Difference between revisions of "Logic of possibility"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (typo)
(Adopting the logic of possibility in the Evolutionary thought: adding Spetner's view on Darwin)
Line 35: Line 35:
 
*''"I am sure to be in error in many parts; but my general view, I conclude, must have some truth in it"''<ref>{{cite web |title=Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa 24 Dec [1859]|publisher=the University of Cambridge Darwin Correspondence Project|accessdate=17-Mar-2013|url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2599}}</ref>
 
*''"I am sure to be in error in many parts; but my general view, I conclude, must have some truth in it"''<ref>{{cite web |title=Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa 24 Dec [1859]|publisher=the University of Cambridge Darwin Correspondence Project|accessdate=17-Mar-2013|url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2599}}</ref>
 
*''"For the life of me I cannot see any difficulty in Natural selection producing the most exquisite structure, if such structure can be arrived at by gradation;"''<ref>{{cite web |title=Darwin, C. R. to Lyell, Charles 15 Apr [1860]|publisher=the University of Cambridge Darwin Correspondence Project|accessdate=17-Mar-2013|url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2761}}</ref>
 
*''"For the life of me I cannot see any difficulty in Natural selection producing the most exquisite structure, if such structure can be arrived at by gradation;"''<ref>{{cite web |title=Darwin, C. R. to Lyell, Charles 15 Apr [1860]|publisher=the University of Cambridge Darwin Correspondence Project|accessdate=17-Mar-2013|url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2761}}</ref>
 +
*''"there is no difficulty in supposing that such links formerly existed"''<ref>{{|title=Not by chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution|author=Lee Spetner|publisher=Judaica Press|year=1998|pages=84|isbn=978-1880-582244|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=29BGPwAACAAJ&dq=Spetner+not+by+chance&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G81xUa2dNdCQ4gTAhYFQ&redir_esc=y|quote=[Darwin 1872, pp. 182 ff.] From "there is no difficulty in supposing", he went on to lead the reader into agreeing that it ''probably'' happened, and finally he assumes the reader goes along with him in agreeing that it did indeed happen that way.}}</ref>
  
 
Although it is not a fault to make such modest forms of expressions, they are in fact a formulae of a [[creed]] and not of a [[scientific theory]].<ref name="Hull"/>
 
Although it is not a fault to make such modest forms of expressions, they are in fact a formulae of a [[creed]] and not of a [[scientific theory]].<ref name="Hull"/>

Revision as of 19:09, 19 April 2013

The logic of possibility is a peculiarly imaginative, inventive mode of argument. Unlike conventional logic, where the compound of possibilities does not result in a greater possibility or probability, but in a lesser one, the logic of possibility is one by which possibilities are assumed to add up to probability.[1] Effectively, the logic of possibility replaces one unknown mystery with another.[2][note 1] Darwin was criticised for using this method in The Origin of Species for there in it is assumed that the mere possibility of imagining a series of steps of transition from one condition of organs to another is to be accepted as a reason for believing that such transition has taken place.[4][note 2] Adopting the logic of possibility is an unscientific way of avoiding criticism of a hypothesis and attempt to free it from the burden of proof because a critic could reply to conjecture and imagination only with conjecture of his or her own, what would pointlessly lead nowhere.[1][note 3] The logic of possibility is native to postmodern science and scientism, respectively; and it violates the borderline, until recently respected with dignity by great scientists, between what is known and what is not.[2] The counterfactual reasoning inherent to logic of possibility should not be confused with Gedanken (thought) experiment, an legitimate device of the imagination used, inter alia by brilliant practitioners like, for example, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, and Maxwell[note 4], to investigate the nature of things without making factual claims about what had allegedly happened in their unobservable history.

Adopting the logic of possibility in the Evolutionary thought

Following the Darwin, the adherents of Theory of evolution also often encompass the logic of possibility in their asserts implying that things virtually construct themselves, the typical example is the book Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins was criticised by Berlinski that[2]:
"It is one thing, however, to appeal to a path up Mount Improbable, quite another to demonstrate its existence. Dawkins persuades himself that because such a path might exist, further argument is unnecessary."
Impediments are simply directed to disappear by adopting language terms like:
  • "There is no difficulty"
  • "there is definite tendency in the right direction"
  • "it is not at all difficult to imagine"

The true character of Darwinian hypotheses, labelled by John Wiester as "just-so stories" dominated by fuzzy logic, has been exemplified by William Hopkins' criticism in which he pointed out that Darwin, unlike Newton, made at any time but little use of the verb "to prove" in any of its inflections. His primary formula was "I think," "I am convinced," "I believe," "my general view must have some truth," "I cannot see any difficulty," and not "I have proved"[8]:

