/b:8cd347a368][/i:8cd347a368]: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (1 John. 2:20, John 16:13""14, 1 Cor. 2:10""12, Isa. 59:21)
Also, inductive arguments presuppose order and design. In the Christian worldview we can buttress inductive arguments because we have a Creator who has given us a created order and rules it by providence.
What would life be like if we did not reason inductively? So much for science. One could not even find the Bible that was on the nightstand the night before. Why? Because it came through sense experience that it was there and also that it would be there tomorrow henceforth begging the question of continuity.
There are numerous critiques of Gordon Clark (this is from a quote of his...) but here is a fair and charitable investigation of what he meant when he said:
[quote:8cd347a368]the fact of sin is really irrelevant. Those who stress human depravity in this argument give the impression that Adam before the fall was and the elect in heaven will be able to construct valid arguments, based on sensations, to prove the veracity of God. But the crushing and basic reply to the Montgomery position is [b:8cd347a368]that all inductive arguments are formal fallacies.[/b:8cd347a368] Historical arguments to prove the resurrection and all sensory arguments to prove its significance are as bad as and indeed worse than trying to prove that a triangle contains two right angles with a protractor. The method is impossible, and it is impossible for an innocent Adam as for guilty Barabbas. Sin cannot make a valid argument fallacious, nor can perfect righteousness make a fallacy valid.[/quote:8cd347a368]
http://www.geocities.com/underhoot/hoover.htm
For an opposing view of Clark there is always Van Til. Notice in this quote that he argues for historical apologetics i.e. the uses of evidence! (Of course from a Christian worldview.)
[quote:8cd347a368](d) Implied in the previous points is the fact that I do not artificially separate induction from deduction, or reasoning about the facts of nature from reasoning in a priori analytical fashion about the nature of human-consciousness. I do not artificially abstract or separate them from one another. On the contrary I see induction and analytical reasoning as part of one process of interpretation. I would therefore engage in historical apologetics. (I do not personally do a great deal of this because my colleagues in the other departments of the Seminary in which I teach are doing it better than I could do it.) Every bit of historical investigation, whether it be in the correctly Biblical field, archaeology, or in general history, is bound to confirm the truth of the claims of the Christian position. But I would not talk endlessly about facts and more facts without ever challenging the non-believer"(tm)s philosophy of fact. A really fruitful historical apologetic argues that every fact is and must be such as proves the truth of the Christian theistic position.
Defense of the Faith Abridged Edition Chapter 9[/quote:8cd347a368]
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:08df172100]Deduction and induction need a proper worldview from within which they function. Outside of the Christian worldview it's not so much that they are fallacious but rather they are meaningless, or, unintelligible.[/quote:08df172100]
The ability of deduction and induction themselves are a part of reason, not the world-view. A world view is judged by deduction and induction, by the action of reason. So the only "world-view" within which reason does function at all is in the creation God made. Anything else is not really reason, but an abuse of reason, because it is an imposition of a weak and faulty world-view upon reason. It is, in fact, deceit, not reason.
The ability of deduction and induction themselves are a part of reason, not the world-view. A world view is judged by deduction and induction, by the action of reason. So the only "world-view" within which reason does function at all is in the creation God made. Anything else is not really reason, but an abuse of reason, because it is an imposition of a weak and faulty world-view upon reason. It is, in fact, deceit, not reason.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:7cdf93c4be="Paul manata"][quote:7cdf93c4be]
The ability of deduction and induction themselves are a part of reason, not the world-view.
[/quote:7cdf93c4be]
Well, that view is according to your worldview
Let's say that you had an eastern worldview. Then "reason" doesn't exist. Now what do you do? Ones worldview is the broader framework within things like "reason" are intelligible.[/quote:7cdf93c4be]
No such world-view exists. When these eastern people are finally honest with themselves they have to admit that reason rises to the top even in their system, to paraphrase Ravi. They say it, but then reason from that.
[quote:7cdf93c4be][quote:7cdf93c4be]
A world view is judged by deduction and induction, by the action of reason.
[/quote:7cdf93c4be]
So the highest authority in your worldview is this? God's word is "judged" by reason, induction, and deduction? Are God's thoughts "judged" by the laws of deduction? Is logic outside of God?[/quote:7cdf93c4be]
I have already said that this kind of reasoning is unacceptable; that it is, in fact, deceit. It certainly does not represent my view. One is reasoning rightly or one is reasoning wrongly. Only right reason can be called reasoning. Logic is movement of thought. And God is not the sort that requires movement for understanding. He already knows. Logic, in this sense, is strictly a creaturely thing. However, THE logic of all things cannot be rooted in anything else but God. It is, in the end, not what my world-view is, but what God's is that counts in making my understanding grow through reason.
[quote:7cdf93c4be][quote:7cdf93c4be]
So the only "world-view" within which reason does function at all is in the creation God made.
[/quote:7cdf93c4be]
O.k., so a proper worldview is needed to make deduction and induction intelligible? That's what I said??? I don't get your post[/quote:7cdf93c4be]
I wasn't disagreeing. I was saying somewhat the same thing as you were.
[quote:7cdf93c4be]John,
define worldview?
Define deduction?
Define induction?
Define reason?[/quote:7cdf93c4be]
World-view: two meanings, as commonly used (I am not using a dictionary)
1. The so-called grid that everyone places overtop of their reasoning, by which they explain the world and its way to themselves. (I don't like the word "grid", but I can't think of a suitable replacement right now. )
2. The grid that everyone must place overtop of even their own world-view, like it or not, in order to function at all. Everyone is keen on denying the existence of this world-view, but it is really the only one that exists. Only in this can all things truly be explained.
Deduction:
Inferring propositionally from a general principle and a particular instance (usually), yielding understanding of a third proposition.
thus: if A, and B, then C
(A is the general principle)
Induction:
Inferring propositionally from a particular instance back to a general principle.
thus: given C; B, therefore A
I already did "reason" above.
These are just off the top of my head. I'll need to sit down and run through these again. But I answered as best I could for now.
I will use the word "world-view", but if it is not pointing to the God-ordained grid, then I equate it with deceit. Even my own. I am in the task of casting out my own grid, or world-view, for it is nothing but the accumulated paradigms of my culture and times. It is sin that clouds my understanding, preferring myself to God. I embrace the truth of Scripture, and want to expunge all worldly vestiges of wisdoms and understandings that stand opposed to that Word, for there is no wisdom or understaning in them. That's my ideal; I still have a long way to go.
The ability of deduction and induction themselves are a part of reason, not the world-view.
[/quote:7cdf93c4be]
Well, that view is according to your worldview
Let's say that you had an eastern worldview. Then "reason" doesn't exist. Now what do you do? Ones worldview is the broader framework within things like "reason" are intelligible.[/quote:7cdf93c4be]
No such world-view exists. When these eastern people are finally honest with themselves they have to admit that reason rises to the top even in their system, to paraphrase Ravi. They say it, but then reason from that.
[quote:7cdf93c4be][quote:7cdf93c4be]
A world view is judged by deduction and induction, by the action of reason.
[/quote:7cdf93c4be]
So the highest authority in your worldview is this? God's word is "judged" by reason, induction, and deduction? Are God's thoughts "judged" by the laws of deduction? Is logic outside of God?[/quote:7cdf93c4be]
I have already said that this kind of reasoning is unacceptable; that it is, in fact, deceit. It certainly does not represent my view. One is reasoning rightly or one is reasoning wrongly. Only right reason can be called reasoning. Logic is movement of thought. And God is not the sort that requires movement for understanding. He already knows. Logic, in this sense, is strictly a creaturely thing. However, THE logic of all things cannot be rooted in anything else but God. It is, in the end, not what my world-view is, but what God's is that counts in making my understanding grow through reason.
[quote:7cdf93c4be][quote:7cdf93c4be]
So the only "world-view" within which reason does function at all is in the creation God made.
[/quote:7cdf93c4be]
O.k., so a proper worldview is needed to make deduction and induction intelligible? That's what I said??? I don't get your post[/quote:7cdf93c4be]
I wasn't disagreeing. I was saying somewhat the same thing as you were.
[quote:7cdf93c4be]John,
define worldview?
Define deduction?
Define induction?
Define reason?[/quote:7cdf93c4be]
World-view: two meanings, as commonly used (I am not using a dictionary)
1. The so-called grid that everyone places overtop of their reasoning, by which they explain the world and its way to themselves. (I don't like the word "grid", but I can't think of a suitable replacement right now. )
2. The grid that everyone must place overtop of even their own world-view, like it or not, in order to function at all. Everyone is keen on denying the existence of this world-view, but it is really the only one that exists. Only in this can all things truly be explained.
Deduction:
Inferring propositionally from a general principle and a particular instance (usually), yielding understanding of a third proposition.
thus: if A, and B, then C
(A is the general principle)
Induction:
Inferring propositionally from a particular instance back to a general principle.
thus: given C; B, therefore A
I already did "reason" above.
These are just off the top of my head. I'll need to sit down and run through these again. But I answered as best I could for now.
I will use the word "world-view", but if it is not pointing to the God-ordained grid, then I equate it with deceit. Even my own. I am in the task of casting out my own grid, or world-view, for it is nothing but the accumulated paradigms of my culture and times. It is sin that clouds my understanding, preferring myself to God. I embrace the truth of Scripture, and want to expunge all worldly vestiges of wisdoms and understandings that stand opposed to that Word, for there is no wisdom or understaning in them. That's my ideal; I still have a long way to go.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Paul:
Did I say something wrong? Is this the way that you respond to a brother?
Is it such an evil to disagree with Presupositionalism, that this kind of answer is acceptable?
If reason does not exist, then how could a zen Buhdist come up with the notion that reason does not exist? This is not a world-view, it is a contradiction and just plain anti-philosophy.
"Logic is a movement of thought", not only a direct quote from Mortimer Adler in his essay on reason, but also, again simply a direct observation. "If A, and B, then C" is a movement of thought, something that God, being the source of all truth does not need to do.
And yes, Christ does indeed say that there are two world-views, one that is for Him and one that is against Him. My point exactly.
Please excuse the digression:
[quote:eeba716056]In another post you said that you know about presuppositionalism. So, can you give me our definition of those words? [/quote:eeba716056]
How can they be yours exclusively? Do you think that I am a presuppositionalist? If you did you would not have answered me as you did, without proper thought for what I said. Could it be, Paul, that I am not the evidentialist that you think I am? Could it be possible that this be true for other evidentialists? We, as evidentialists do not have to "win" for evidentialism. That entirely misses the point of what we hold to.
Go ahead an prove to me that Presuppositionalism is the only Biblical approach to apologetics. Prove it so that it is indubitably assured. That only makes me a better evidentialist, because it is one more proof. Because when it is all said and done, the facts still declare God's glory, and the arguements still either add up to truth or they do not. All you can do is show that Presuppositionalism is another arm of evidentialism.
I don't know what I am talking about? I am not an evidentialist then? Am I out of sync with most of modern evidentialism? Yes, I am out of sync with much of modern evidentialism. I seek to right it, and to correct the mistaken notions, to place it back into line with the evidences instead of the modern philosophical theories. Mostly, I wish to show that there is no excuse for any man that he claims he does not know God, or that the denies that God exists. There are no facts to appeal to for such claims. I am not afraid of those who add up the facts to show that some other theory is more in line with reason than the Christian faith, because I know that the facts cannot add up to that.
And maybe I don't know what I am talking about. I will admit that I could wish to know much more than I do. But I am not stupid either. Nor am I confused. I don't fit in with the modern way of thought, perhaps, but I don't wish to either. I have seen it, and I don't accept it. Is my view Presuppositional? Yes it is. Is it evidential? Yes it is. Is it Classical? Yes it is. Is this confused? I don't believe it is. Not for a moment. It makes more sense every time. Why does it have to be exclusive camps? Does not the Presuppositionalist want to go back to evidentialism, the right way? So what is the problem?
Digression over.
Back to the question: [quote:eeba716056]"All inductive arguments are formal fallacies." [/quote:eeba716056]
I think, Matt, that we need a context for this. As a statement on its own it has some merit, because, working from particulars to principles, induction needs to assume all knowledge. It is a jump in faith, so to speak, to say that if such and such happens every time we try it, that it is going to happen all the time as a rule. It may be a right observation, but it assumes more than the logic of the case. One might say that it is an extrapolation of logic. Strictly, it is not confined to the logical necessity. But yet, it is not out of our purview to extrapolate on logic as we do on theories. As long as we remember that it is an extrapolation. It may be a truth or it may not; logic alone may not give us the answer to that. But we are given the ability to see, even if beyond logic, that general principles are true.
I think of the example of gravity. We only ever see it after the fact. We have the general principle that if you hold a book at waist height, and let it go, it will fall. Based on repeated observation, it is a rule. But, it does not take ito account every future occurrance of it, only past occurrances. So the "for every" cannot apply, since we do not know every case. Yet we exptrapolate from the past that every future occurrance would be the same. I don't think it is mistaken.
That is an induction. Is it fallacious? Yes, in the sense of strict logic. Is it fallacious, in that it leads us wrongly? No, it does not. Even if some were to levitate an object, our sense asks, "How did he do that?" without being in error.
I'm not a philosophy major, and I am keen on keeping things in the ordinary language. This is just a shot at it, just to provoke thought.
Did I say something wrong? Is this the way that you respond to a brother?
Is it such an evil to disagree with Presupositionalism, that this kind of answer is acceptable?
If reason does not exist, then how could a zen Buhdist come up with the notion that reason does not exist? This is not a world-view, it is a contradiction and just plain anti-philosophy.
"Logic is a movement of thought", not only a direct quote from Mortimer Adler in his essay on reason, but also, again simply a direct observation. "If A, and B, then C" is a movement of thought, something that God, being the source of all truth does not need to do.
And yes, Christ does indeed say that there are two world-views, one that is for Him and one that is against Him. My point exactly.
Please excuse the digression:
[quote:eeba716056]In another post you said that you know about presuppositionalism. So, can you give me our definition of those words? [/quote:eeba716056]
How can they be yours exclusively? Do you think that I am a presuppositionalist? If you did you would not have answered me as you did, without proper thought for what I said. Could it be, Paul, that I am not the evidentialist that you think I am? Could it be possible that this be true for other evidentialists? We, as evidentialists do not have to "win" for evidentialism. That entirely misses the point of what we hold to.
Go ahead an prove to me that Presuppositionalism is the only Biblical approach to apologetics. Prove it so that it is indubitably assured. That only makes me a better evidentialist, because it is one more proof. Because when it is all said and done, the facts still declare God's glory, and the arguements still either add up to truth or they do not. All you can do is show that Presuppositionalism is another arm of evidentialism.
I don't know what I am talking about? I am not an evidentialist then? Am I out of sync with most of modern evidentialism? Yes, I am out of sync with much of modern evidentialism. I seek to right it, and to correct the mistaken notions, to place it back into line with the evidences instead of the modern philosophical theories. Mostly, I wish to show that there is no excuse for any man that he claims he does not know God, or that the denies that God exists. There are no facts to appeal to for such claims. I am not afraid of those who add up the facts to show that some other theory is more in line with reason than the Christian faith, because I know that the facts cannot add up to that.
And maybe I don't know what I am talking about. I will admit that I could wish to know much more than I do. But I am not stupid either. Nor am I confused. I don't fit in with the modern way of thought, perhaps, but I don't wish to either. I have seen it, and I don't accept it. Is my view Presuppositional? Yes it is. Is it evidential? Yes it is. Is it Classical? Yes it is. Is this confused? I don't believe it is. Not for a moment. It makes more sense every time. Why does it have to be exclusive camps? Does not the Presuppositionalist want to go back to evidentialism, the right way? So what is the problem?
Digression over.
Back to the question: [quote:eeba716056]"All inductive arguments are formal fallacies." [/quote:eeba716056]
I think, Matt, that we need a context for this. As a statement on its own it has some merit, because, working from particulars to principles, induction needs to assume all knowledge. It is a jump in faith, so to speak, to say that if such and such happens every time we try it, that it is going to happen all the time as a rule. It may be a right observation, but it assumes more than the logic of the case. One might say that it is an extrapolation of logic. Strictly, it is not confined to the logical necessity. But yet, it is not out of our purview to extrapolate on logic as we do on theories. As long as we remember that it is an extrapolation. It may be a truth or it may not; logic alone may not give us the answer to that. But we are given the ability to see, even if beyond logic, that general principles are true.
I think of the example of gravity. We only ever see it after the fact. We have the general principle that if you hold a book at waist height, and let it go, it will fall. Based on repeated observation, it is a rule. But, it does not take ito account every future occurrance of it, only past occurrances. So the "for every" cannot apply, since we do not know every case. Yet we exptrapolate from the past that every future occurrance would be the same. I don't think it is mistaken.
