Chumly wrote:agrote wrote:Okay. I still disagree, but supposing you're right, we can still understand true facts about the meanings or consequences of theories.
In as much as one can say that if anything is true, than something must be true in consequence. Rather circular and perhaps a bit bereft of consequential substance, me thinks.
I'm not saying that "if anything is true, something
else must be true in consequence". I'm saying that if anything is true, then the world must be such that it is true. A true proposition requires a truthmaker. If it's true
that the cat is sat on the mat, then the cat must
be sat on the mat. Truth of a proposition (or theory) is correspondence to a fact (or state of affairs). This is the correspondence theory of truth... but not everybody agrees with it, of course.
So if the theory of intelligent design is true, then it is a fact that there is/was an intelligent designer. And my previous sentence itself is (I think) a true proposition. So by your definition of understanding, it is the sort of proposition that one can understand. You are able to understand that if the theory of intelligent desing is true, then there must be (or have been) an intelligent designer.
If I make my conditional proposition more detailed, I can produce another true proposition, the understanding of which looks a hell of a lot like the understanding of the theory of intelligent design. I'll have a go...
If intelligent design is true, then the entire universe was created by a being which was intelligent, in that it had the sorts of qualities that we believe make certain human beings intelligent, such as a capacity for foresight.
The above sentence true (I think... if not, I'm sure you could come up with a true equivalent). So you can understand it. And it seems to me that to understand the above sentence is, basically, to understand the theory of intelligent design.
Quote:OTOH I am an avid fan of SF so who am I to talk! However it's Hard SF that appeals to me the most so perhaps I'm at least partially exonerated
Then again I am not willing to say Hard SF is factual per se despite me being able to understand the so-called "true facts about the meanings or consequences" of Hard SF.
What's SF?
Quote:agrote wrote:For example, even though intelligent design is (I will assume, for the sake of argument) a false theory, it is still true that the world would be a different place if intelligent design were true. So there are facts about what the world would be like if intelligent design were true. Since these facts are true, by your definition we can understand them.
The question is, can this be classified as a so-called "true fact" per se? I think it would be more apropos to consider it a general condition based on a supposition rather than a "true fact" per se.
It's a conditional. I'll try to outline the elementary logic that I'm relying on here:
- A conditional is a type of proposition of the form 'if X, then Y'.
- A proposition is a statement which attempts to describe reality, and which can be either true or false (true if it describes a real fact, and false if it does not).
- For a conditional of the form 'if X, then Y' to be true, Y must be true in every case where X is true.
- If there is a case where X is true and Y is false, then 'if X, then Y' must be false. That is the only way that a conditional can be falsified - by pointing to a case where the antecedent X is true, yet the consequent Y is false.
In my conditional:
X = 'intelligent design is true'
Y = 'the entire universe was created by a being which was intelligent, in that it had the sorts of qualities that we believe make certain human beings intelligent, such as a capacity for foresight'
If X, then Y. The only way you can falsify this conditional is by pointing to a scenario in which X is true, but Y is not. I.e. if (and only if) it is possible for intelligent design to be true
and for there to be no intelligent designer as I have described, then my conditional is false. Otherwise it is true.
If it is false, then I'm sure we'd be able to improve upon it until it is true. Or we could use a different false theory as an example, and come up with a true conditional about that.
If it is true, then by your understanding of understanding, you can understand it. I'll make that clearer. You claimed that we can only understand things that are true. So if my conditional is true, I can't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to understand it.
If you can understand it, then I reckon you pretty much understand the theory of intelligent design. You know what the world would be like if the theory were true... what more can I ask for? Surely then you understand the theory?
Quote:Your analogy presumes that can be an understanding of intelligent design, and given that intelligent design refers to the supernatural, and man is of the natural world and not supernatural world I am dubious that there can be an understanding of intelligent design per se.
That's quite reasonable. But there are false theories which are not supernatural. So maybe I should have used a better example... that's all.
Quote:Based on the understanding (!) that I am dealing with a reasonably rational and logical poster then to some fair degree such discussions may come down to perception and semantics. It's good fun if nothing else, plus it amuses Mame!
Aye, it's all fun and games.