  • "I believe that something more is included"
  • "we have such good reason to believe"
  • "I believe, as was remarked in the last chapter, in no law of necessary development."[9]
  • "I think there can be little doubt that"
  • "We may I think safely assume"
  • "There is, also, I think, some probability in the view"
  • "I am convinced of their accuracy; and if I had space, I could show that they are conformable with my theory"[10]
  • "I am sure to be in error in many parts; but my general view, I conclude, must have some truth in it"[11]
  • "For the life of me I cannot see any difficulty in Natural selection producing the most exquisite structure, if such structure can be arrived at by gradation;"[12]
  • "there is no difficulty in supposing that such links formerly existed"[13]

Although it is not a fault to make such modest forms of expressions, they are in fact a formulae of a creed and not of a scientific theory.[8]

Notes

  1. For example, the assumably unknown causes of homosexual behaviour are replaced by insisting that such behaviour is result of operation of so called 'evolutionary enigma' .[3]
  2. cf."Today it is simply unscientific to claim that the fantastically reduced entropy of the human brain, of the dolphin's sound lens, and of the eye of a fossilised trilobite simply "happened", for experimental experience has shown that such miracles just do not "happen"."[5]
  3. cf."As my colleague, the physical chemist Peter Atkins, puts it, we must be equally agnostic about the theory that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto. We can’t disprove it. But that doesn’t mean the theory that there is a teapot is on level terms with the theory that there isn’t" Bertrand Russell (1958), quoted in Ars Disputandi[6]
  4. For example, Maxwell’s intelligent agent, referred to by secular scientists as 'Maxwell's demon', was a Gedankenexperiment to help us to understand the dissipation of energy in nature.[7]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Randal Hedtke (2010). Secrets of the Sixth Edition. Master Books, 26. ISBN 978-0-89051-597-6. 
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 David Berlinski (2009). "Denying Darwin: David Berlinski & Critics", The Deniable Darwin. Seattle, USA: Discovery Institute Press (reprinted from Commentary February 1998 by permission), 94, 143, 231, 345, 377. ISBN 978-0-9790141-2-3. “...examples of Darwinian "just-so" stories and fuzzy logic are both instructive and amusing (quoted John Wiester). ...In reaching this conclusion he has replaced one mystery with another. ...Until recently, the great physicists have … attempted with dignity to respect the distinction between what is known and what is not. ...The patch does only what they have told it to do. ...” 
  3. William R. Rice, Urban Friberg and Sergey Gavrilets ((December 2012). Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development. The Quarterly Review of Biology. “This paper argues that sexually antagonistic selection can also be involved in epigenetic effects and explain the enigmatic high prevalence of several fitness-reducing human characters. ... Homosexuality is frequently considered to be an unusual phenotype because it represents an evolutionary enigma —a trait that is expected to reduce Darwinian fitness, yet it persists at substantial frequency across many different (possibly all) human populations.”
  4. Gertrude Himmelfarb (1967). Darwin and the Darwinian revolution. Peter Smith. 
  5. Wilder Smith (2003). The natural sciences know nothing of evolution. Word for Today. ISBN 978-1931713504. 
  6. Brian Garvey (2010). Absence of Evidence, Evidence of Absence, and the Atheist’s Teapot. Ars Disputandi.
  7. Manuel Eugen Bremer, Daniel Cohnitz (2004). Information and Information Flow: An Introduction. Ontos Verlag. ISBN 978-3937202471. “This thought experiment was intended by Maxwell to dramatize the fact that the second law is a statistical principle and that it is not certain that the entropy in any case increases.” 
  8. 8.0 8.1 David L. Hull (1973). Darwin and his critics: the reception of Darwin's theory of evolution by the scientific community. Harvard University Press. 
  9. Charles Darwin. "11", The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for life. 
  10. Charles Darwin. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for life. 
  11. Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa 24 Dec [1859]. the University of Cambridge Darwin Correspondence Project. Retrieved on 17-Mar-2013.
  12. Darwin, C. R. to Lyell, Charles 15 Apr [1860]. the University of Cambridge Darwin Correspondence Project. Retrieved on 17-Mar-2013.
  13. {{|title=Not by chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution|author=Lee Spetner|publisher=Judaica Press|year=1998|pages=84|isbn=978-1880-582244|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=29BGPwAACAAJ&dq=Spetner+not+by+chance&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G81xUa2dNdCQ4gTAhYFQ&redir_esc=y%7Cquote=[Darwin 1872, pp. 182 ff.] From "there is no difficulty in supposing", he went on to lead the reader into agreeing that it probably happened, and finally he assumes the reader goes along with him in agreeing that it did indeed happen that way.}}

See Also