That is an induction. Is it fallacious? Yes, in the sense of strict logic. Is it fallacious, in that it leads us wrongly? No, it does not. Even if some were to levitate an object, our sense asks, "How did he do that?" without being in error.
I'm not a philosophy major, and I am keen on keeping things in the ordinary language. This is just a shot at it, just to provoke thought.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
I disagree with presuppositionalism.
[quote:37258865fd]I'd be interested to here the rest of what you have to say but I'd say that the universal word "ALL" is going to get whoever into trouble. How would this be supported? Have they studied ALL of them? [/quote:37258865fd]
Exactly.
[quote:37258865fd]I'd be interested to here the rest of what you have to say but I'd say that the universal word "ALL" is going to get whoever into trouble. How would this be supported? Have they studied ALL of them? [/quote:37258865fd]
Exactly.
FrozenChosen
Puritan Board Freshman
A question I'd have for a presuppositionalist (although I suppose I lean towards that side) would have to deal with other worldviews.
Just because there is an absence of worldviews accounting for certain items of philosophical importance, well, does that necessarily make Christianity correct?
Because Christianity does answer those questions, how does that make Christianity correct? Could an individual not design and alternate worldview?
Just because there is an absence of worldviews accounting for certain items of philosophical importance, well, does that necessarily make Christianity correct?
Because Christianity does answer those questions, how does that make Christianity correct? Could an individual not design and alternate worldview?
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:4a0b2f25d5="webmaster"]I disagree with presuppositionalism.
[quote:4a0b2f25d5]I'd be interested to here the rest of what you have to say but I'd say that the universal word "ALL" is going to get whoever into trouble. How would this be supported? Have they studied ALL of them? [/quote:4a0b2f25d5]
Exactly.[/quote:4a0b2f25d5]
You're a man of economy, Matt. Not too many words, but the message comes out the same.
[quote:4a0b2f25d5]I'd be interested to here the rest of what you have to say but I'd say that the universal word "ALL" is going to get whoever into trouble. How would this be supported? Have they studied ALL of them? [/quote:4a0b2f25d5]
Exactly.[/quote:4a0b2f25d5]
You're a man of economy, Matt. Not too many words, but the message comes out the same.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I was thinking that induction is not fallacious in science either. Science would be nowhere without induction. It is not induction itself that is fallacious, but rather the science that is fallacious in some cases.
For example, in the case stated in a previous post, in which if evolution occurred, then one would find in the fossils some intermediate states; intermediate states are found in the fossils, so evolution occurred. It is the science that is out, here, not induction. Science glibly skips over what it does not want to take into consideration, and so reneges on its own mandate. But the form and use of induction is still intact.
For example, in the case stated in a previous post, in which if evolution occurred, then one would find in the fossils some intermediate states; intermediate states are found in the fossils, so evolution occurred. It is the science that is out, here, not induction. Science glibly skips over what it does not want to take into consideration, and so reneges on its own mandate. But the form and use of induction is still intact.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:d549a32d54="FrozenChosen"]A question I'd have for a presuppositionalist (although I suppose I lean towards that side) would have to deal with other worldviews.
Just because there is an absence of worldviews accounting for certain items of philosophical importance, well, does that necessarily make Christianity correct?
Because Christianity does answer those questions, how does that make Christianity correct? Could an individual not design and alternate worldview?[/quote:d549a32d54]
Well Bahnsen's response to the other possible worldviews question, was to say that there are only two worldviews: Christian one and the unbelieving one, that says that the Christian God is not the necessary precondition for experience. The various unbelieving worldviews are just variations on the same theme. Therefore when one is defeated, they all fall due to their core being defeated.
Through my own thoughts, it seems to be impossible to legitimately ask the question "is it possible that another worldview exists that is also the precondition for intelligibility. For when we analyse the situation looking through the worldview perspective: Looking at this situation through the Christian worldview, the possibility that another coherent worldview exists, is 0. The only place where it is not zero, is in a worldview that we have already defeated (namely atheism). Since that worldview has been defeated, it is illegit to make claims or asks questions based on the defeated worldview. Therefore unless a worldview that is also the precondition for intelligibility is found, the question of possibility cannot be asked.
CT
Just because there is an absence of worldviews accounting for certain items of philosophical importance, well, does that necessarily make Christianity correct?
Because Christianity does answer those questions, how does that make Christianity correct? Could an individual not design and alternate worldview?[/quote:d549a32d54]
Well Bahnsen's response to the other possible worldviews question, was to say that there are only two worldviews: Christian one and the unbelieving one, that says that the Christian God is not the necessary precondition for experience. The various unbelieving worldviews are just variations on the same theme. Therefore when one is defeated, they all fall due to their core being defeated.
Through my own thoughts, it seems to be impossible to legitimately ask the question "is it possible that another worldview exists that is also the precondition for intelligibility. For when we analyse the situation looking through the worldview perspective: Looking at this situation through the Christian worldview, the possibility that another coherent worldview exists, is 0. The only place where it is not zero, is in a worldview that we have already defeated (namely atheism). Since that worldview has been defeated, it is illegit to make claims or asks questions based on the defeated worldview. Therefore unless a worldview that is also the precondition for intelligibility is found, the question of possibility cannot be asked.
CT
FrozenChosen
Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks for the help CT, that makes much sense.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I was hoping that someone would point out that this statement:
[quote:381ea18fa6]if evolution occurred, then one would find in the fossils some intermediate states; intermediate states are found in the fossils, so evolution occurred.[/quote:381ea18fa6]is a logical fallacy. Therefore it is not the induction that is at fault, but the deduction in this syllogism. This is the fallacy of Converting the Conditional: if A, then B; B, therefore A.
But, if Newton had not the freedom of induction, then anything beyond, "Hey, that hurt!" would have been unscientific.uzzled:
Hermonta:
[quote:381ea18fa6]Looking at this situation through the Christian worldview, the possibility that another coherent worldview exists, is 0. The only place where it is not zero, is in a worldview that we have already defeated (namely atheism). [/quote:381ea18fa6]
Why is it that the atheist world-view has a possibility of cherence that is not zero?
[quote:381ea18fa6]if evolution occurred, then one would find in the fossils some intermediate states; intermediate states are found in the fossils, so evolution occurred.[/quote:381ea18fa6]is a logical fallacy. Therefore it is not the induction that is at fault, but the deduction in this syllogism. This is the fallacy of Converting the Conditional: if A, then B; B, therefore A.
But, if Newton had not the freedom of induction, then anything beyond, "Hey, that hurt!" would have been unscientific.
uzzled: Hermonta:
[quote:381ea18fa6]Looking at this situation through the Christian worldview, the possibility that another coherent worldview exists, is 0. The only place where it is not zero, is in a worldview that we have already defeated (namely atheism). [/quote:381ea18fa6]
Why is it that the atheist world-view has a possibility of cherence that is not zero?
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:b49010cc0f="JohnV"]
Hermonta:
[quote:b49010cc0f]Looking at this situation through the Christian worldview, the possibility that another coherent worldview exists, is 0. The only place where it is not zero, is in a worldview that we have already defeated (namely atheism). [/quote:b49010cc0f]
Why is it that the atheist world-view has a possibility of cherence that is not zero?[/quote:b49010cc0f]
It does not. It has a possibility of coherence of 0. However someone who holds to atheism can say that in their worldview, it is possible for another worldview to exist that is also the precondition of intelligibility. However the claim only has teeth within an atheistic worldview. Since the worldview has been shown to be wrong, an claim that needs an atheistic worldview is invalidated.
CT
Hermonta:
[quote:b49010cc0f]Looking at this situation through the Christian worldview, the possibility that another coherent worldview exists, is 0. The only place where it is not zero, is in a worldview that we have already defeated (namely atheism). [/quote:b49010cc0f]
Why is it that the atheist world-view has a possibility of cherence that is not zero?[/quote:b49010cc0f]
It does not. It has a possibility of coherence of 0. However someone who holds to atheism can say that in their worldview, it is possible for another worldview to exist that is also the precondition of intelligibility. However the claim only has teeth within an atheistic worldview. Since the worldview has been shown to be wrong, an claim that needs an atheistic worldview is invalidated.
