Return to Index  


May 3 2012 at 2:50 AM
No score for this post

JVH say  (Login JVH)

Response to Re: Logic



Since (common) logic is the subject here, it looks like you are trying to change the subject. Why would you want to do that, since it, ironically, is a classic fallacy for one thing?

Those who understand the subject under discussion wouldn't dream of doing such, only those who don't would. wink.gif

And that's the irony of incomprehensibility; by its very nature it forces itself to be exposed. happy.gif


"Since science comes from logic, science itself can not be logic.
The scientific 'method' is logical surely.
However, since logic is not a science and does not come from science, logic is used in a valid test FOR science.
Science makes use of logic in such a way that whenever some "truth" is to be proven ..logic is a tool science uses.
Science is not a tool of logic. It is the other way around."

Could you explain what you are saying here, because if not it would serve as the proof you really have no idea what you are on about because as an argument it makes no sense whatsoever and would serve as the proof you have no idea what a logical argument actually is. happy.gif

rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
[linked image]

CD: short for inevitability

This message has been edited by JVH on May 3, 2012 2:52 AM

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

Find more forums on Religion and PhilosophyCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2015 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement