Best Religious/Nonreligious Debate Ever

[_Tarski]

I guess you missed one of my posts. Oh well, somewhere in it I asked you this:

"what do you think of this statement from the SEP?"

It is now generally held that the core idea of Bayesian logicism is fatally flawed—that syntactic logical structure cannot be the sole determiner of the degree to which premises inductively support conclusions. A crucial facet of the problem faced by Bayesian logicism involves how the logic is supposed to apply to scientific contexts where the conclusion sentence is some hypothesis or theory, and the premises are evidence claims. The difficulty is that in any probabilistic logic that satisfies the usual axioms for probabilities, the inductive support for a hypothesis must depend in part on its prior probability. This prior probability represents how plausible the hypothesis is supposed to be based on considerations other than the observational and experimental evidence (e.g. perhaps due to relevant plausibility arguments).

[_MrStakhanovite]

The SEP article is above my head, but I don’t doubt it’s conclusion. Bayes is just merely a tool to strengthen justification for a belief or an argument, and since it deals primarily with epistemic probabilities*, all values are subjective and never really final anyways.

* In the philosophy world.

[_marg]

Tarski,

According to Stak he explains in his post viewtopic.php?p=503253#p503253
..that at this point is when he lost respect. Keep in mind Stak’s criticism is I enter threads and post not knowing what I’m talking about..and so this is an example he has in mind.

I still think he’s wrong with regards to induction and he still thinks he’s right, and at this point he’s not referring to mathematical induction (which has nothing to do with Dawkin’s argument anyhow). We need someone knowledgeable, a rare trait around here, :) (as opposed to someone simply opinionated) and sort out whose views are right and whose are wrong. I don’t think we can both be right. For example he says to me “You are telling me, that when someone makes an inductive argument, they don't have to offer a proof to show it's valid.” I did question him what he meant by the word "valid" in one of my posts, to differentiate whether he was referring to “valid” in the deductive logical sense or simply in the general everyday sense of meaning 'to be correct'. It appears to me he’s talking about the logical deductive sense because he keeps referring to “form” as a necessity in inductive reasoning.

I posted a comment to his post here.: viewtopic.php?p=503321#p503321

Have you started to read Dawkins' "God Delusion" yet and if so where are you in the book?

[_Tarski]

Tarski,

According to Stak he explains in his post viewtopic.php?p=503253#p503253
..that at this point is when he lost respect. Keep in mind Stak’s criticism is I enter threads and post not knowing what I’m talking about..and so this is an example he has in mind.

I still think he’s wrong with regards to induction and he still thinks he’s right, and at this point he’s not referring to mathematical induction (which has nothing to do with Dawkin’s argument anyhow). We need someone knowledgeable, a rare trait around here, :) (as opposed to someone simply opinionated) and sort out whose views are right and whose are wrong. I don’t think we can both be right. For example he says to me “You are telling me, that when someone makes an inductive argument, they don't have to offer a proof to show it's valid.” I did question him what he meant by the word "valid" in one of my posts, to differentiate whether he was referring to “valid” in the deductive logical sense or simply in the general everyday sense of meaning 'to be correct'. It appears to me he’s talking about the logical deductive sense because he keeps referring to “form” as a necessity in inductive reasoning.

I posted a comment to his post here.: viewtopic.php?p=503321#p503321

Have you started to read Dawkins' "God Delusion" yet and if so where are you in the book?

Weird. I answered this in a long long thread while at work. But where is it?

Maybe I will give a long answer again but the short answer is that the whole idea of validity residing solely in form in the sense of syntax (a computer could check validity) is usually brought up regarding deductive reasoning rather than inductive reasoning that we find commonly in science--the kind of thing Hume worried about. So my first reaction would have been that your question was dead on. Of course, every argument has to have some form or another or it cannot be intelligible. Is that all he meant?

However, there is, as Stak might have already noticed, a notion of “inductive logic” and I only know about the most common Bayesian approach. Now in that topic we see an attempt to formalize probabilistic reasoning related to, or a subset of, inductive reasoning in general. And, drum role, they do indeed try to set things up so that the degree to which the likelihoods of premises force likelihood on a conclusion can be checked formally! However, this approach has serious problems that undercut application to the real world. Read about it in the usual place: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/
By the way, this is not the mathematical induction which we have already seen is pure deduction.