CT
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:607915d312]It does not. It has a possibility of coherence of 0. However someone who holds to atheism can say that in their worldview, it is possible for another worldview to exist that is also the precondition of intelligibility. However the claim only has teeth within an atheistic worldview. Since the worldview has been shown to be wrong, an claim that needs an atheistic worldview is invalidated. [/quote:607915d312]
But does it have coherence, or credibility, even from within its own view? Does it even have teeth on its own standards?
As I see it, the pretense that it has teeth stems not from the consistency of its world-view, which it does not have anyways, but from the obstinacy of heart.
I built kitchen cupboards. I built really nice ones. If someone were to claim that one of the kitchens was actually built by him, and he were to come up with twenty-five witnesses to that effect, and even get the town clerk to fudge the records to show him as the supplier of cupboards, that would not change one single thing. I could still easily prove that I had infact built them, for my stamp is on everyone of them, and only I know where that is for every kitchen that I made. But now there are a lot of people that have to answer for their testimony.
The truth is that the "facts" were not facts at all, but deceivings. Nothing whatsoever could alter the real facts, and nothing can possibly be done to prove that I did not build them. For, you see, I did build them. All the "proofs" to the contrary are not proofs, but deceivings.
In the same way, God created this world. It is not in the first place just a reference point: it is a fact. From an evidentialist's point of view, anything at all that comes up with another possibility is just deceit. We already know before the debate what the answer has to be. And it is not logically wrong to do that. For the Presuppers themselves say that God is a precondition for knowing; so they, of all people, should have the least objection to this stand. But it is also the Word that puts God before all things, even in our understanding. But we know with certainty that the facts add up to only one thing, and can only add up to one thing.
Any other world-view that does not recognize God, or that Christ is sent by the Father, is a mere deceit even to itself. It can not possibly stand on facts.
Therefore internal coherence is an impossibility for any other world-view.
This is the evidentialist's answer.
But does it have coherence, or credibility, even from within its own view? Does it even have teeth on its own standards?
As I see it, the pretense that it has teeth stems not from the consistency of its world-view, which it does not have anyways, but from the obstinacy of heart.
I built kitchen cupboards. I built really nice ones. If someone were to claim that one of the kitchens was actually built by him, and he were to come up with twenty-five witnesses to that effect, and even get the town clerk to fudge the records to show him as the supplier of cupboards, that would not change one single thing. I could still easily prove that I had infact built them, for my stamp is on everyone of them, and only I know where that is for every kitchen that I made. But now there are a lot of people that have to answer for their testimony.
The truth is that the "facts" were not facts at all, but deceivings. Nothing whatsoever could alter the real facts, and nothing can possibly be done to prove that I did not build them. For, you see, I did build them. All the "proofs" to the contrary are not proofs, but deceivings.
In the same way, God created this world. It is not in the first place just a reference point: it is a fact. From an evidentialist's point of view, anything at all that comes up with another possibility is just deceit. We already know before the debate what the answer has to be. And it is not logically wrong to do that. For the Presuppers themselves say that God is a precondition for knowing; so they, of all people, should have the least objection to this stand. But it is also the Word that puts God before all things, even in our understanding. But we know with certainty that the facts add up to only one thing, and can only add up to one thing.
Any other world-view that does not recognize God, or that Christ is sent by the Father, is a mere deceit even to itself. It can not possibly stand on facts.
Therefore internal coherence is an impossibility for any other world-view.
This is the evidentialist's answer.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:3454c68f09="JohnV"]I was thinking that induction is not fallacious in science either. Science would be nowhere without induction. It is not induction itself that is fallacious, but rather the science that is fallacious in some cases.
For example, in the case stated in a previous post, in which if evolution occurred, then one would find in the fossils some intermediate states; intermediate states are found in the fossils, so evolution occurred. It is the science that is out, here, not induction. Science glibly skips over what it does not want to take into consideration, and so reneges on its own mandate. But the form and use of induction is still intact.[/quote:3454c68f09]
As a person with the Christian worldview, induction anywhere is not fallacious, but in any unbelieving worldview, it is fallacious.
CT
For example, in the case stated in a previous post, in which if evolution occurred, then one would find in the fossils some intermediate states; intermediate states are found in the fossils, so evolution occurred. It is the science that is out, here, not induction. Science glibly skips over what it does not want to take into consideration, and so reneges on its own mandate. But the form and use of induction is still intact.[/quote:3454c68f09]
As a person with the Christian worldview, induction anywhere is not fallacious, but in any unbelieving worldview, it is fallacious.
CT
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Hermonta:
You said[quote:211b88ee72]As a person with the Christian worldview, induction anywhere is not fallacious, but in any unbelieving worldview, it is fallacious. [/quote:211b88ee72]
This makes it sound like a non-christians's reasoning is wrong, no matter what, because he does not put God first. I'm assuming that is what you mean. I am assuming that you don't mean that an unbeliever will convince himself that locomotives fly, planes float, and ships belong on rails; all this because his inductions will always be wrong.
An unbeliever may, with equal ease, reason that the square root of 16 is 4, just like a believer will. And from such results he may induce certain mathematical principles, just like a believer would.
I am not going to ask whether or not such inductions are valid. I wish to ask whether or not, like it or not, through making inductions where they have not purposely taken the question of God's existence into account, that your observation means that these unbelievers, because they have made correct inducted arguments, have taken upon themselves the world-view of the believing Christian?
To break that up a bit:
-the unbeliever doesn't have the question of God's existence on his mind at all while he is figuring these equations; it's the furthest thing from his mind at presen because he is wrapped up in his mathematics;
-the unbeliever makes all these equations, and comes up with a mathematical principle, such as for tangents lets say; we could instead say that he discovers a law for gravity, or for the relation of the speed of light to time;
-the conclusions that he comes up with can be proven independently;
-a believer has simultaneously come up with the same principles;
Here's the very same question as above, asked in three different ways:
-are they both working with the same world-view by default? The believer purposely and knowingly; the unbeliever unknowingly, and therefore by accident, (or as I am insinuating, by default?
-does the unbelieving scientist take on the Christian's world-view (without his knowing it, perhaps) in order to (and as the only way to) do science properly;
-that is, if he does science strictly scientifically, is he emulating the Christian world-view, whether or not he knows or acknowledges it?
You said[quote:211b88ee72]As a person with the Christian worldview, induction anywhere is not fallacious, but in any unbelieving worldview, it is fallacious. [/quote:211b88ee72]
This makes it sound like a non-christians's reasoning is wrong, no matter what, because he does not put God first. I'm assuming that is what you mean. I am assuming that you don't mean that an unbeliever will convince himself that locomotives fly, planes float, and ships belong on rails; all this because his inductions will always be wrong.
An unbeliever may, with equal ease, reason that the square root of 16 is 4, just like a believer will. And from such results he may induce certain mathematical principles, just like a believer would.
I am not going to ask whether or not such inductions are valid. I wish to ask whether or not, like it or not, through making inductions where they have not purposely taken the question of God's existence into account, that your observation means that these unbelievers, because they have made correct inducted arguments, have taken upon themselves the world-view of the believing Christian?
To break that up a bit:
-the unbeliever doesn't have the question of God's existence on his mind at all while he is figuring these equations; it's the furthest thing from his mind at presen because he is wrapped up in his mathematics;
-the unbeliever makes all these equations, and comes up with a mathematical principle, such as for tangents lets say; we could instead say that he discovers a law for gravity, or for the relation of the speed of light to time;
-the conclusions that he comes up with can be proven independently;
-a believer has simultaneously come up with the same principles;
Here's the very same question as above, asked in three different ways:
-are they both working with the same world-view by default? The believer purposely and knowingly; the unbeliever unknowingly, and therefore by accident, (or as I am insinuating, by default?
-does the unbelieving scientist take on the Christian's world-view (without his knowing it, perhaps) in order to (and as the only way to) do science properly;
-that is, if he does science strictly scientifically, is he emulating the Christian world-view, whether or not he knows or acknowledges it?
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:b68796ad81="JohnV"]Hermonta:
You said[quote:b68796ad81]As a person with the Christian worldview, induction anywhere is not fallacious, but in any unbelieving worldview, it is fallacious. [/quote:b68796ad81]
This makes it sound like a non-christians's reasoning is wrong, no matter what, because he does not put God first. I'm assuming that is what you mean. I am assuming that you don't mean that an unbeliever will convince himself that locomotives fly, planes float, and ships belong on rails; all this because his inductions will always be wrong.
[/quote:b68796ad81]
Remember fallacious reasoning does not necessarily lead to an incorrect conclusion, it just means that one is not justified in believing the conclusion from the premises.
