No. Both of the propositions are only that.

Further, Cause and Existence and that existence of something must at some point begin are concepts formed by complex brains at a very large scale of our existence and it is not known that the world ultimately behaves that way and in fact our science more than suggests otherwise.

Also, even if not fully true in detail to the ways of our universe, deduction rests on a view that is at the least a fitting and useful model in many cases, in the same way that Newton's Mechanics is used as a strictly incorrect but very useful approximately correct construct.

Dear Karl Sipfle

We still use Newtonian mechanics only because we have tested it in countless cases, and we know it works every time. For cases which we have discovered it does not work other methods are used. Thus, we do not use this tool blindly.

I quoted the sample propositions as an example of deductive argument. My main point of its refutation is the false assumption that we know everything in the universe. The example of Newtonian mechanics thus is not correct here.

Please read my article from page 71 for more detail of my argument. Alternatively, read the summary at the end of the article.

Preprint SCIENCE IN THE SHADOW OF METAPHYSICS Part 1 -Gods of Science!?

Ziaedin Shafiei ok, I will just go to your summary.

Summary Based on the long argument in this document, two main facts were highlighted:

 Metaphysics’ main speciality is creating any type of bogus god including god-of-the-gaps. Even science is not immune if it chooses to be under its long shadow.

=== No. Perhaps you mean that is what people do under the guise of Metaphysics.

 Robert Ingersoll made a few mistakes in his assessment of god creation. He thought god making practice was an ancient enterprise and exclusive to numerous archaic religions. We tried to show that, in fact, it is an ongoing operation in almost all modern societies. The source of god creation can be any religion and ideology. Likewise, this practice has become popular in places that are considered to be secular or godless establishments such as departments of theoretical physics and evolutionary biology. One difference between an ancient god and a new one is that the latter is camouflaged by any other name. We specifically identified some of the well-known and powerful gods in the pantheon of science. Here is the epigraph from Ingersoll which was quoted in the beginning of this article and a suggested correction. “Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms.” Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods are made so easily, and the raw material costs so Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics 109 little, that generally the god market is fairly glutted and heaven crams with these phantoms.

=== Ah, indeed you are complaining about what people actually do. I find no need to comment here.

Another fact is the existence of varieties of gods from which four types were identified; godfather, god-of-the-gaps, god-theomniscient and the designer god of the universe or simply God. It was noticed that all concepts of gods have been assumed to be based on human’s false imaginations after David Hume and Charles Darwin challenged religious beliefs about god, the universe and life. This approach is not constructive and does not help humanity having a clear understanding of the universe.

=== Disagree, just insofar as it does help humans quite a bit to leave one mental world of co-supporting feelings and consequent beliefs and try on thinking in a very different way. It is one of the single most important things that happened in the last 3000 years.

Religious establishments have meanwhile gained from this unfitting interpretation as they are happy to equate their various extinct and extant gods with the designer God of the universe.

=== That is a good point.

The author has argued that the concept of the designer God has not been treated fairly and vigorously by philosophers and theoretical scientists who are still under the shadow of religious and metaphysical worldviews and mentality.

=== Agree.

They have tried to do away with the designer God by:

1. Creating a new pantheon full of gods-of-the-gaps such as chance, time and hidden dimensions

=== Time does not seem to be held as any such thing, in general. I would call that author's radical stretch in thinking or interpreting.

" to be able to explain away the genesis of the universe and various phenomena within it, including life and its evolution."

=== Life itself does not seem special, nor evolution; nothing needing explaining away on either side of you debate.

These gods should be exposed and expelled from science.

=== Would have to 1. Show that they really exist (as forwarded concepts) and 2. Show that they need to be canceled.

2. Putting hard cap on the width and breadth of the universe including its substances and complexities. What is beyond the cap is ruled by newly created gods as sketched in Figure 4.

=== No comment necessary.

3. Pretending or believing to have a God's eye view of the universe and then rely on pure imagination - experiment free science - for understanding and explaining it.

=== I would just comment that "experiment free science" is both philosophy and theoretical physics, most pungently Einstein's, absolutely fueled by imagination. Then, as you said, we test (no longer bound by submission to Aristotle).

A dogma for philosophy and science was suggested to combat this prevailing problem which can be stated as: Human is not Omniscient

=== But does that he knows not EVERYTHING matter so much? Let us see...

