Quote:
|
To me this implies that logic can be used definitively to prove that any theories are false, as if all knowledge could be reduced to mathematical abstraction. Elsewhere I mentioned Xeno's Arrow as a fairly ancient example of how logic can be the basis for absurdity, and again in other posts we have seen Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God, which in it's own terms is as irrefutable as 2+2=4.
|
Indeed, and I would add Heisenberg and Schroedinger to the list of refutations of knowledge. No, logic alone cannot tell us anything, because logic does not give us first principles (save for
cogito, ergo sum). And empirical observation cannot tell us anything due to error and uncertainty. However, logic
can establish connections between propositions and give us new statements as output, dependent of course on those with which we begin. And empiricism
can tell us certain things with near 100 percent certainty. One thing that empiricism confirms with near certainty is that 2+2=4. Now if we take this proposition and couple it with other propositions based on near-certain empiricism, we can arrive at conclusions that have roughly the same certainty as the propositions (actually the certainty would be the certainty of proposition 1 times that of proposition 2, minus a negligible amount due to possible human error in the logic). So, based on the empirical observations that 2+2=4 and that 4x2=8, we can conclude that (2+2)x2=8.
When I say that evolution is a fact, I am doing so within the limits prescribed by Hume, Descartes, Heisenberg, and anyone else you want to throw in. There is of course no such thing as an absolutely certain fact. The possibility that evolution is incorrect is, however, incredibly small.
I certainly have no problem with the discussion of the ways in which current evolutionary theory is incomplete, nor in addressing creationist ideas. But basic evolutionary theory is as nearly certain as is necessary.
If we disagree on this point, however, that disagreement lies outside the scope of the present discussion. We seem to agree that schools should be open to logical arguments on their own strengths and weaknesses, and should not repress any argument without addressing it.