The only way that their (true) conclusions can be justified is if the God of the Bible exists.
Since the unbeliever does not put God first, his reasoning is fallacious.
[quote:b68796ad81]
An unbeliever may, with equal ease, reason that the square root of 16 is 4, just like a believer will. And from such results he may induce certain mathematical principles, just like a believer would.
[/quote:b68796ad81]
However the induction is not justifiable in his worldview.
[quote:b68796ad81]
I am not going to ask whether or not such inductions are valid. I wish to ask whether or not, like it or not, through making inductions where they have not purposely taken the question of God's existence into account, that your observation means that these unbelievers, because they have made correct inducted arguments, have taken upon themselves the world-view of the believing Christian?
[/quote:b68796ad81]
The only way for them to make reasoned sense out of induction is to take on the Christian worldview.
[quote:b68796ad81]
To break that up a bit:
-the unbeliever doesn't have the question of God's existence on his mind at all while he is figuring these equations; it's the furthest thing from his mind at presen because he is wrapped up in his mathematics;
[/quote:b68796ad81]
Sounds like some self deception creeping in view. You cannot avoid the existance of the God of the Bible. You can shove it down in your mind though.(One does not have to be self aware of the shoving.)
[quote:b68796ad81]
-the unbeliever makes all these equations, and comes up with a mathematical principle, such as for tangents lets say; we could instead say that he discovers a law for gravity, or for the relation of the speed of light to time;
[/quote:b68796ad81]
For the unbeliever to make sense of his experience, he has to drop his worldview for a bit, come over to the Christian one, hang out for a bit then run home before anyone finds out he was over here.
[quote:b68796ad81]
-the conclusions that he comes up with can be proven independently;
[/quote:b68796ad81]
Proven independently? You cannot even prove anything without the Christian God existing.
[quote:b68796ad81]
-a believer has simultaneously come up with the same principles;
[/quote:b68796ad81]
Okay
[quote:b68796ad81]
Here's the very same question as above, asked in three different ways:
-are they both working with the same world-view by default? The believer purposely and knowingly; the unbeliever unknowingly, and therefore by accident, (or as I am insinuating, by default?
[/quote:b68796ad81]
To make sense of experience, the unbeliever has to borrow from our worldview. The unbeliever however has to suppress the truth.
[quote:b68796ad81]
-does the unbelieving scientist take on the Christian's world-view (without his knowing it, perhaps) in order to (and as the only way to) do science properly;
[/quote:b68796ad81]
Yes.
[quote:b68796ad81]
-that is, if he does science strictly scientifically, is he emulating the Christian world-view, whether or not he knows or acknowledges it?[/quote:b68796ad81]
Basically.
CT
You said[quote:b68796ad81]As a person with the Christian worldview, induction anywhere is not fallacious, but in any unbelieving worldview, it is fallacious. [/quote:b68796ad81]
This makes it sound like a non-christians's reasoning is wrong, no matter what, because he does not put God first. I'm assuming that is what you mean. I am assuming that you don't mean that an unbeliever will convince himself that locomotives fly, planes float, and ships belong on rails; all this because his inductions will always be wrong.
[/quote:b68796ad81]
Remember fallacious reasoning does not necessarily lead to an incorrect conclusion, it just means that one is not justified in believing the conclusion from the premises.
The only way that their (true) conclusions can be justified is if the God of the Bible exists.
Since the unbeliever does not put God first, his reasoning is fallacious.
[quote:b68796ad81]
An unbeliever may, with equal ease, reason that the square root of 16 is 4, just like a believer will. And from such results he may induce certain mathematical principles, just like a believer would.
[/quote:b68796ad81]
However the induction is not justifiable in his worldview.
[quote:b68796ad81]
I am not going to ask whether or not such inductions are valid. I wish to ask whether or not, like it or not, through making inductions where they have not purposely taken the question of God's existence into account, that your observation means that these unbelievers, because they have made correct inducted arguments, have taken upon themselves the world-view of the believing Christian?
[/quote:b68796ad81]
The only way for them to make reasoned sense out of induction is to take on the Christian worldview.
[quote:b68796ad81]
To break that up a bit:
-the unbeliever doesn't have the question of God's existence on his mind at all while he is figuring these equations; it's the furthest thing from his mind at presen because he is wrapped up in his mathematics;
[/quote:b68796ad81]
Sounds like some self deception creeping in view. You cannot avoid the existance of the God of the Bible. You can shove it down in your mind though.(One does not have to be self aware of the shoving.)
[quote:b68796ad81]
-the unbeliever makes all these equations, and comes up with a mathematical principle, such as for tangents lets say; we could instead say that he discovers a law for gravity, or for the relation of the speed of light to time;
[/quote:b68796ad81]
For the unbeliever to make sense of his experience, he has to drop his worldview for a bit, come over to the Christian one, hang out for a bit then run home before anyone finds out he was over here.
[quote:b68796ad81]
-the conclusions that he comes up with can be proven independently;
[/quote:b68796ad81]
Proven independently? You cannot even prove anything without the Christian God existing.
[quote:b68796ad81]
-a believer has simultaneously come up with the same principles;
[/quote:b68796ad81]
Okay
[quote:b68796ad81]
Here's the very same question as above, asked in three different ways:
-are they both working with the same world-view by default? The believer purposely and knowingly; the unbeliever unknowingly, and therefore by accident, (or as I am insinuating, by default?
[/quote:b68796ad81]
To make sense of experience, the unbeliever has to borrow from our worldview. The unbeliever however has to suppress the truth.
[quote:b68796ad81]
-does the unbelieving scientist take on the Christian's world-view (without his knowing it, perhaps) in order to (and as the only way to) do science properly;
[/quote:b68796ad81]
Yes.
[quote:b68796ad81]
-that is, if he does science strictly scientifically, is he emulating the Christian world-view, whether or not he knows or acknowledges it?[/quote:b68796ad81]
Basically.
CT
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:88eedc8a25="ChristianTrader"]
Remember fallacious reasoning does not necessarily lead to an incorrect conclusion, it just means that one is not justified in believing the conclusion from the premises.
The only way that their (true) conclusions can be justified is if the God of the Bible exists.
Since the unbeliever does not put God first, his reasoning is fallacious.[/quote:88eedc8a25]
The God of the Bible exists, whether he acknowledges it or not. So can a conclusion be valid for an unbeliever? He may not be consistent with his own world-view (it is impossible that he can be), but can he still make valid inductions?
[quote:88eedc8a25]
However the induction is not justifiable in his worldview.[/quote:88eedc8a25]
Agreed. But the validity of an induction is not based on the believer's world-view either. It is not neutral; it is based on God's creational position over the universe.
[quote:88eedc8a25]
The only way for them to make reasoned sense out of induction is to take on the Christian worldview.[/quote:88eedc8a25]
Agreed. There is no other basis. In fact, "other world-vews" are nothing but deceptions, not really world-views. The unbeliever's appeal to truth is nothing more than a use of truth to his own ends, if he is using it to prop up his unbelief.
[quote:88eedc8a25]
Sounds like some self deception creeping in view. You cannot avoid the existance of the God of the Bible. You can shove it down in your mind though.(One does not have to be self aware of the shoving.)[/quote:88eedc8a25]
Again, agreed. Any systemizing of unbelief is self-deception.
[quote:88eedc8a25][quote:88eedc8a25]
-the unbeliever makes all these equations, and comes up with a mathematical principle, such as for tangents lets say; we could instead say that he discovers a law for gravity, or for the relation of the speed of light to time;
[/quote:88eedc8a25]
For the unbeliever to make sense of his experience, he has to drop his worldview for a bit, come over to the Christian one, hang out for a bit then run home before anyone finds out he was over here.[/quote:88eedc8a25]
Here is where we begin to differ. The unbeliever has not really moved over, or dropped his world-view; all he has done is used truth for a time. There is no separate set of truths. We still have only the two: truth and falsehood. He has not moved out of that circle, for it is impossible for him to do that. Either he is true to the facts, or he is not. As an unbeliever he is not being true to all the facts; but it is impossible to untrue to all facts: he cannot move outside that circle ordained by God.
[quote:88eedc8a25][quote:88eedc8a25]
-the conclusions that he comes up with can be proven independently;
[/quote:88eedc8a25]
Proven independently? You cannot even prove anything without the Christian God existing.[/quote:88eedc8a25]
Agreed! It does not stand on whether he will or will not acknowledge God; it stands on God existing and upholding all things.