I don't think this is all that relevant to the Dawkins book. But in any case, I will admit that your question was a good one. Asking for an explanation of “validity and form” in inductive reasoning is a very good question. Stak should have just explained if he had such esoterica as Bayesian inductive logic in mind. If it wasn’t for this rather less well known inductive logics thing, I could have just said you were flat out right. You were right to ask for an explanation since normally folks think of formal validity as belonging to pure deductive reasoning. Further, I still feel that what is normally referred to as inductive reasoning is not formalized and perhaps can’t be. Scientific reasoning is surely not just inductive reasoning anyway. We appeal to clarity, applicability, beauty, intuitiveness, and an indeterminate host of things. Likewise, I see no reason to say that Dawkins couldn’t be using all kinds of things to make his case without relying on formal logic of any kind.
It wasn’t stupid question in my opinion. In fact, I am ruminating on the question still.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I don't think this is all that relevant to the Dawkins book. But in any case, I will admit that your question was a good one. Asking for an explanation of “validity and form” in inductive reasoning is a very good question. Stak should have just explained if he had such esoterica as Bayesian inductive logic in mind. If it wasn’t for this rather less well known inductive logics thing, I could have just said you were flat out right. You were right to ask for an explanation since normally folks think of formal validity as belonging to pure deductive reasoning.

Actually, the first probability reasoning I offered was based off R.A. Fisher's work, and Ian Hacking, which is not Bayesian, but a notion of Likelihood:

This book is a philosophical study of the basic principles of statistical reasoning. Professor Hacking has sought to discover the simple principles which underlie modern work in mathematical statistics and to test them, both at a philosophical level and in terms of their practical consequences fort statisticians. The ideas of modern logic are used to analyse these principles, and results are presented without the use of unfamiliar symbolism. It begins with a philosophical analysis of a few central concepts and then, using an elementary system of logic, develops most of the standard statistical theory. the analysis provides answers to many disputed questions about how to test statistical hypotheses and about how to estimate quantities in the light of statistical data. One product of the analysis is a sound and consistent rationale for R. A. Fisher's controversial concept of 'fiducial probability'.

SAUCE

Of course, there is another rival which rejects probability from J.D. Norton. He summarizes a good example of Demonstrative Induction:

There are numerous other examples in the literature. For example,
following Planck’s 1900 work, it was recognized that the hypothesis of
quantization of energy would save the phenomena of the distribution of
energy over different frequencies in heat radiation. But is that enough to
force us to accept this hypothesis so fundamentally at odds with classical
physics? Shortly after, in the early 1910s, Ehrenfest and Poincare´ showed
that we had to accept it. The extra presumptions needed to make the
inference deductive were ones already accepted: essentially that thermal
systems are really just systems with many degrees of freedom acting in the
most probable way. From the relevant phenomena, they now showed one
could deduce the quantization of energy (see Norton 1993; and for an
example in Bohr’s work, Norton 2000).

SAUCE (page 20)

Inductive inferences need to be made properly, no matter the strategy. You cannot make a scientific induction without some kind of local or universal (or some mixture of the two) schema.

Likewise, I see no reason to say that Dawkins couldn’t be using all kinds of things to make his case without relying on formal logic of any kind.

I think the text relies on demonstrative induction. Any argument, to be forceful, follows some kind of schema, no matter how casual. My dispute with Marg is what Dawkins said in his book.

It’s all about what Dawkins’ text says, he relies on the force of his argument to carry the main thrust of the book, and he wouldn’t leave that to some notion of literary beauty or is something mathematical symmetry is appropriate for.

[_marg]

Weird. I answered this in a long long thread while at work. But where is it?

Even though this has nothing to do with your sentence your ambien posts came to mind. Looking into it a while ago I came across this humorous video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C1VsRgAI3c

Maybe I will give a long answer again but the short answer is that the whole idea of validity residing solely in form in the sense of syntax (a computer could check validity) is usually brought up regarding deductive reasoning rather than inductive reasoning that we find commonly in science--the kind of thing Hume worried about. So my first reaction would have been that your question was dead on. Of course, every argument has to have some form or another or it cannot be intelligible. Is that all he meant?

No it's not what he meant..because it was at that point he brought up mathematical induction equation...and that was to support his argument that induction required formand validity. And he even mentions in his recent post which explained where he lost respect that that was when he brought up mathematical induction.

However, there is, as Stak might have already noticed, a notion of “inductive logic” and I only know about the most common Bayesian approach. Now in that topic we see an attempt to formalize probabilistic reasoning related to, or a subset of, inductive reasoning in general. And, drum role, they do indeed try to set things up so that the degree to which the likelihoods of premises force likelihood on a conclusion can be checked formally!

Again this is not what he meant, because that has nothing to do with Dawkins' argument.

However, this approach has serious problems that undercut application to the real world. Read about it in the usual place: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/
By the way, this is not the mathematical induction which we have already seen is pure deduction.

