@xris,
xris;36017 wrote:Ive tried keeping up with you wiz kids but at times you appear to be trying to out inform each other and have lost the plot.
That's not what's going on here.
Data is trying to present a logical proof, that in logical terms is irrefutable.
So it may seem unfair that I'm assailing it on scientific grounds.
But the problem is that his logical proof is
inseparably dependant on certain scientific pretexts.
And the problem is that nearly every scientific statement he's made is simply wrong. It's actually worse than being wrong -- it's misleading.
Why misleading? Because he's selective about which science he chooses and which he disregards, but his selectivity is NOT based on the methodological merit of the science. It's misleading because he deliberately presents speculative statements as facts. It's misleading because he deliberately presents areas of great controversy as facts.
If the logic of his proof depends on certain
scientific facts about the world, then his proof will be meaningless if even a single fact of his is wrong. And what that means is he cannot present this proof in good faith unless he has utmost understanding and comprehensive literacy with the science he cites.
I really don't want to extend a tit for tat about scientific nuance. That's not the point. I wouldn't even take it to this length if he weren't so self-assured about how his proof is irrefutable and impenetrable. But it turns out that his proof (thus far) is broken from the very beginning -- so much so that there is nothing to refute.
And this leads to a more important point about the methodology of logical proofs. Namely, if one attempts an exercise in pure logic, how much reference can there be to the 'real' world before the logic becomes subsumed beneath the empirical? I'd argue that in the case of Data's proof, that his logic is entirely beholden to the truth or falsehood of empirical science, since it is so essential to his premise.