[quote:88eedc8a25]
[quote:88eedc8a25]
Here's the very same question as above, asked in three different ways:
-are they both working with the same world-view by default? The believer purposely and knowingly; the unbeliever unknowingly, and therefore by accident, (or as I am insinuating, by default?
[/quote:88eedc8a25]
To make sense of experience, the unbeliever has to borrow from our worldview. The unbeliever however has to suppress the truth.
[quote:88eedc8a25]
-does the unbelieving scientist take on the Christian's world-view (without his knowing it, perhaps) in order to (and as the only way to) do science properly;
[/quote:88eedc8a25]
Yes.
[quote:88eedc8a25]
-that is, if he does science strictly scientifically, is he emulating the Christian world-view, whether or not he knows or acknowledges it?[/quote:88eedc8a25]
Basically.
[/quote:88eedc8a25]
There is no borrowing if there is no other system. He is either logical or he is not; he is either reasoning rightly or he is not; he is either true to the facts or he is not; he is either right or he is wrong.
The thing that I am trying to get this discussion away from is the fallacy of judging an induction as erroneous on the grounds that an unbeliever made the induction. That is an ad hominem fallacy: judging the logic of the conclusion by the motive of the person doing the reasoning. There is no question about that he cannot be consistent while he embraces untruths. Of course he cannot be a consistent unbeliever. But it is more than his supposed system that he is at odds with: he is at odds with truth if he is at odds with God. The real question is whether or not induction itself is fallacious. If it is, then it is also fallacious for the believer; if it is not, then it is not for the unbeliever. It is not whether induction for the unbeliever is erroneous, but for the believer proper, for that cannot be. In regard to the believer/unbeliever scenario the choice we have is whether induction is done properly, and not whether it is valid.
Remember fallacious reasoning does not necessarily lead to an incorrect conclusion, it just means that one is not justified in believing the conclusion from the premises.
The only way that their (true) conclusions can be justified is if the God of the Bible exists.
Since the unbeliever does not put God first, his reasoning is fallacious.[/quote:88eedc8a25]
The God of the Bible exists, whether he acknowledges it or not. So can a conclusion be valid for an unbeliever? He may not be consistent with his own world-view (it is impossible that he can be), but can he still make valid inductions?
[quote:88eedc8a25]
However the induction is not justifiable in his worldview.[/quote:88eedc8a25]
Agreed. But the validity of an induction is not based on the believer's world-view either. It is not neutral; it is based on God's creational position over the universe.
[quote:88eedc8a25]
The only way for them to make reasoned sense out of induction is to take on the Christian worldview.[/quote:88eedc8a25]
Agreed. There is no other basis. In fact, "other world-vews" are nothing but deceptions, not really world-views. The unbeliever's appeal to truth is nothing more than a use of truth to his own ends, if he is using it to prop up his unbelief.
[quote:88eedc8a25]
Sounds like some self deception creeping in view. You cannot avoid the existance of the God of the Bible. You can shove it down in your mind though.(One does not have to be self aware of the shoving.)[/quote:88eedc8a25]
Again, agreed. Any systemizing of unbelief is self-deception.
[quote:88eedc8a25][quote:88eedc8a25]
-the unbeliever makes all these equations, and comes up with a mathematical principle, such as for tangents lets say; we could instead say that he discovers a law for gravity, or for the relation of the speed of light to time;
[/quote:88eedc8a25]
For the unbeliever to make sense of his experience, he has to drop his worldview for a bit, come over to the Christian one, hang out for a bit then run home before anyone finds out he was over here.[/quote:88eedc8a25]
Here is where we begin to differ. The unbeliever has not really moved over, or dropped his world-view; all he has done is used truth for a time. There is no separate set of truths. We still have only the two: truth and falsehood. He has not moved out of that circle, for it is impossible for him to do that. Either he is true to the facts, or he is not. As an unbeliever he is not being true to all the facts; but it is impossible to untrue to all facts: he cannot move outside that circle ordained by God.
[quote:88eedc8a25][quote:88eedc8a25]
-the conclusions that he comes up with can be proven independently;
[/quote:88eedc8a25]
Proven independently? You cannot even prove anything without the Christian God existing.[/quote:88eedc8a25]
Agreed! It does not stand on whether he will or will not acknowledge God; it stands on God existing and upholding all things.
[quote:88eedc8a25]
[quote:88eedc8a25]
Here's the very same question as above, asked in three different ways:
-are they both working with the same world-view by default? The believer purposely and knowingly; the unbeliever unknowingly, and therefore by accident, (or as I am insinuating, by default?
[/quote:88eedc8a25]
To make sense of experience, the unbeliever has to borrow from our worldview. The unbeliever however has to suppress the truth.
[quote:88eedc8a25]
-does the unbelieving scientist take on the Christian's world-view (without his knowing it, perhaps) in order to (and as the only way to) do science properly;
[/quote:88eedc8a25]
Yes.
[quote:88eedc8a25]
-that is, if he does science strictly scientifically, is he emulating the Christian world-view, whether or not he knows or acknowledges it?[/quote:88eedc8a25]
Basically.
[/quote:88eedc8a25]
There is no borrowing if there is no other system. He is either logical or he is not; he is either reasoning rightly or he is not; he is either true to the facts or he is not; he is either right or he is wrong.
The thing that I am trying to get this discussion away from is the fallacy of judging an induction as erroneous on the grounds that an unbeliever made the induction. That is an ad hominem fallacy: judging the logic of the conclusion by the motive of the person doing the reasoning. There is no question about that he cannot be consistent while he embraces untruths. Of course he cannot be a consistent unbeliever. But it is more than his supposed system that he is at odds with: he is at odds with truth if he is at odds with God. The real question is whether or not induction itself is fallacious. If it is, then it is also fallacious for the believer; if it is not, then it is not for the unbeliever. It is not whether induction for the unbeliever is erroneous, but for the believer proper, for that cannot be. In regard to the believer/unbeliever scenario the choice we have is whether induction is done properly, and not whether it is valid.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:b878b4db04="JohnV"][quote:b878b4db04="ChristianTrader"]
Remember fallacious reasoning does not necessarily lead to an incorrect conclusion, it just means that one is not justified in believing the conclusion from the premises.
The only way that their (true) conclusions can be justified is if the God of the Bible exists.
Since the unbeliever does not put God first, his reasoning is fallacious.[/quote:b878b4db04]
The God of the Bible exists, whether he acknowledges it or not. So can a conclusion be valid for an unbeliever? He may not be consistent with his own world-view (it is impossible that he can be), but can he still make valid inductions?
[/quote:b878b4db04]
He can make fallacious inductions that have correct conclusions.
[quote:b878b4db04]
[quote:b878b4db04]
However the induction is not justifiable in his worldview.[/quote:b878b4db04]
Agreed. But the validity of an induction is not based on the believer's world-view either. It is not neutral; it is based on God's creational position over the universe.
[/quote:b878b4db04]
Induction is only valid in the believer's worldview. Only the believer's worldview has God in his creational position over the universe.
[quote:b878b4db04]
[quote:b878b4db04]
The only way for them to make reasoned sense out of induction is to take on the Christian worldview.[/quote:b878b4db04]
Agreed. There is no other basis. In fact, "other world-vews" are nothing but deceptions, not really world-views. The unbeliever's appeal to truth is nothing more than a use of truth to his own ends, if he is using it to prop up his unbelief.
[/quote:b878b4db04]
But you already admitted to Paul, that Jesus said there are two worldviews. Here you seem to be saying that there is only one. Remember a worldview does not have to be a good one in order to classify it as a worldview.
The unbelievers use of induction or other "true" things are fallacious because it contradicts their other premises of their worldview.
[quote:b878b4db04]
[quote:b878b4db04]
Sounds like some self deception creeping in view. You cannot avoid the existance of the God of the Bible. You can shove it down in your mind though.(One does not have to be self aware of the shoving.)[/quote:b878b4db04]
Again, agreed. Any systemizing of unbelief is self-deception.
[/quote:b878b4db04]
No problem here.
[quote:b878b4db04]
[quote:b878b4db04][quote:b878b4db04]
-the unbeliever makes all these equations, and comes up with a mathematical principle, such as for tangents lets say; we could instead say that he discovers a law for gravity, or for the relation of the speed of light to time;
[/quote:b878b4db04]
For the unbeliever to make sense of his experience, he has to drop his worldview for a bit, come over to the Christian one, hang out for a bit then run home before anyone finds out he was over here.[/quote:b878b4db04]
Here is where we begin to differ. The unbeliever has not really moved over, or dropped his world-view; all he has done is used truth for a time.
