Staky, this thread is for you--Law of multiple arguments

[_MCB]

Yes, Apologetics Law #2: Use denial, personal attack and obfuscation all in the same post.

I don't think that is an empirical methodology. :))

[_Quasimodo]

As said, proving history is kinda futile. How do we know that George Washington was the one who crossed the Delaware River, and that he wasn't some other general that looked preciesly like him? We don't. There is just a very high likeliness of it being not the case. But it's still not proof, it's only high-likeliness. Proof only exists in math, that it does, and unless you are using math, you cannot 'prove' something. You can only make another person give up their alternatives. If you cannot make the other person does not give up their alternatives, your points don't really help much.

I think that there maybe two different things going on here that are conflated. While you could say that true and false are opposites, in logic discussions, they are not always related.

True is what is verifiable. If it cannot be verified, it's not true. That doesn't make it absolutely false, however. Only that it can't be taken as true.

[_Quasimodo]

Uh Quasi, that's strong evidence - but it isn't absolute... it ends up being about 98-99% chance ratio if I remember right. However, there is still a very small possibility of another type of object causing a black-hole like effect. The only absolute way to determine black holes is by listening using gravity wave detectors for a specific signature unique to colliding black holes.

Now who is splitting hairs! :)!!!!!!

I will freely admit that 98-99% is not 100% (I'll do your recommended search). Most evidence is even a lower percentage than that. Still, that's the assumption that science will make until proven otherwise. And, I'm sure that there are many researchers working hard to disprove it.

[_TAO]

I think that there maybe two different things going on here that are conflated. While you could say that true and false are opposites, in logic discussions, they are not always related.

That could be... but because of my Autism, I ususally think in terms of absolutes. For me, I try and avoid things that aren't absolute, unless other know my context. I try and avoid saying 'this thing is true', unless others know which definition of true I am talking about.

True is what is verifiable.

No, this is perceived truth. The difference being, it may not be correct, it is just what seems correct at the moment. There is a difference, and that difference must be clear.

If it cannot be verified, it's not true.

Also, not quite correct, it's based on perception. Me and Tarski were having a discussion about virtual particles the other day. And the funny thing is - we we will never know whether or not virtual particles actually exist close to black hole horizons. Some things will never be verifiable (that is until the second coming ;-]). That doesn't make them any less true. It just makes their perceived truth seem different.

That doesn't make it absolutely false, however. Only that it can't be taken as true.

Yah, I know... it's why I tend to stray away from the 'logical discussions'... people confuse absolute and perceived truth. The problem is, at times, perceived truth can be very misleading - in fact, it can be completely false at times - which is why I try and avoid it as much as possible if ya' know what I mean. Can't escape it completely, but I do try and not use perceived truth when I don't have to.

It does make some people frustrated though XD. My absolute-truth obsessed mind drives some people up a wall... sometimes I feel a bit bad for them.

[_TAO]

Now who is splitting hairs! :)!!!!!!

Hmm... never heard this phrase before, but I'll assume it means assuming. It does seem like something I should learn though =D.

EDIT: Major irony in my statement... assuming that your phrase meant assuming XD.

I will freely admit that 98-99% is not 100% (I'll do your recommended search). Most evidence is even a lower percentage than that. Still, that's the assumption that science will make until proven otherwise. And, I'm sure that there are many researchers working hard to disprove it.

True... I think the best thing we can say is that the percieved truth is 98-99%, and that the absolute truth cannot be determined at the moment... I am curious about new research into the subject though... some physics concepts tend to undergo radical changes every few years.

[_Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR NOTE: All off-topic posts regarding Asperger's Syndrome, autism, etc. have been split into the Off-Topic Forum.]

[_Quasimodo]

[MODERATOR NOTE: All off-topic posts regarding Asperger's Syndrome, autism, etc. have been split into the Off-Topic Forum.]

Sorry Shades! My apologies to MCB, as well! My fault, I'm sure. I really am trying to be good.

[_MCB]

Now, if I can just get Staky to expound on the subject as it was first brought up.

[_MCB]

BUMP

[_MrStakhanovite]

Hi MCB,

Sorry it took me a long time to respond, I hardly check the Celestial forum at all. I’ve never heard of anything called the ‘Law of Multiple Arguments’ arguments before, but I think I can make some comments that might prove useful.

First, there is only one way to show a proposition to be false, and that is to show it’s negation. Let’s say that the proposition “It is the case that TAO is 25 years old” is represented by N. ~N would represent “It is not the case that TAO is 25 years old.” The only way to show that N is false is present -N, how you show -N could be varied (checking his birth certificate, asking his mom, etc). In that respect, you could only prove ~N to be false by showing ~~N (which is to say it is not, not the case that TAO is 25 years old.), which logically entails N, but I’m just being nit picky there, and there could be multiple methods for showing ~~N, just like for ~N.

Now logically, an argument is a series of propositions (or conjectures) used to force an inevitable conclusion (that is itself a proposition). I would wager, that there is an innumerable number of methods to structure an argument (given that the number of logics is only limited by humans) to prove a proposition or it’s negation.

Now, everything above rests on the assumption that you can prove N or ~N to the extent a skeptic would believe it but, there is conceivably any number of valid and sound logical arguments one could marshal to show a proposition to be true or false.