txaq007's Inescapable Error

[Kripke]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why you're making a big stink about this. It's not so hard to admit that "certainty" (i.e., 100% true) requires proof, is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I find that very hard to "admit", since it is clearly wrong.

David's insistence on mathematical proofs is just annoying because he does not seem to understand how limited the results will be if he has such strict demands for knowledge.

You may call it quibbling. I find it to be quite essential to the discussion.

- Kripke

[Kripke]

Whether or not mathematicians were certain about the truth of Fermat's theorem is irrelevant in respect to it being a mathematical certainty.

- Kripke

[Lestat]

Interesting.

But I wonder then why Galileo (or one of those early astromners), was nearly (or was he?), put to death over his conclusion that our earth was not the center of the universe?

[andyfox]

I don't think they ever intended to put him to death, they always had just a form of house arrest in mind for the old man.

The heliocentric theory, I believe, was more controversial than was the sphericity of the earth.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why you're making a big stink about this. It's not so hard to admit that "certainty" (i.e., 100% true) requires proof, is it?

[/ QUOTE ]Why should this be the case?

[David Sklansky]

"ask the question posted here earlier. 40 % of scientist believe in a God. What are the standards for following his basic theory? If over 50% of scientists believe something then we should go that route too? Or is the standard some arbitrary percentage that he makes up out of whole cloth?"

Read more carefully everybody. A 40-60 split proves nothing. Except that a non belief in some sort of god is not a clear cut assumption.

But txaq007 was saying something much different. He said that the evidence is CONVINCING ie. almost undebatable, that Jesus is the son of God. Well if something is convincing, it would imply that most smart people who saw the evidence would be convinced wouldn't it? But the opposite is true.

[David Sklansky]

"Furthermore this also does not take into account my earlier point - that without knowing the percentage of scientist that have a clue about religions to begin with, especially Christianity, his theory is that much more moot."

RJT

Technically true. Are you saying that if great scientists read up carefully on all religions, a much higher percentage of them would become religious Christians than there are now? If not, why bring up the point?

[David Sklansky]

Original quote:

"I am not well versed in mathematical proofs, so I am wondering from others on the site if there are indeed mathematical certainties that cannot be proved. Anyone?"

No. Period.

The word "certainties" I took to mean "something that is certain". Not "something that is true". By "certain" I take it to mean something that mathmeticans are certain, or sure about.

That takes care of objection number one.

Later on you say:

I assume almost everyone knows that the proposition "2 + 2 = 4" is true and that they have certainty in their belief. However must people are unable to prove this (i.e. do a formal proof), since almost noone is acquainted with the Peano axioms of arithmetic.

If it is the epistemological point of view that is in focus here, then David's is also wrong.

- Kripke

Go back to the original quote. See the words "cannot be proved"? I take this to mean "cannot be proved by anyone".

Now in case you think that I am trying to wiggle out of an error and wasn't originally aware of the Godel stuff, I will now offer an indisputable proof that it was obvious that I made a sharp distinction between "certain" and "true". To wit:

SNOWDEN DIDN'T JUMP ALL OVER IT.

QED

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I am not well versed in mathematical proofs, so I am wondering from others on the site if there are indeed mathematical certainties that cannot be proved. Anyone?"

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]Isn't all of mathematics based upon axioms that cannot be proven? Indeed, alternate consistent mathematics can be derived from a different set of axioms?

[RJT]

DS:

“Read more carefully everybody. A 40-60 split proves nothing. Except that a non belief in some sort of god is not a clear cut assumption.

But txaq007 was saying something much different…”



Right. (I was not referring to txaq’s post, I was commenting on Bluff’s point.) So the question is at what percentage is something clear cut? (My answer is that percentages are irrelevant when dealing with God. Heavy odds are moot to me relative to God and Christianity. Again is a zillion to one highly likely or highly unlikely when dealing with God? Relevant percentages to you seem to be less than 100% but more than 50%. But, again you don’t say, so I make no assumptions. )



RJT:

"Furthermore this also does not take into account my earlier point - that without knowing the percentage of scientist that have a clue about religions to begin with, especially Christianity, his theory is that much more moot."

DS:

“Technically true. Are you saying that if great scientists read up carefully on all religions, a much higher percentage of them would become religious Christians than there are now? If not, why bring up the point?”


No, I am not saying that.

I was just pointing out that part of your thesis has yet to be discussed. That is, what percentage of scientists have actually studied much religion? My guess is very few. I would guess your guess would be much higher than mine.

I brought it up as further discussion of Bluff’s comments. And to say again that you are simply making a statement of probability. (And seem almost to be asking a rhetorical question as you do: Should we then base our lives on this theory?) You do not suggest that one should or should not decide one’s belief based on the probability that scientists are most likely correct.

As a footnote:

There is a noted sociologist that has done a study on scientists and their beliefs. It is a survey that delves a bit deeper into the famous survey of 1916 by James Leuber (which found that 40% of scientists believe in God. A survey that was repeated in 1997 by Larson and Witham that found the percentages are still about the same.) This sociologist's preliminary study found that a surprising number (still a minority) of “hard” scientists (mathematicians, chemists) are religious. I wrote to him to see if he ever completed his study. He is sending me information in this regard. When I receive it I will post what information is out there (with citations).