[/quote:b878b4db04]
But this truth that he is using is in opposition to his other premises. Or his conclusions do not follow from his premises. An example is that I am 5'9', my father is 6'0', therefore the speed of light is X. Each of the statements can be exactly true but this is still a fallacious statement.
[quote:b878b4db04]
There is no separate set of truths. We still have only the two: truth and falsehood.
[/quote:b878b4db04]
Remember we are not talking about truth and falsehood, we are talking about fallacious and non fallacious reasoning. You can have a true conclusion from fallacious reasoning.
[quote:b878b4db04]
He has not moved out of that circle, for it is impossible for him to do that. Either he is true to the facts, or he is not. As an unbeliever he is not being true to all the facts; but it is impossible to untrue to all facts: he cannot move outside that circle ordained by God.
[/quote:b878b4db04]
He can move out of his unbelieving circle into the believing circle. If he could not then he could have an excuse for disbelief in God.
Now an unbeliever will reach many conclusions that he will believe are true (because of his worldview) but in fact are false. An example is evolution. However even the things that are in fact true, are fallacious due to his worldview (premises used to look at the world).
[quote:b878b4db04]
[quote:b878b4db04]
[quote:b878b4db04]
Here's the very same question as above, asked in three different ways:
-are they both working with the same world-view by default? The believer purposely and knowingly; the unbeliever unknowingly, and therefore by accident, (or as I am insinuating, by default?
[/quote:b878b4db04]
To make sense of experience, the unbeliever has to borrow from our worldview. The unbeliever however has to suppress the truth.
[quote:b878b4db04]
-does the unbelieving scientist take on the Christian's world-view (without his knowing it, perhaps) in order to (and as the only way to) do science properly;
[/quote:b878b4db04]
Yes.
[quote:b878b4db04]
-that is, if he does science strictly scientifically, is he emulating the Christian world-view, whether or not he knows or acknowledges it?[/quote:b878b4db04]
Basically.
[/quote:b878b4db04]
There is no borrowing if there is no other system. He is either logical or he is not; he is either reasoning rightly or he is not; he is either true to the facts or he is not; he is either right or he is wrong.
[/quote:b878b4db04]
But again you have already said in this thread that Jesus said that there are two worldviews and not one. (All unbelieving worldviews can be reduced to one, the worldviews that the God of the Bible is not what He says He is).
Again, a person can be right in their conclusion but fallacious in their reasoning.
[quote:b878b4db04]
The thing that I am trying to get this discussion away from is the fallacy of judging an induction as erroneous on the grounds that an unbeliever made the induction. That is an ad hominem fallacy: judging the logic of the conclusion by the motive of the person doing the reasoning.
[/quote:b878b4db04]
I think you have a few things confused. I am not making an ad hominem attack on anyone. The argument is that there are certain premises that an unbeliever has. There are also certain conclusions that are true. For the unbeliever to go from his premises to the correct conclusion, a fallacy has to occur. Because the correct conclusions do not follow from the unbelievers worldview premises. A person's motives really do not come into play when judging if something is fallacious or not. Now I can ask why they would make a fallacious argument? But that comes a bit later.
[quote:b878b4db04]
There is no question about that he cannot be consistent while he embraces untruths. Of course he cannot be a consistent unbeliever. But it is more than his supposed system that he is at odds with: he is at odds with truth if he is at odds with God. The real question is whether or not induction itself is fallacious. If it is, then it is also fallacious for the believer; if it is not, then it is not for the unbeliever. It is not whether induction for the unbeliever is erroneous, but for the believer proper, for that cannot be. In regard to the believer/unbeliever scenario the choice we have is whether induction is done properly, and not whether it is valid.[/quote:b878b4db04]
Induction is fallacious for the unbeliever for various reasons (the one that is usually used is to point out that the unbeliever has to beg the question). Induction however is not fallacious for the believer because in our premises is the reason that induction works (the God of the Bible exists)
Given the premises of the unbeliever, induction is fallacious.
CT
Remember fallacious reasoning does not necessarily lead to an incorrect conclusion, it just means that one is not justified in believing the conclusion from the premises.
The only way that their (true) conclusions can be justified is if the God of the Bible exists.
Since the unbeliever does not put God first, his reasoning is fallacious.[/quote:b878b4db04]
The God of the Bible exists, whether he acknowledges it or not. So can a conclusion be valid for an unbeliever? He may not be consistent with his own world-view (it is impossible that he can be), but can he still make valid inductions?
[/quote:b878b4db04]
He can make fallacious inductions that have correct conclusions.
[quote:b878b4db04]
[quote:b878b4db04]
However the induction is not justifiable in his worldview.[/quote:b878b4db04]
Agreed. But the validity of an induction is not based on the believer's world-view either. It is not neutral; it is based on God's creational position over the universe.
[/quote:b878b4db04]
Induction is only valid in the believer's worldview. Only the believer's worldview has God in his creational position over the universe.
[quote:b878b4db04]
[quote:b878b4db04]
The only way for them to make reasoned sense out of induction is to take on the Christian worldview.[/quote:b878b4db04]
Agreed. There is no other basis. In fact, "other world-vews" are nothing but deceptions, not really world-views. The unbeliever's appeal to truth is nothing more than a use of truth to his own ends, if he is using it to prop up his unbelief.
[/quote:b878b4db04]
But you already admitted to Paul, that Jesus said there are two worldviews. Here you seem to be saying that there is only one. Remember a worldview does not have to be a good one in order to classify it as a worldview.
The unbelievers use of induction or other "true" things are fallacious because it contradicts their other premises of their worldview.
[quote:b878b4db04]
[quote:b878b4db04]
Sounds like some self deception creeping in view. You cannot avoid the existance of the God of the Bible. You can shove it down in your mind though.(One does not have to be self aware of the shoving.)[/quote:b878b4db04]
Again, agreed. Any systemizing of unbelief is self-deception.
[/quote:b878b4db04]
No problem here.
[quote:b878b4db04]
[quote:b878b4db04][quote:b878b4db04]
-the unbeliever makes all these equations, and comes up with a mathematical principle, such as for tangents lets say; we could instead say that he discovers a law for gravity, or for the relation of the speed of light to time;
[/quote:b878b4db04]
For the unbeliever to make sense of his experience, he has to drop his worldview for a bit, come over to the Christian one, hang out for a bit then run home before anyone finds out he was over here.[/quote:b878b4db04]
Here is where we begin to differ. The unbeliever has not really moved over, or dropped his world-view; all he has done is used truth for a time.
[/quote:b878b4db04]
But this truth that he is using is in opposition to his other premises. Or his conclusions do not follow from his premises. An example is that I am 5'9', my father is 6'0', therefore the speed of light is X. Each of the statements can be exactly true but this is still a fallacious statement.
[quote:b878b4db04]
There is no separate set of truths. We still have only the two: truth and falsehood.
[/quote:b878b4db04]
Remember we are not talking about truth and falsehood, we are talking about fallacious and non fallacious reasoning. You can have a true conclusion from fallacious reasoning.
[quote:b878b4db04]
He has not moved out of that circle, for it is impossible for him to do that. Either he is true to the facts, or he is not. As an unbeliever he is not being true to all the facts; but it is impossible to untrue to all facts: he cannot move outside that circle ordained by God.
[/quote:b878b4db04]
He can move out of his unbelieving circle into the believing circle. If he could not then he could have an excuse for disbelief in God.
Now an unbeliever will reach many conclusions that he will believe are true (because of his worldview) but in fact are false. An example is evolution. However even the things that are in fact true, are fallacious due to his worldview (premises used to look at the world).
[quote:b878b4db04]
[quote:b878b4db04]
[quote:b878b4db04]
Here's the very same question as above, asked in three different ways:
-are they both working with the same world-view by default? The believer purposely and knowingly; the unbeliever unknowingly, and therefore by accident, (or as I am insinuating, by default?
[/quote:b878b4db04]
To make sense of experience, the unbeliever has to borrow from our worldview. The unbeliever however has to suppress the truth.
[quote:b878b4db04]
-does the unbelieving scientist take on the Christian's world-view (without his knowing it, perhaps) in order to (and as the only way to) do science properly;
[/quote:b878b4db04]
Yes.
[quote:b878b4db04]
-that is, if he does science strictly scientifically, is he emulating the Christian world-view, whether or not he knows or acknowledges it?[/quote:b878b4db04]
Basically.
