Originally posted by Paul manata
CT writes:
I said that you have to be omniscient to be certain about some things when one is using induction.
Are you certain? How do you know? Maybe you had to be certain in the past but not tomorrow?
Yes, for it would entail a formal fallacy.
Being certain using deductive reasoning is perfectly cool.
Deductive arguments are only true if their premises are true. How do you know that the premises are true, for certain?
Certain things are true by necessity.
A good biblical proposition from which much can be deduced. One such thing is the uniformity of nature. I have no problem with this biblical justification.
Good.
Agreement. Yahoo. :bigsmile:
Not quite. The question is if it is possible for the freezer not to be cold and the uniformity of nature still hold? I would say, yes it is possible. For example, perhaps a power surge could cause the freezer to over heat and therefore break, making the freezer not cold. Or maybe even the power surge does something to the electronice that turns the cold into warm. The best we can say is that we have never seen any condition under which we entered a freezer and it was not cold. Now this does not mean that I tip toe into the freezer afraid that it could be a 1000 degrees inside.
This just shows your ignorance about inductive arguments. The argument is that, all things being equal, I will know. So, the next freezer that I walk into, where the conditions are normal, then it will be cold... based on the uniformity of nature which you agreed to above.
How exactly do you know the normal conditions under which you observations hold, until you have found a condition under which they do not hold? You could have been on the edge for various days and then you just went over that edge.
But you are correct that if everything is like it was the previous day where you went into the freezer, then it will be cold just like the previous day.
CT, you can't critique an inductive argument by saying maybe the power would surge and then it wouldn't be cold. That's not even the argument. I suggest some study before you respond. Now, remeber what I said I was going to do to you? Well, how do you know that when you have a power surge that affects something that runs on power? Because it had in the past? Stop using inductive arguments to argue against induction, CT.
Have you ever heard of a thing called a hypothetical example that is used to internally critique? The argument is this: You have used induction to come to certain expectations for when you walk into freezers. You are not infinite so you could not say that you examined freezers under all the possible conditions. But what is that you say: "uniformity of nature". Okay cool. So what??? Nature can be uniform and you still could have not observed black swans.
Back to freezers: Remember I do not hate induction and I accept the uniformity of nature. I have a problem with using induction to find truth.
I do not know that power surges cause freezers to not be cold, until I have observed such a case. But that is the whole kicker. You cannot say that there will not be such a case, unless you can prove from the Bible that there will not be such a case.
I dont think the second coming will be tomorrow. I am also a Bahsonian post mil. But I would love to see the absurdity (I hope it will include exegesis, for one could attempt to logically show something to be untrue, but if the exegesis fails, you really have not closed the deal).
I don't need to since you are familar with all the arguments. You know the exegesis. If you don't think they lead to the conclusiion then you are a postmill against your better knowledge! Now, you know that there will be many YEARS of a golden age. You know that children who die at 100 will be considered cursed. You know the gospel must be preached to the nations. You know that the law will become a light to the nations and the socio/political foundation will be God's revealed law. You know that if Jesus came back tomorrow the millenniunm would already be over and that satan would be loosed to deceive the nations and the final apostacy and battle will take place. You know that all the enemies will be put under Christ's feet, the last one being death. And you know all this won;t happen withing, roughly, 15 hours
Okay.
Also, remeber what I said above, even if Jesus did come back that is a factor this is "not all things being equal." And, CT, why do you expect good exegesis? Is it because good exegesis in the past has convinced you of the truth of a position but why did you *act like* it would in the future?
I accept the uniformity of nature. I also understand the not all things being equal caveat. Therefore I act like something is true, until I no longer find it useful to say that it is true (this is not a statement about my view of scripture, it is how I view everything else).
First to assume the uniformity of nature does not assume induction. That is deductively known from scripture.
How do you know that what you deductively deduce from Scritpure today will hold tomorrow? Stop using induction.
Uniformity of nature? God word says that it does not change? Logic also does not change for God does not change?
Also in case you have, misread me very badly, I will say that I have no problem with induction. I have a problem when it is used to go beyond its capabilities. I have also said that I believe that God has told us to take dominion over all creation. He has also made the earth so that is possible. If words were just changing, then communication would basically fall apart, negatively effecting the dominion mandate. Therefore I assume that (eventhough I have not sampled the whole range of nature's uniformity, I can safely assume that certain things wont occur.) If it turns out that I am wrong about words changing quickly under certain conditions, then I can rest assured that the dominion mandate is still in effect and civilization wont fail because of it.
You still miss the point. This is basically what Stein said to Bahnsen. "Boy, if it changes won't that be a doosey!" But do we really act like this? CT, you don't even understand. So, as Bahnsen said to Stein: "Im not saying that, I'm asking: why do procede upon the EXPECTATION that they will hold tomorrow? Basically you have totally avoided my question.
I proceed with an expectation that things will be like tomorrow because the Bible says that God will keep things going in a regular manner. I am getting confused.
I agree with you on the uniformity of nature. How many times do I have to tell you this???? This response does not hurt my position. The best you can say by induction is that "I have not seen X or Y occur, therefore I dont expect X or Y to occur in the future.
