This way out of the paper bag
Originally posted by JPhish
Nothing can ever be measured with certainty because of human error
We have measuring devices that are accurate to margins of error many orders of magnitude below the human threshold of perceptibility: electron
microscopes, atomic clocks. We have devices to look at these devices, report their findings back to us and even analyze those findings: recording
media of all kinds, computers. You don't need a flesh-and-blood scientist peering through a microscope and making calculations with a slide rule.
only things trialled countless times can be "predicted".
This is called induction, and it is something humans, and many animals besides, apply intuitively. It is a perfectly acceptable way of making
predictions about the world, though it is not particularly scientific.
However, these are mere side issues. Let's move on, shall we?
you apply knowledge retrieved through inference and experimentation, to your logic
No, you do not. You apply logic to knowledge retrieved through experiment or arrived at through induction. But no doubt that is what you intended to
say - you just got the words a bit mixed up - so never mind. Let's get on to the key statement of your post:
our logic is not perfect. (according to evolution)
You mean to say our logic is not perfect because we are evolving.
Well, think again. The rules of logic have nothing to do with human evolution. They are an inevitable outcome of the principle of causality. Human
beings did not invent them; we merely discovered and articulated them. However much and in whichever direction humans evolve, the principles of logic
will remain unchanged, as they have since the beginning of time.
So the following is simply untrue:
Evolution says that everything is constantly adapting and evolving, even us. If we are subject to "change" . . . our minds and logic are as
well. This implies that our logic is either near "perfect" and declining, or not even close yet still progressing.
We may evolve in a direction that deprives us of our ability to understand the rules of logic (doubtless with creationists and intelligent-design
advocates leading the way) or we may not. But how we evolve has no effect on the rules of logic, which are universal.
As for this,
Everyones perception of the world varies. What i see as the color orange, you may perceive as the color blue. We both know it as orange, but
there's really no way to ever know we're experiencing the same things. Which makes everything inherently subjective to some degree.
I have dealt with such reasoning already in
this post on
another creationist-authored thread.
So you see, JPhish, this little joke of yours...
Even though evolution pretty much mocks the very reason(logic) that supports it; it still may be correct occasionally. But according to
evolution, only through random chance. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
...might have had a better chance of being funny if its premise wasn't so hollow. But seriously, is this the wonderful stuff that I was supposed to
learn by reading C.S. Lewis? Goodness me, as Tolkein must have said. You merely confirm my long-held belief that the man couldn't think his way out
of a paper bag.
[edit on 22-6-2008 by Astyanax]