[/quote:b878b4db04]
There is no borrowing if there is no other system. He is either logical or he is not; he is either reasoning rightly or he is not; he is either true to the facts or he is not; he is either right or he is wrong.
[/quote:b878b4db04]
But again you have already said in this thread that Jesus said that there are two worldviews and not one. (All unbelieving worldviews can be reduced to one, the worldviews that the God of the Bible is not what He says He is).
Again, a person can be right in their conclusion but fallacious in their reasoning.
[quote:b878b4db04]
The thing that I am trying to get this discussion away from is the fallacy of judging an induction as erroneous on the grounds that an unbeliever made the induction. That is an ad hominem fallacy: judging the logic of the conclusion by the motive of the person doing the reasoning.
[/quote:b878b4db04]
I think you have a few things confused. I am not making an ad hominem attack on anyone. The argument is that there are certain premises that an unbeliever has. There are also certain conclusions that are true. For the unbeliever to go from his premises to the correct conclusion, a fallacy has to occur. Because the correct conclusions do not follow from the unbelievers worldview premises. A person's motives really do not come into play when judging if something is fallacious or not. Now I can ask why they would make a fallacious argument? But that comes a bit later.
[quote:b878b4db04]
There is no question about that he cannot be consistent while he embraces untruths. Of course he cannot be a consistent unbeliever. But it is more than his supposed system that he is at odds with: he is at odds with truth if he is at odds with God. The real question is whether or not induction itself is fallacious. If it is, then it is also fallacious for the believer; if it is not, then it is not for the unbeliever. It is not whether induction for the unbeliever is erroneous, but for the believer proper, for that cannot be. In regard to the believer/unbeliever scenario the choice we have is whether induction is done properly, and not whether it is valid.[/quote:b878b4db04]
Induction is fallacious for the unbeliever for various reasons (the one that is usually used is to point out that the unbeliever has to beg the question). Induction however is not fallacious for the believer because in our premises is the reason that induction works (the God of the Bible exists)
Given the premises of the unbeliever, induction is fallacious.
CT
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
CT:
I think we are missing each other's intentions here. You did not understand my expression to Paul concerning Jesus' statement of being either for or against Him. I assume that I also am not getting your thrusts either.
Can we agree on this: that induction itself is acceptable, but that an unbeliever does not have the grounding within his own acknowledged system to make such inductions; and that he remains, as he always will, counter to proper reasoning?
I think we are missing each other's intentions here. You did not understand my expression to Paul concerning Jesus' statement of being either for or against Him. I assume that I also am not getting your thrusts either.
Can we agree on this: that induction itself is acceptable, but that an unbeliever does not have the grounding within his own acknowledged system to make such inductions; and that he remains, as he always will, counter to proper reasoning?
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:77d97160d9="JohnV"]I was hoping that someone would point out that this statement:
[quote:77d97160d9]if evolution occurred, then one would find in the fossils some intermediate states; intermediate states are found in the fossils, so evolution occurred.[/quote:77d97160d9]is a logical fallacy. Therefore it is not the induction that is at fault, but the deduction in this syllogism. This is the fallacy of Converting the Conditional: if A, then B; B, therefore A.
[/quote:77d97160d9]
But how can one do induction without falling into this trap? Everytime a person does induction, one has to put up some way of determining something's truth/correctness. However there is no way of showing that something occurs only if X is true. It could always be something else.
[quote:77d97160d9]
But, if Newton had not the freedom of induction, then anything beyond, "Hey, that hurt!" would have been unscientific.uzzled:
[/quote:77d97160d9]
Actually one could say that all the information that "science" produces is fallacious.
One could excape by just saying that science's goal is not truth, but instead usefulness.
CT
[quote:77d97160d9]if evolution occurred, then one would find in the fossils some intermediate states; intermediate states are found in the fossils, so evolution occurred.[/quote:77d97160d9]is a logical fallacy. Therefore it is not the induction that is at fault, but the deduction in this syllogism. This is the fallacy of Converting the Conditional: if A, then B; B, therefore A.
[/quote:77d97160d9]
But how can one do induction without falling into this trap? Everytime a person does induction, one has to put up some way of determining something's truth/correctness. However there is no way of showing that something occurs only if X is true. It could always be something else.
[quote:77d97160d9]
But, if Newton had not the freedom of induction, then anything beyond, "Hey, that hurt!" would have been unscientific.
uzzled: [/quote:77d97160d9]
Actually one could say that all the information that "science" produces is fallacious.
One could excape by just saying that science's goal is not truth, but instead usefulness.
CT
PASSION4TRUTH
Inactive User
A Thought about Induction
Sorry, I have been off the site for a long time, but I hope to make a fierce comeback from here in Europe. I just had one comment to make about induction. If you are relating to real people in a real world you must always use induction when you speak to them so you can elicit answers in a normal conversation. Also, if you notice the preaching style of Jesus as contrasted with the Pharisees, it was more inductive. I think if we paid more attention to this aspect it would better coincide with the fact that we are created in the image of God with unique experiences we integrate into a pattern of generally deduced truths from the Word. Maybe we should look at inductive preaching as a balance between homiletics and hermeneutics, which are mainly deductive. I like Francis Bacon merely from a linguistic standpoint because he used a very large vocabulary in his works. I would like to mention as well that I have recently been reading "Inductive Preaching: Helping People Listen" by Ralph and Gregg Lewis (published by Crossway). I do not agree with all they assert, but it is very insightful for preachers to consider producing more inductive sermons. Hope you have time to browse this book. God bless you!
Sorry if I responded to the wrong question; I was thinking about induction all day today and I am not settled in my thoughts. I need more time to study Hegel's viewpoints.
Sorry, I have been off the site for a long time, but I hope to make a fierce comeback from here in Europe. I just had one comment to make about induction. If you are relating to real people in a real world you must always use induction when you speak to them so you can elicit answers in a normal conversation. Also, if you notice the preaching style of Jesus as contrasted with the Pharisees, it was more inductive. I think if we paid more attention to this aspect it would better coincide with the fact that we are created in the image of God with unique experiences we integrate into a pattern of generally deduced truths from the Word. Maybe we should look at inductive preaching as a balance between homiletics and hermeneutics, which are mainly deductive. I like Francis Bacon merely from a linguistic standpoint because he used a very large vocabulary in his works. I would like to mention as well that I have recently been reading "Inductive Preaching: Helping People Listen" by Ralph and Gregg Lewis (published by Crossway). I do not agree with all they assert, but it is very insightful for preachers to consider producing more inductive sermons. Hope you have time to browse this book. God bless you!
Sorry if I responded to the wrong question; I was thinking about induction all day today and I am not settled in my thoughts. I need more time to study Hegel's viewpoints.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
CT:
What do you mean by "fallacious"?
If you take what Paul M says above, [quote:f20713a9f6]"Inductive arguments are only strong or weak depending on the evidence. They are not meant to give the certainty the deduction does." [/quote:f20713a9f6]
how do you relate this to what you said above, [quote:f20713a9f6]But how can one do induction without falling into this trap? Everytime a person does induction, one has to put up some way of determining something's truth/correctness. However there is no way of showing that something occurs only if X is true. It could always be something else. [/quote:f20713a9f6]
How do you determine the "truth/correctness" of something? Your statement, "there is no way of showing that something occurs only if X is true. It could always be something else" is an inducted proposition, and if it is true then you cannot know that it is true. So how do you come by that? It can always be something else. So how do you come by generalizations like that without induction, and how do you determine their truth? How do you understand the term, "fallacious" as it relates to logic?
What do you mean by "fallacious"?
If you take what Paul M says above, [quote:f20713a9f6]"Inductive arguments are only strong or weak depending on the evidence. They are not meant to give the certainty the deduction does." [/quote:f20713a9f6]
how do you relate this to what you said above, [quote:f20713a9f6]But how can one do induction without falling into this trap? Everytime a person does induction, one has to put up some way of determining something's truth/correctness. However there is no way of showing that something occurs only if X is true. It could always be something else. [/quote:f20713a9f6]
How do you determine the "truth/correctness" of something? Your statement, "there is no way of showing that something occurs only if X is true. It could always be something else" is an inducted proposition, and if it is true then you cannot know that it is true. So how do you come by that? It can always be something else. So how do you come by generalizations like that without induction, and how do you determine their truth? How do you understand the term, "fallacious" as it relates to logic?
- Status