I have a vague understanding of Bayesian probability from years ago looking into it, but conceptually it's about applying probabilities in equations based upon strength of beliefs ..that's not what Dawkins did.

I don't think this is all that relevant to the Dawkins book. But in any case, I will admit that your question was a good one. Asking for an explanation of “validity and form” in inductive reasoning is a very good question. Stak should have just explained if he had such esoterica as Bayesian inductive logic in mind.

Stak explained by bringing up mathematical induction..that that was his understanding of induction. Conceptually he doesn't understand it. I had such a hard time trying to understanding him.and his reaction to my questioning was to simply insult. Which is fine, he's young, but then we get people like Kevin piping in when he doesn't know what he's talking about and EA encouraging Stak..which obviously doesn't help.

If it wasn’t for this rather less well known inductive logics thing, I could have just said you were flat out right.

Well why would Stak bring up mathematical induction to show me "induction" requires form and validity?

You were right to ask for an explanation since normally folks think of formal validity as belonging to pure deductive reasoning. Further, I still feel that what is normally referred to as inductive reasoning is not formalized and perhaps can’t be. Scientific reasoning is surely not just inductive reasoning anyway. We appeal to clarity, applicability, beauty, intuitiveness, and an indeterminate host of things.

Why would appealing to clarity, intuition etc mean it's not inductive reasoning? No matter what means are used..that leap in reasoning is still inductive.

Likewise, I see no reason to say that Dawkins couldn’t be using all kinds of things to make his case without relying on formal logic of any kind.

He wasn't relying on formal deductive logic.

It wasn’t stupid question in my opinion. In fact, I am ruminating on the question still.

I think Stak's biggest problems is he really doesn't understand Dawkins' argument.

I pointed out at the beginning when I first starting posting in the thread ..that invariably whenever I see someone on the Net criticizing Dawkins (and it's not that I read a lot of Dawkins but I know the guy is not stupid) so when I see people presenting an argument allegedly from him that doesn't seem realistic, I invariable find that when I enquire or look into it, that Dawkins is being misrepresented and/or misunderstood. It's the only reason I read the book was because people were criticizing it. I never got into much of a discussion with Stak because in no time he resorted to insults, but from the bit I could gather I don't think he understands the argument Dawkins makes. In addition, Stak apparently thinks a theist philosopher Swinburne makes good arguments for God's existence and then criticizes Dawkins for not spending much time on this philosophers' reasoning/arguments. What Dawkins does in the book is teach critical thinking using science, I doubt the philosopher that Stak admires, Swinburne ...promotes critical thinking.

[_marg]

Schmo

I looked over your last post and I don't see any benefit or reason to respond further to it, I'm sure that's no surprise to you, but thought I'd mention since I said I'd reply this week.


Stak you wrote:
"#3 of Dawkins argument on Pages 157-158 can be true along with the God Hypothesis, hence, his entire argument doesn't follow. There is no entailment. "

Could you please elaborate ..I don't follow what you are saying.

Also you write:

"It’s a demonstrative induction that uses MP to achieve it’s goal. "

Is this something you've picked up from a philosopher's critical evaluation of Dawkins' argument, or is this something you've come up with on your own?

[_Tarski]

Well why would Stak bring up mathematical induction to show me "induction" requires form and validity?

That was a mistake, but I am pretty sure that Stak knew about probabilistic analogs of deductive logic and that this is what he had in mind since I think this is the kind of thing that Swineburne employs.

Neither of you are admitting that the whole thing has been a catalyst for learning. It has been for me. Logic isn't my area. My area is differential geometry and mathematical physics. My knowledge of logic is mostly limited to the kind of thing that almost every PhD mathematician knows about. I have taught undergraduate classes in proof theory and have taken one course in logic. Most of what I learned, I learned from practicing mathematics and reading books on logic like Hamilton's "Logic for Mathematicians" and a couple books about Godel's theorem and several others. I have never studied modal logic in earnest and I have never read Keynes' seminal paper or Carnap's material on the topic of inductive logics.
I have never before asked myself how useful this stuff would be to analysize arguments found in popular books like those written by Dawkins.


Stak's knowledge here seems to be deep in places but with big gaps typical of the self taught but he may still be faking it and overly dependent on sources like the SEP. Or conversely he may understand quite a bit more than I have even guessed. I can't tell yet so I give the benefit of the doubt and consider it a learning opportunity for everyone.

Staks insults don't appeal to me. Outside of that, the need to be right which you both share is over the top.

