@failures art,
Again,
anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.
Empiricalism induces the circle.
Furthermore, you must assume consistency, hence naturalism, however are you certain that backround independent entities, such as the physical constants are consistent, do you not believe in inflation?
If so, what of the consequent conditions, such as the suggested chaotic inflation concepts, the universe may end.
If there is no space, how are intervals operated?
Quote:Theories don't become laws.
Does the antecedent conditions define the critreon?
The suggested law may have been a theory, by definition theories do not become laws, or I believe this to be the case.
Quote:What happens in micro-evolution versus macro-evolution. I want to hear what distinguishes these processes such that you believe one has been observed, and the other hasn't.
Taxonomically, macro evolution is subject to speciation.
Micro evolution analyses allele frequencey, which entails natural selection.
Quote:Speak science, please.
I do have knowledge in science, in fact more than I do in formal philosophy.
Humans are no longer subject to macro evolution, there is no macro selection pressure.
There is no genetic isolation, humans may fly to any region and reproduce, meaning the allele frequency of 'dominant' genes may never increase in the population.
Example:
Obese humans may culturally fly to any region and selectively reproduce, however can such humans hunt and evade predators, or have neurological conditioning to adapt and navigate in the natural environment.
Such stimulus of the paleolithic enables variation in the human gnome, cultural phenomena may prohibit such, humans no longer die from the lack of fitnss.
Quote:This is a silly argument.
Are we arguing normatives, this is not politics?
Social science to natural science is another example of greedy reductionalism, such as attempting to naturally define 'mental illness', it is a fuzzy concept.
Emotions (Appeal to emotion fallacy) are null in regards to a positive analysis.
Quote:What about the word "specifically" escaped you?
I am referring to circumstantial evidence.
Analogy: finding a hair sample (circumstantial evidence) at a murder scene increases the 'sufficiency' of evidence to trail against the murder (direct evidence) you have observed.
Quote:
I don't believe you've demonstrated a solid understanding of the words "law," "fact," "hypothesis," or "theory."
I am arguing by definitions, there is no darmacation error in this case.
Furthermore, fact =/= empirical fact.
Example:
All the men I have observed are mortal =/= If all men are mortal
A priori knowledge is prior to empirical systems, hence theory =/= theorem.
Theorems are axiomatic derrivations of proof.
Quote:As I stated, that evolutionary theory is not only accounting for new fossils, but actually predicting where fossils can be found and what characteristics they will have, sinks your boat.
How does this refute the definition of circumstantial evidence?
Quote:You're in no position to dictate any of these terms. The derivation is when you avoid the evidence. The data supports evolution.
Evidence is 'rational', not logical, is are arguement philosophy or science?
I am attempt to argue truth.
Again, emotions deviate from logical consistency, emotions do appear to be a product of an objective reality, however the consequent conditions are relative in this case, being prescriptive utters.
Can I assume that you believe in objective moral values?
Quote:Proof exists when an established criteria of belief is met. Some people don't want proof, so they establish unreasonable criteria, or move their goalposts. You're doing this.
There does not appear to be informal proof, can you define a scientific proof, without substituting it for 'fact' or physical law?
Quote:I'm a boy named Sue.
You are red herring, do you have irrefutable faith in naturalism?
Science assumes naturalism for methodology, meaning that there is religeous scientists, science is a formal system.
Quote:
Why are you open to the concept? Cognitive bias, perhaps? On the matter of non cognitive discourse, ante up, or get off the poker table.
All humans apear to be cognitively bias, however it may be excluded for arguementation for logical consistency, it self refuting to deny logic.
The scientific method requires empirical pressuposition, therefore it is illogical.
I am open to the concept of unmoved mover, being that it has been suggested that the universe may in fact be a product of zero (abstract object or conscious), or perhaps nothingness (empty set).
The unmoved mover, meaning a first causation by ex nihilo appears to be in fact infinte regress, neither are logical (non existence or infinite is illogical), furthermore axiomatic truths are not consistent with quantum mechanics, which may be a neccessary contradiction for cosmological truths to exist.
As for non cognitivism (quasi), I do not believe that ethical sentences express propositions, hence are not subject to bivalence.
