Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.atheism,alt.pagan,alt.consciousness,alt.paranormal.channeling,alt.consciousness.mysticism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: rereRe: The end of god
Message-ID: <Cy70H7.87p@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <36vt2m$g6m@scapa.cs.ualberta.ca> <383kau$5q2@scapa.cs.ualberta.ca> <Cxzo7E.91v@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <388edg$ia8@news1.hh.ab.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 19:51:07 GMT
Lines: 54

Somehow you posted a reply to my posting in a way which seems to to imply that
your posting came from me.:
In article <388edg$ia8@news1.hh.ab.com>,
Andrzej Pindor <pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> wrote:

In fact it should be:
In article <388edg$ia8@news1.hh.ab.com>,
George X. Kambic <George.Kambic@ab.com>  wrote:
>[...]
>
>>Your example just illustrates the Goedel theorem.  The point I was trying to 
>>make was that to know something 'for sure' we also use mathematics, even
>>if applied to a system external to the one in which this something is true.
>>Short of divine inspiration, what we hold to be true in science is arrived at
>>by logical reasoning at some level. We may propose various conjectures and
>>even have a deep, unfaltering belief that such a conjecture is true, it only
>>becomes a scientific truth if proven using logic. Penrose seems to suggest
>>that there are some scientific (mathematical) truths which logic cannot prove.
>>I have yet to hear an example. Yours does not cut it.
>
>Please note: science does *not* deal in truths.  It deals in provisional 
>models (some of which are pretty good) which allow to to understand something 
>about how (not why) the universe operates the way it does.  The logic is 
>irrelevant.  The evidence counts for a lot.  The universe *may* be logical, 
>but only if supported by evidence.  
>
I agree with the first part of your statement, but not with the second one.
Logic is not irrelevant - logic is a set of reasoning tools which we (humans)
have found out to be useful in planing our actions. These tools help us
to prune the various scenarios off "wrong" combinations of 'causes' and 
'effects'. You are right that evidence 'counts for a lot'. However, I would say
that validity of logic is also based on evidence - the success of our survival.
You might have perhaps noticed that the societies which govern themselves by
reason and not by ad hoc postulates (be it from divine inspiration or from
authority of their rulers) seem to come up on top, although admittedly not by
a margin large enough to convince everyone.

>Now back to your regular arguments.
>-- 
>George X. Kambic				Allen-Bradley
>George.Kambic@ab.com				747 Alpha Drive

>A man said to the universe: "Sir, I exist!"
>"However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me a 
>sense of obligation." - Stephen Crane.

Sounds good. Who is Stephen Crane?

Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