The main consequences of this dogma are:

 Rejecting those deductive reasoning in philosophy and science in which assumptions and conditions cannot be guaranteed to be true.

=== Ah, there is the weakness! Perfect pure philosophy requires perfect correctness of thought. But, as you note, there is insufficient input to feed the logic and generate output guaranteed correct and also useful. Therefore, beyond masturbatory amusements and expressive urges, philosophizing with perfection is already known to be speculative and risky. And yet the problems that need *effectively* to be solved remain. So FAPP is everything and plausibility is everything and informed imagination is everything and usefulness is everything and like an engineer who uses strictly incorrect math that gets the right answer every time he needs it to, deduction remains very useful. In practice, it does not matter that we are not omniscient.

 Rendering the majority of philosophical proofs for the existing of God useless.

=== Well they are that, anyway.

The core messages of the article are:

 It is imperative for science to adhere to experiment-based research activities not to repeat metaphysical statements of past philosophers with new lexicon.

=== Can't argue with that.

 Re-examine the idea that chance, time and other newly created gods-of-the-gaps are responsible for the genesis and evolution of the universe and life.

=== I'd support that, too.

 Reject the idea that universe has limited constituents and abilities, i.e., capping idea unless human is rest assured that it knows everything through scientific discoveries.

=== No, that is... illogical! And irrational. That the universe has in some way limited abilities is quite possible, nothing demands otherwise.

 Re-examine and reject deductive reasoning in science and philosophy.

=== Addressed. Throwing out the baby with the bath water. It just needs to be appreciated differently. if A then AS BEST WE KNOW B, which we then see is useful and holds up within its also useful model. Removing logic in philosophy also leads to destruction of one of its chief aims- leading a good life- by inviting all kinds of dangerously ridiculous "ethics."

 Re-examine the idea of a designer God or an intelligent universe.

=== Strictly, re-examining could lead either pro or con. But I agree that the pure questions have fallen into the traditional ruts without justification and haven't enjoyed honest exploration, exactly as you say.

Accordingly, the article tries to show that contributions of Hume and Darwin to science are misleading, at best.

=== Disagree.

Whatever the outcome of these investigations would be, existence of God and authenticity of a religion are totally separate issues and must not be viewed as an indivisible composite.

=== Agree. Now to grasp for a counter-argument, once existence is posited, the fact is there is a dearth of information to lend confidence for further thought. All that there is is what people "intuit." This is very thin. But it has also worked sometimes on big, general things. For example, there has been a feeling of kinship between man and Nature around him when almost nothing was understood and which turns out to be deeply so.

Dear Karl Sipfle

Many thanks for reading the summary of the article and your pointed responses. My answers to your comments are as follows with bold font:

Summary

Based on the long argument in this document, two main facts were highlighted:

· Metaphysics’ main speciality is creating any type of bogus god including god-of-the-gaps. Even science is not immune if it chooses to be under its long shadow.

=== No. Perhaps you mean that is what people do under the guise of Metaphysics.

Of course, people are responsible for these mistakes. Who else? I fact, the article argues that not only ordinary people, but special ones can be under the shadow of metaphysics. Those who are considered prominent in all scientific establishments. Part 2 of the article is an example of those people who are trying to explain the issue of existence to us.

· Robert Ingersoll made a few mistakes in his assessment of god creation. He thought god making practice was an ancient enterprise and exclusive to numerous archaic religions. We tried to show that, in fact, it is an ongoing operation in almost all modern societies. The source of god creation can be any religion and ideology. Likewise, this practice has become popular in places that are considered to be secular or godless establishments such as departments of theoretical physics and evolutionary biology. One difference between an ancient god and a new one is that the latter is camouflaged by any other name. We specifically identified some of the well-known and powerful gods in the pantheon of science. Here is the epigraph from Ingersoll which was quoted in the beginning of this article and a suggested correction. “Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms.” Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods are made so easily, and the raw material costs so Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics 109 little, that generally the god market is fairly glutted and heaven crams with these phantoms.

=== Ah, indeed you are complaining about what people actually do. I find no need to comment here.

Yes, people again. Even Noble prize winners. The leading theoretical scientists.