So, the best CT can say is that he has not seen my argument succede so he doesn't expect it to in this conversation? Sorry, I'm not bothers by this, CT. You need bigger guns then saying, I've never seen an argument for induction so I don't expect to in this conversation. Wait/ Isn't this an inductive argument employed to argue against my using induction? Ct, stop with the inductive arguments.
Be my guest, use induction. I certainly do. I argue against being able to say that you have found the truth. Due to affirming the consequent. A formal fallacy.
Did you think that you had justified true belief that all swans were white, before the first black swan was found? If yes, then why is the next inductively derived info different?
Because not all questions, or types of things argued for are the same, CT. I *thought* I had justified true belief (if I indeed would in this illustration). But, this is not the same thing as, say, knowing that nature is uniform so I know that the next time I open my Bible to Genesis 1 it will read: In the begginning." CT, do you not KNOW this?
Yes, I do know this because of the arguments that I used above.
So if you accept the swan example, why are you not an inductive skeptic?
Hasty generalization? My point is, that since using induction to get to truth in the past, has failed, then why do you assume that today is different than the past, and no you can get truth?
Assumes it has failed in ALL cases, if your argument hasn't then it is hasty. Uses induction to argue against induction. Don't you see this????
How do you know that you have the truth and not just think that you have the truth?
Let's say that by induction, you have something exactly correct. How would you differentiate between that and something that you have seriously wrong but is consistent with the observations that you have made thus far?
Also if it has failed once. Why do you assume that the next time that it will not fail, instead of saying that "it might fail and it might not. I do not have to be correct about this"?
I would say we can only say that all S are P if the Bible says that all S are P?
CT, can you know that you are saved?
Yes.
Can you know that all dogs are canines?
If I define them in such a fashion.
Can you know that all women have a Y chromosone (or whatwever they have)?
Men have X and Y. Women have Two X's. No I cannot know that, unless I define that to be the case. "If you dont have two X's you are not a woman".
Can you know that all men who fall 1 million feet to the ground with a nuclear bomb attached to them so that it exploded on impact, will die?
It is possible to survive. I would not look for them to so do, but if someone was to show me tape and the person walking away. I would say WOW. (I probably would have to examine the tape to see if it was doctored as well)
CT, can you know that all the times we can say all S are P is when the Bible says all S are P? Now, you see the absurdity of your position. Why don't you follow some peopel with credentials instead of jumping on the latest bandwagon of some guy who worked and atheist who is a chump and is one of the dumbest atheists I have ever talked to.
Derek is dumb, Ill give you that. The rest we will have to fight over. I thought that most of this stuff had a gordon clark backing to it. He is not just some guy of the street. Next, I have no problem saying a lot of things. However those things without Biblical backing, I can accept being shown to be in error.
In your view, God is actively maintaining our senses through his normal providence. So when people count different things, God must be opposing himself because he is the one that is maintaining one person's sense in one way and maintaining another person's senses in a different way. It sure gets all confusing.
Not even close. There is a difference between what I said and saying that God TELLS!!!! or CONVEYS people all the information they have. Also, I hold to secondary causality (as does 98% of reformed theology). I would say that the fall and man's sinful nature are why he reasons poorly. I would read reformed systematics texts on what it means that man is free.
But in this situation we are not talking about reasoning errors. This is an issue of "I saw 50" and "I saw 55". So there is some information that we have that God did not convey or tell? I do not see how you can avoid saying that at the end of the day "God gets to us what he wants us to have". God does not say to himself. "Shucks if they did not have that pesky sin nature, I could have got this correct information to them"
Next, concerning the realiability of the senses. The only way that you can tell that your senses have failed is if some later sense contradicts the earlier sense (and you assume the uniformity of nature) and come to some conclusion that either your earlier sense failed or your later sense was the wrong one.
So?
So its possible that you senses could have failed but you did not know it?
What if you had been drinking a bit too much but didnt really realize it at the time (or that someone had drugged you). You go to count how many books are on your shelf. You miss an entire row. So you count 55, while there are 80 books. You know the 80 figure because you went back to count a couple days later. You then chalk up the contradiction to you have had too much to drink, or somehow you get a blood test to find out that you had been drugged. So you go back through you thoughts and delete the info during the suspecious period.
I hope everyone notices that CT REFUSES to tell me how he knows how many books he has on his shelf. Also, note my diiscussion of proper functioning cognative faculties.
I thought we went through this in the past few posts. What else do you want from me?
Then even when your senses are razor sharp, you could just be too far away to count your books. Lets say that you somehow had to count a few feet away (instead of by hand). You think your good to go, but you recount up close and find out that you missed two books.
Argues that since SOMETIMES my senses deceive me, therefore, they ALWAYS do. Ct, still waiting for you to argue for the conclusion in a non fallacious way.
Nope, I do not argue that always the sense deceive you. My point was that how would you know that they have deceived you or not?
I am a skeptic. As such I do not have to show you that you are wrong or correct here. I have to show that you cannot justify your conclusion. You can be right on, even if you use faulty reasoning. But what confidence can you place in your conclusion if you reasoning is faulty?