It is unfair for you to ask me to arbitrate futher since I still haven't read the book, and if I am to really do Stak's point of view justice I would also have to read Swineburne. In order to do Swineburne justice I would have to get further into logic than I have.
That's a lot of work and if my only motivation were to satisfy your need for me to declare a winner, it might not be enough motivation.

I think I will find that Dawkins' book is very good for the kind of book it is intended to be. I am sure his reasons for being atheistic or agnostic have a lot in common with mine.

Please let me off the hook now, at least for a while.

[_marg]

Well why would Stak bring up mathematical induction to show me "induction" requires form and validity?

That was a mistake, but I am pretty sure that Stak knew about probabilistic analogs of deductive logic and that this is what he had in mind since I think this is the kind of thing that Swineburne employs.

Neither of you are admitting that the whole thing has been a catalyst for learning. It has been for me. Logic isn't my area. My area is differential geometry and mathematical physics. My knowledge of logic is mostly limited to the kind of thing that almost every PhD mathematician knows about. I have taught undergraduate classes in proof theory and have taken one course in logic. Most of what I learned, I learned from practicing mathematics and reading books on logic like Hamilton's "Logic for Mathematicians" and a couple books about Godel's theorem and several others. I have never studied modal logic in earnest and I have never read Keynes' seminal paper or Carnap's material on the topic of inductive logics.
I have never before asked myself how useful this stuff would be to analysize arguments found in popular books like those written by Dawkins.

For me this has not been a catalyst for learning you are right. When the discussion a while back was in progress I was asking questions..but the response I got was insults as opposed to focusing on the issue. The discussion didn't go anywhere.

As far as what Stak knows ..that is not known because he didn't explain himself.

Stak's knowledge here seems to be deep in places but with big gaps typical of the self taught but he may still be faking it and overly dependent on sources like the SEP. Or conversely he may understand quite a bit more than I have even guessed. I can't tell yet so I give the benefit of the doubt and consider it a learning opportunity for everyone.

I consider learning when there is a give and take in discussion, a progression forward which did not happen in this discussion..except maybe a little bit recently with you attempts.

Staks insults don't appeal to me. Outside of that, the need to be right which you both share is over the top.

That's not fair Tarski. If you actually took the time to go through the thread it was not I having a need to be right, I was asking questions attempting to understand what Stak's argument was against Dawkins. And I'm glad you think you understand his argument, because I certainly don't. I personally don't think he has an argument.

It is unfair for you to ask me to arbitrate futher since I still haven't read the book,

And i said to you that there was no rush. But the parts we are discussing currently 'induction versus deduction' which I was going to wait until later to bring up but Stak brought it up, is not in the book. And the key part Stak criticized is in one chapter ...and I summarized with quotes the key parts in it.

and if I am to really do Stak's point of view justice I would also have to read Swineburne. In order to do Swineburne justice I would have to get further into logic than I have.

Give me a break, there is no logical argument for the religious God's existence. sheesh you don't have to read Swineburne.

That's a lot of work and if my only motivation were to satisfy your need for me to declare a winner, it might not be enough motivation.

or maybe that's not the point..maybe you have no interest in being critical of Stak

I think I will find that Dawkins' book is very good for the kind of book it is intended to be. I am sure his reasons for being atheistic or agnostic have a lot in common with mine.

Please let me off the hook now, at least for a while.

Look you are the only one who said anything at all so I respect you for that. The next step I was wanting to address was the actual argument Stak was making..is it justified or not. But this board is so anemic as far as a source of information and learning for me...that if that doesn't get addressed, it doesn't matter to me.

[_Tarski]

I consider learning when there is a give and take in discussion, a progression forward which did not happen in this discussion..except maybe a little bit recently with you attempts.

Fair enough.

And I'm glad you think you understand his argument, because I certainly don't.

Actually I never said I understood Stak's argument. I only addressed bit and pieces which look to me to be more of a list of complaints about the Dawkins book rather than a structured argument. If there is an argument in that long thread, looking at it in detail doesn't make much sense until I read the book.

Give me a break, there is no logical argument for the religious God's existence. sheesh you don't have to read Swineburne.

LOL, well someone skeptical has to read it. By the way, I noticed you said "religious" God. I think I know what you mean by this and I agree that the very thought that someone will logically derive God-baby-Jesus so to speak is beyond absurd---Bayesian inductive logic or not. And if we are talking about an unknowable or transcendent God, then how would we even know we had arrived at a conclusion. What conclusion would that be exactly?

Look you are the only one who said anything at all so I respect you for that.

OK.

The next step I was wanting to address was the actual argument Stak was making..is it justified or not.

Well, wait until I read the book. Please don't outline Stak's argument for me or anything yet.
Of course, maybe I will get bored and not make it through the book but I will try.