Another fact is the existence of varieties of gods from which four types were identified; godfather, god-of-the-gaps, god-the[1]omniscient and the designer god of the universe or simply God. It was noticed that all concepts of gods have been assumed to be based on human’s false imaginations after David Hume and Charles Darwin challenged religious beliefs about god, the universe and life. This approach is not constructive and does not help humanity having a clear understanding of the universe.

=== Disagree, just insofar as it does help humans quite a bit to leave one mental world of co-supporting feelings and consequent beliefs and try on thinking in a very different way. It is one of the single most important things that happened in the last 3000 years.

The main point of the article is that some of those refutations and new thinking are not based on correct bases. The new world view is in fact a new façade of metaphysical worldview. Figure 4 in the article shows the clear story.

Religious establishments have meanwhile gained from this unfitting interpretation as they are happy to equate their various extinct and extant gods with the designer God of the universe.

=== That is a good point. Thank you.

The author has argued that the concept of the designer God has not been treated fairly and vigorously by philosophers and theoretical scientists who are still under the shadow of religious and metaphysical worldviews and mentality.

=== Agree.

They have tried to do away with the designer God by:

1. Creating a new pantheon full of gods-of-the-gaps such as chance, time and hidden dimensions

=== Time does not seem to be held as any such thing, in general. I would call that author's radical stretch in thinking or interpreting.

Please note that time is one of the gods-of-the-gaps in evolutionary biology. It is sometimes used in combination with chance (chancetime). The passage of time is also used by David Hume as one of the main ideas for the ordered status of the world. More details in the article. My definition of god includes any object or idea - that might as well exist - used as a medium in our world such as a piece of stone, carved or otherwise.

“ to be able to explain away the genesis of the universe and various phenomena within it, including life and its evolution.”

=== Life itself does not seem special, nor evolution; nothing needing explaining away on either side of you debate.

I am surprised to see your comments about life.

These gods should be exposed and expelled from science.

=== Would have to 1. Show that they really exist (as forwarded concepts) and 2. Show that they need to be canceled.

1-The article tries to show all these gods in section “Gods in the Pantheon of Science” page 49. If you have already read the section and you still think my points are radical, please let me know your reasons.

2 - They need to be expelled as any other created gods such as god of rain or fertility. We should not treat them differently only because they are our own handyworks.

2. Putting hard cap on the width and breadth of the universe including its substances and complexities. What is beyond the cap is ruled by newly created gods as sketched in Figure 4.

=== No comment necessary.

3. Pretending or believing to have a God's eye view of the universe and then rely on pure imagination - experiment free science - for understanding and explaining it.

=== I would just comment that "experiment free science" is both philosophy and theoretical physics, most pungently Einstein's, absolutely fueled by imagination. Then, as you said, we test (no longer bound by submission to Aristotle).

This (3 above) is my definition of metaphysics. Regarding my understanding of relativity see my articles under special and general relativity projects.

A dogma for philosophy and science was suggested to combat this prevailing problem which can be stated as: Human is not Omniscient

=== But does that he knows not EVERYTHING matter so much? Let us see...

It matters when we pretend to know everything and our understanding is final, like religion.

The main consequences of this dogma are:

· Rejecting those deductive reasoning in philosophy and science in which assumptions and conditions cannot be guaranteed to be true.

=== Ah, there is the weakness! Perfect pure philosophy requires perfect correctness of thought. But, as you note, there is insufficient input to feed the logic and generate output guaranteed correct and also useful. Therefore, beyond masturbatory amusements and expressive urges, philosophizing with perfection is already known to be speculative and risky. And yet the problems that need *effectively* to be solved remain. So FAPP is everything and plausibility is everything and informed imagination is everything and usefulness is everything and like an engineer who uses strictly incorrect math that gets the right answer every time he needs it to, deduction remains very useful. In practice, it does not matter that we are not omniscient.

· Rendering the majority of philosophical proofs for the existing of God useless.

=== Well they are that, anyway.

The core messages of the article are:

· It is imperative for science to adhere to experiment-based research activities not to repeat metaphysical statements of past philosophers with new lexicon.

=== Can't argue with that.

· Re-examine the idea that chance, time and other newly created gods-of-the-gaps are responsible for the genesis and evolution of the universe and life.

=== I'd support that, too.

· Reject the idea that universe has limited constituents and abilities, i.e., capping idea unless human is rest assured that it knows everything through scientific discoveries.

=== No, that is... illogical! And irrational. That the universe has in some way limited abilities is quite possible, nothing demands otherwise.