So the ultimate question is how do you know that you have caught all the times when your senses were unreliable?
I haven't? Who has ever said this??? CT, if you don't start critiquing my position I'll just let you chant you underdeveloped and naive epistemoloy to the air.
I have killed your position already. Why dont you see this.
Can you tell the difference between that which is true and that which is not true but has yet to be refuted (but will be in two weeks)?
In some instances. Transcendental truths are true but an inductive or deductive argument may later turn out to be false. But this doesn't matter! We would still say, "I thought I knew." You asked if justified true belief can be non-knowledge if the proposition happens to be false. To which the answer is, YES. That fully answers your question.
So justified true belief can turn out to be false. So that would make you an inductive skeptic as well?
Since, I am suspicious of that which is not inferred or deduced from scripture, I dont think you could put the knowing of two contradictory things on me.
Well above I deduced and inferred that Scripture says our senses are reliable! Also, how do you KNOW that what your eyes report back to you fromt the pages of scripture are the way it REALLY is?
Senses can be reliable. A good night sleep, no alcohol, no drugs, no extra stress etc. But things derived from observations would still have to deal with affirming the consequent. So those derived views could blow up at some future point, even with the uniformity of nature.
Because the Christian worldview is trancendentally necessary. If what I know isnt the way that it is, then knowledge is impossible.
If you car had never been in 20 below temps before, you would assume that it is reliable there, until shown otherwise. Would you say that you have justified true belief that your car works all the time, until it fails at 20 below?
Yaaaawwwwnnn. I wouldn't say I had that. The point, though, CT, is that ******IF IT DIDN"T****** that wouldn't make uit, therefore unreliable. So, just because my senses may deceive me when I am drunk does not mean that they are unreliable when I am not. Again, this gets into proper functioning cognative faculties. The way god made us. This is His environment. His world. I was created in a way that my senses are normally reliable etc etc etc.
No problem saying that what I see normally is "a car, a tv, etc." The problems occur at the margins (drunk or not). Do we know when we have reached the margin or not?
Which gives justified true belief to what the proper number are until it is shown that it does not?
Now is that what I said? If something was false then it couldn't ever be JTRUEB, now could it? But I told you the process of how I would know. I want you to tell me the process. Does you epistemology reduce to this sort of absurdity?
The process is that you count now and say that the number is X. Then you go about your business. If you somehow have a reason to recount at a later point and it does not mesh, then you attempt to determine which count was accurate.
It seems that you want to critique RR's position without attempt to salvage your own. If induction can get you truth, how can you tell when you actually have this truth and not just something that will be shown to be wrong tomorrow?
Well, RR's position has been totally devistated since I showed that he couldn't know anything since his theory of knowledge defeates itself. Secondly, because nature is uniform, CT? I didn't say that I could know ALL things by induction, did I. I gave examples above of SOME things I can know. But, what if I were to say that a magik fairy told me? Why would you assume that this isn't the case since you have never observed one, AND the Bible doesn't say that there aren't??? Silly epistemology.
I would assume it because I have not seen a magik fairy and Nature being uniform does not salvage the swans example.
On this side of the coin, I do not have to say that the new observation that refuted the old observation, is the truth and the old one was false. (The old one could have been accurate and the new one could be the mistake). All I need to say is that I believe this new observation is more useful to me than the older observation. If new (different) observations come, then I can change this all around.
This is a pragmatic justification and pragmatic justifications suffer from (1) you would have to know the future to say it was useful, and all the factors involved. (2) useful always breaks down on analysis and resorts to subjectivism and skepticism. Anyway, read Pragmatism, Predjudice, and Presuppotionalism by Bahnsen for a thurough trouncing of these types of justifictaions.
I have read the article. Its good stuff. The counter claims do not affect me because I am not attempting to derive truth from these observations. I could be wrong about what is useful and what is not. I might think that handling radio-active material is useful to long life.
I also do not have a problem with skepticism for I am just being pragmatic, not saying that I have the truth.
I do not have to say that the new observation that refuted the old observation, is the truth and the old one was false.
If one doesn't have to say that sense perceptions could be false, or mistaken, then how can you argue that they are ever false? How could you ever KNOW that they are FALSE? That's the question, CT. If you can't KNOW that they are false then your arguments crumble. So, show how you KNOW this and I'll show you how you would have to asume the reliability of your senses to know it
Actually what I said was not to say that the senses are not reliable. It was to say that given them being reliable, you can still never get to justified truth status. The only way that you could say that you have the truth, is if the Bible said something like: "When you see purple with polka dots, then Jesus is coming in five days". In this case, you do not have to worry about affirming the consequent, because an infinite God has told you that you do not have to worry about alternate explanation of the purple with pink polka dots.
CT
[Edited on 22-11-2004 by ChristianTrader]
). (You can see a brief engagement with a reformed epistemologist in the philosophy thread. Actually one of the best discussion I've had on this board.) Anyway, he used to be a full on Clarkian. He was in with Robbins and all those guys. He knows the system inside and out and has come to lothe it.
