Re: Vatican Declares ToE Compatible With Christianity

On 4 Mar, 18:33, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 4, 12:04 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:



On 4 Mar, 17:35, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

like the rest of us. I supose. Which is why we use in artificial
intelligence research nonmonotonic or para consistent logics to model
human beliefs.

id like to see you demonstrate this.

see e.g.

Priest, G. "Paraconsistent Belief Revision", Theoria, Vol. 67, pp.
214-228, 2001

Restall, G. and Slaney, J. "Realistic Belief Revision", Proceedings of
the Second World Conference on Foundations of Artificial Intelligence,
pp. 367-378, 1995.

Tanaka, K. "The AGM Theory and Inconsistent Belief Change", Logique et
Analyse, Vol. 48, pp. 113-150, 2005

Hewitt, Carl (2008b). "Common sense for concurrency and strong
paraconsistency using unstratified inference and reflection".http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4852v2.  ArXiv. December 30, 2008.

Carnielli, Walter; Coniglio, Marcelo E. and Marcos, J, (2007). "Logics
of Formal Inconsistency,". in In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.).
Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Volume 14 (2nd ed. ed.). The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 1–93

Bertossi, Leopoldo et al., eds. (2004). Inconsistency Tolerance.
Berlin: Springer.

Brunner, Andreas and Carnielli, Walter (2005). "Anti-intuitionism and
paraconsistency". Journal of Applied Logic 3 (1): 161–184

i really doubt any of these make claims about *all* humans.


Maybe you should read them, then? They make claims about "typical"
people, which isn't "all", juts, well,"typical".




how can you distinguish a theist's axioms from a genuinely insane
person's? the way we do this normally is through scientific testing.

You are running in circles - the validity of the tests relies on
certain axiomatic assumptions....


In this case, I have rather a difficult time, don't you think? But
that is independent on whether I believe  in miracles or not - for
some reason, all witnesses, per your hypothesis, are against me. Now
I, trusting my inner perception, might conclude I was set up by
someone, but you would probably accuse me of solipsism again for doing
this. So I suppose your reaction would be to stop believing what you
(internally) believe to be true - that you did not murder the guy -
and go with the witnesses?

i would certainly consider my own failure of memory long before i
would consider untestable superstitions. but you want untestable
superstitions to be part of the discourse. you therefore cant complain
when people use them as defenses in court cases.


Sorry? You said that I am the accused, and that Satan DID cause the
miracle in your hypothetical. So the issue of allowing people the
defense really doesn't come up, only the inverse: what do we do with
the poor guys who are (by your hypothesis) on the receiving end of a
miracle.



However, just to amuse you - some years ago a German court actually
acquitted a woman from a perjury charge, saying that since a virgin
birth had happened once, it was not inconceivable that it had happened
again and that therefore her statement that she had no sexual
intercourse with a person other than her husband was not proven a lie
(her child, obviously, had DNA from someone else than her husband).
OK, there were, I suppose, good reasons for this other than the belief
of the judge ;o)

in a world where people did not accept religious superstitions, this
lying and cheating woman would have gotten the punishment she deserved
according to the law. yet because superstition was given serious
consideration, she got off. and you dont see the problem here?

sigh....

I did mention somewhere that total lack of homour is a good sign of a
fundamentalist? Now this time I even added the smiley, AND said a) it
is to amuse you and b) there were other good reasons for the decision,
just so that even you get it. In this case, the judge felt that her
husband had abused due process to force her into the lie, and
therefore felt it inappropriate to punish her even more than loosing
the case already meant. So he came up with the jocular reference to
Mary, which rather enraged the local catholics. He could as well have
decided that there was an equitable barr, abuse of process or any
other such technical means to avoid applying the law where it does
more harm than good.


im not the one who considers such possibilities because the existence
of satan has not been demonstrated to me. its people who actually
believe in the guy that should worry about these problems.

Why? Would there be anything they can do about it?

xpect - the same dishonest behavior that
creationists exhibit.

Not in  my hypothetical, no. In this case, they would have  given a
perfectly good scientific explanation for this - that is how belief
revision works, also in the sciences. If confronted with contradictory
evidence, you try to keep as much of your belief system intact, and
being able to find a new scientific explanation for the anomaly allows
you to do just that.


but thats the thing.. scientists dont just randomly discard and adopt
new things out of thin air the way theists do. science requires
consistency and demonstrability.

But my example was not random. it was pretty much along the lines of
"fortifying" a theory that is described in mainstream epistemology,
e.g. Lakato's - a perfectly sound, well understood and well tested
theory is used to explain an observation that otherwise would result
in major belif revision.


you cant teach the method of science without showing examples of it
working.

who says we should not show examples?

the first time travel trip would be an excellent example. why
should it be excluded from the science classroom?

Who says it should?



.

Loading