We know that physicists used to think they knew it all during the whole period of nineteenth century. I think that trend is not completely forgotten. That is why gods are used to fill the gaps. We need to remember Marxism was sold as the exact (scientific) path for human societies. That is why the future of humanity foretold with such certainty. Section "God of the Godless Ideology" gives more detail.

· Re-examine and reject deductive reasoning in science and philosophy.

=== Addressed. Throwing out the baby with the bath water. It just needs to be appreciated differently. if A then AS BEST WE KNOW B, which we then see is useful and holds up within its also useful model. Removing logic in philosophy also leads to destruction of one of its chief aims- leading a good life- by inviting all kinds of dangerously ridiculous "ethics."

· Re-examine the idea of a designer God or an intelligent universe.

=== Strictly, re-examining could lead either pro or con. But I agree that the pure questions have fallen into the traditional ruts without justification and haven't enjoyed honest exploration, exactly as you say.

Accordingly, the article tries to show that contributions of Hume and Darwin to science are misleading, at best.

=== Disagree.

Have you seen my arguments in the article regarding Darwin's and Hume's contributions? Unfortunately, we follow Hume without knowing his real contribution. Yes, he rejected the teaching of religion, but his philosophy does not offer any useful way forward. This is true for the contribution of Darwin.

Whatever the outcome of these investigations would be, existence of God and authenticity of a religion are totally separate issues and must not be viewed as an indivisible composite.

=== Agree. Now to grasp for a counter-argument, once existence is posited, the fact is there is a dearth of information to lend confidence for further thought. All that there is is what people "intuit." This is very thin. But it has also worked sometimes on big, general things. For example, there has been a feeling of kinship between man and Nature around him when almost nothing was understood and which turns out to be deeply so.

For “existence” please see part 2 of the article. It shows our dismal treatment of the issue.

Preprint SCIENCE IN THE SHADOW OF METAPHYSICS Part 2 -The Issue of Existence

Should universe beginning be like other known beginnings in our universe - that is NOT like a Big Bang but very small then grow?

Dear John Hodge

Any other known beginnings need to be fed to grow. What some scientists try to do is first create so called free lunch and then let universe feed from it. Inflationary cosmology is based on this idea. Surprisingly, it has borrowed the idea from the steady state theory. I have put an analysis of inflation cosmology as an appendix in part 2 of the article with all necessary references. An analysis of a small universe is also briefly discussed under Singularity, page 6.

Two points: Firstly, whatever problems we may have with propositions used in deductive arguments does not mean that the very form of deduction itself is problematic.

Secondly, deductive arguments need not rely on „full knowledge of whatever exists in the world“, to quote your initial post. The deduction both of my eyes are blue, hence my left eye is blue, is obviously epistemically quite innocent in that regard.

Dear Joachim Lipski

You are right.

• In the comment under the question, I specify those deductive arguments which imply omniscience.
• In the summary of the article, it reads "Rejecting those deductive reasoning in philosophy and science in which assumptions and conditions cannot be guaranteed to be true."
• In the article more detail is given, quoted from page 79.

" ... deductive reasoning should be used very carefully in philosophy and science.

For example, any statements started with words such as ‘all’, ‘any’,

every, whatever, or ‘only’ is allowed when there is close to 100%

certainty about a claim, assumption or premise. Therefore,

statements such as ‘all swans are white’ is allowed if we have

observed all swans on the planet earth and we are certain that no

other swan exists in the rest of the vast universe. Similarly, the

statement ‘Earth is the only planet to harbour life’ should not be

allowed as we have not examined all the planets in the universe. This

is different from ‘all swans in this pool are white’ or ‘Earth is the

only known planet to harbour life’. Mainly, deductive reasoning

should only be allowed when assumptions can be guaranteed to be

true."

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei

thank you for the clarification.

I am still wondering why the problem is thought to apply to deduction (again, a merely formal notion) rather than, say, generalizations about empirical matters. Wouldn’t it be easier to say that there is no epistemic basis for judgments about whether any given empirical generalization is universally true? And isn’t that just basically Kant‘s notion that there are no synthetic a priori truths…? (It‘s been a while since I read Kant, perhaps other readers on this thread can correct me.)

Dear Joachim Lipski

I am sure we mainly do not use deductive argument in science and specially in philosophy to prove that if both of my eyes are brown, my left eye is brown too. This type of argument already claims to know everything about the subject at hand -say brown eye - and do not give any extra knowledge with the conclusion. In science and as explorers we do not claim to know it all which is in contradiction to deductive argument. For an explorer, there is no more knowledge to gain too, meaning no progress.

I gave an example of one popular use of deductive reasoning among philosophers. A group of philosophers have invested part or their whole life to convince themselves and others that their revived Kalam argument is unassailable. This is only one among countless cases. I am sure you are familiar with most philosophical cases. I have given few examples in the article.

One example I tried to avoid is the justification for the string theory. Numerous distinguished scientists claim that fundamental staffs of our universe are some closed and open strings. Nobody has seen them, but this fact does not stop scientists to speculate on their characteristics as if they already know it all. It is claimed that those strings behave like guitar strings in which different vibrations cause different notes, different particles. Consequently, those scientists have been busy for decades trying to work out the irrefutability of the string theory.

I agree with you that the title of the discussion could be clearer, but I thought the chosen title to be more concise. I tried to make my point clear with the main comment.

I will appreciate it if you could read the part of the article which is related to this topic – God the Omniscient?!, page 71 - and give me your valued feedback.

The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction.- Albert Einstein

Dear Karl Sipfle

I respect your belief, but I want to hear your reasons.

Is not it true that deductive argument implies full knowledge of the subject under investigation? If so, then what we are going to learn from it as a researcher? If we think we know it all then what is the point of any scientific activity?

Zia. As to Albert I posted mainly because his comment was interesting. I havent had time to respond to your response.

Dear Jack Don McLovin

Mathematics is a logical language to concisely express a found fact and then extend its reach. Any new scientific study must not rely on mathematics as a leading tool. But it has useful secondary role. For example, consider the cosmological constant in general relativity.

• It was introduced to the field equation only because Einstein initially thought the steady state theory was the correct model of the universe.
• It was removed from the equation when it was discovered that the universe is expanding.
• It was brought back when the expansion was found to be accelerating.

No mathematician could tell us the reality of the universe by any mathematical derivation. Therefore, deductive reasoning is also useful in mathematics when the conditions and assumptions are already found or assumed.

In my opinion, if became a proof by others for this argument yes, otherwise no, due to could contain something useful.

Good deductive arguments have two properties: (1) validity and (2) soundness. Validity is entirely a formal property: it says that IF the premises are true then so is the conclusion; soundness says that not only is the argument valid, but its premises ARE true. Whether the premises are indeed true may be a matter of empirical discovery or of previous deductions or definitions (including deductions or definitions in mathematics). Sometimes it's just interesting to see what else a certain assumption commits one to and deduction can answer that question and sometimes also give us a good reason for rejecting that assumption (that is the rationale for reductio ad absurdum arguments, aka indirect proofs). It helps to keep in mind that the alleged shortcoming of deduction is not an indictment of its formal nature but a matter of the "garbage in, garbage out" principle.

Dear Karl Pfeifer

I completely agree with you. I have nothing against a sound deductive argument as it is clearly discussed it in the section “God the Omniscient?!” page 79.

I only say it should not be used for finding a new fact about universe, neither by philosophers nor scientists. In science we want to expand our knowledge. We then have two options:

We can assume we are omniscient and thus allow ourselves to, among other things, use deductive reasoning. The second option is experiment based science to reach to a new frontier of knowledge.

I invite you to at least read the mentioned section to have a better sense of my argument. The example of the chess playing Turk given earlier in the article also tries to shed some light into the issue.

Dear Vadim S. Gorshkov

Not at all. I simply say horses for courses. A hammer is a very useful tool for varieties of applications, but it is not suitable for tightening screws.

The objectives of scientific discoveries are finding new stuffs and laws in our universe. This is in contrast with deductive logic which relies on what are already known. Now, either a researcher is omniscient or not. In the latter case deductive argument is useless in the process of finding new knowledge. Please remember that not long time ago scientists believed activities in the sun was the result of a chemical combustion as they did not know anything about nuclear fusion. The life span of the sun was also predicted to be about 50,000 years. This was the outcome of their deductive reasoning.

That is why I have suggested a dogma "human is not omniscient" in the article to stop scientists and philosophers misuse this tool.

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei

I concede that my example was perhaps too limiting. Perhaps we should consider a deduction from a true empirical generalization, such as:

H2O freezes at 0 degrees Celsius

It is below 0 degrees C outside

Hence, water freezes outside.

It is worth noting that in order to deduce from said empirical generalization, omniscience is not necessary. Empirical generalizations can be used as the basis for deduction if they are well supported; here, the notion of natural kinds (such as „H2O“) comes into play. That is, we can say that there are things in nature whose attributes are „projectible“, i.e. about whom we can justifiedly project into the future based on past observations. Of course, these generalizations are defeasible - we can be wrong about them and should amend or correct them in light of better empirical evidence - but the important point is that they support/justify deductions such as the one above.

Best of all, we can say all this while being entirely silent on God or omniscience.

Dear Joachim Lipski

I also concede that the question did not reflect what I really meant. I have changed the question slightly to address the ambiguity. I apologise to all for the shortfall. However, the explanation is the same as given in the article. Also, please see my answer to Vadim S. Gorshkov

As I understand, the truth of the conclusion relies on the truth of the premises and therein lies the role of philosophy, & hopefully science.

Dear Ann Van Ryn

This is our point of departure. Please let me know how philosophers could solve the issue of geocentric idea with deductive argument. For the sake of simplicity, I leave inductive reasoning aside here. If they could why they did not do it? What would be the correct philosophical endeavour if Pluto had been found before Copernicus and Galileo? My guess is, "as everything is revolving around Earth then Pluto is doing it too". Please let me know otherwise.

What has been the contribution of philosophers in explaining the nature of dark matter and dark energy? What can deductive argument tell us in these cases?

Please see the attached article to the question for more details.

Besides, there is the History which has interesting for its topic and its course in space and in time.

Dear all

I hope it is clear by now that deductive argument has no beneficial involvement in a new scientific exploration.

I simply said that the king has no clothes on at all. Therefore, misuse of deductive argument - such as Kalam cosmological argument mentioned in my initial comment - should be considered suspicious, at least. This type of usage is undertaken by those who assume omniscient.

I think that intuiction is base of new theories in science. Deductive arguments only can demonstrate these new theories

Howdy Ziaedin Shafiei,

I have found your exchange with Karl Sipfle to be most informative in this thread, which I see as addressing an underlying condition of human being that creates gods. I have scanned the other replies and find interesting points there also. But is the issue gods or worship? beings or human being? deductive argument or confidence in its conclusions?

I suggest that the underlying issue that has crippled the value of deduction, one of many aids to understanding and "knowledge," is worship, not gods. It is the human activity of worship, the freedom to live a certain world view without worry about validity after believing in it, that is the issue, whether it be "phlogiston" or "combination with oxygen" in fire. Spontaneous affirmation of science that works is fine, worshiping it and refusing change is the too-common human error that I suspect underlies the hope in this thread that we could rise above it. Why? "The truth" will out, eventually, since there is present in humanity a current that survives the establishment and yields, for example, acceptance that the Earth is not the physical center of the universe despite a need for it to be the mythological center of the universe in some cultures. Of course, my "why" has many answers, including whether you eat now or wait for years, decades, centuries to be discovered. But that is why science that works is adequate for the majority of humanity who would prefer to eat now and embrace the new paradigm when it will support using it.

The new paradigm will come, rules for performing science will neither cause nor prevent that occurrence. I believe this is the most important point, that paradigm shifts are insight from within a human mind, or a group of minds in resonance, that include deduction with unconscious assimilation of a larger awareness of the issue: the a-Ha! experiences. Even if deduction were ostracized they would occur. While waiting, the use of deduction to extend our present useful science and the engineering and manufacture it supports is actually quite wise, isn't it?

Happy Trails, Len

in "the Elements", Euclid affirmed that one "could afford not strictly mathematical considerations, on the methodological choices, the intentions, the sources ..., for to affirm the veracity of a proposition, not by establishing it directly by a demonstration drawn from nature but indirectly, by showing that the contrary proposition is absurd"

Howdy Jamel Chahed, thank you for the recommendation.

I would appreciate the source of your quote from Euclid's "Elements" since I am able to read it two ways that depend on the function of "not" in the phrase, i.e., is it "could afford not" or "not strictly mathematical"? I suspect the latter use and the hiatus in the quote (...) separates the choices from affirming veracity, but my understanding of the phrase is uncertain. I checked my Britannica Great Books translation of "the Elements" by Sir Thomas L. Heath, plus other translations online and could not find the quote by search for "methodological choices" or "absurd." Also, the hiatus clouds the meaning of the latter part of the quote. As it stands, the remaining phrase objects to the use of absurd contrary propositions, but Euclid used them in 26 places in the online versions found in the "absurd" searches. I expect you agree with him and the truncated quote did not turn out to mean what you intended. Sorry to be a bother,

Happy Trails, Len

there is a interconnection between inductive and deductive logics. inductive logics is the logic of probability where new ideas are formed. But we need to demonstrate if these new ideas are valid through deductive logics...

By without them, non.

I think the way the question is formulated is flawed and misleading. Certainly, the concept of deduction, let alone deductive argument, is inconsistent with the notion of discovery. I would rather point out that any form of philosophizing and scientific theorizing necessary involve deductive thinking. Philosophical and scientific arguments by all means involve questions of validity, and therefore, deductive arguments. Discoveries do not necessarily involve deduction, but explaining and arguing for what is discovered and what it means involves deductive reasoning.

Dear Jiolito Benitez

I quote my question again. Please let me know where is the misleading part.

"Consider the two propositions of the Kalam cosmological argument:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

Both are based on assuming full knowledge of whatever exists in the world which is obviously not totally true. Even big bang cosmology relies on a primordial seed which science has no idea of its origin or characteristics.

The attached article proposes that such deductive arguments should not be allowed in philosophy and science as it is the tell-tale sign that human wrongly presupposes omniscient.

Your comments are much appreciated.

Preprint SCIENCE IN THE SHADOW OF METAPHYSICS Part 1 -Gods of Science!?

What I wanted to be clear is that deductive argument is widely used for proving or explaining the existence or characteristics of new phenomena. Science needs to be cleared of this type of reasoning.

There is a long tail to this fallacy. For example, Einstein's light clock is actually based on this kind of reasoning. He invented an imaginary clock in his thoughts so the clock has unproven characteristics. Then by doing thought experiment a new physics was introduced. Please read the relevant files which I have uploaded to RG.

Dear Jiolito Benitez

JB "Philosophical and scientific arguments by all means involve questions of validity, and therefore, deductive arguments."

Following my first response -

• I think K Popper has answered your concern. Science is not driven by validity rather by falsification. For example, Newton's law of universal gravitation was proven countless number of times until it was toppled by the misbehaviour of planet Mercury.
• In science validity of a theory is based on proper experiments.
• Deductive logic does not validate a theory. For example by saying all swans are white we do not validate the idea. We simply spread a false belief.

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei,

You are correct in saying that deductive logic does not and cannot validate a theory in the empirical sciences. However, all theories contain and employ deductive arguments. There is not a single theory from any field of discipline that does not use deductive logic. In this discussion with me, we are in fact using deductive reasoning. All thinkers, scientists, and philosophers use deductive reasoning in the formulation of their theories and thoughts.

Dear Jiolito Benitez

Off course we must use deductive reasoning but it should be used very carefully especially when we are thinking about a new or not clearly known phenomenon. If you have time please read my articles. They try to highlight some common metaphysical mistakes made by scientists.

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei,

Thank you, I will. All the best.

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei,

This is the question that to my mind is misleading:

Should deductive argument be dropped from scientific and philosophical discoveries?

Why? Firstly, because scientific discoveries do not involve deductive reasoning. So there is no need to drop it. Secondly, because "philosophical discoveries" as a phrase is vague. What do you mean by philosophical discoveries?

Howdy Folks,

I recommended Jiolito Benitez reply especially because of his first point. I think that "discoveries" are not incremental, they are breakthrough insights that change how we think. Other observations on this thread that value deduction as a means to increment what has already been discovered are sound. Do not drop deduction from "doing philosophy;" foster insight so the rest of us, 99.44%, have the insights to develop their implications.

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Jiolito Benitez and Leonard Hall

Please suggest a better question as I did not know how to put across my concern in one sentence. However, I have given one example of the use of deductive argument in a philosophical discourse in my main comment. Please let me know if my explanation is not clear or irrelevant. Don’t you think that these types of arguments exist.

These arguments are championed by those who think they know everything in this universe. For example, some evolutionary biologists believed that any non-coding DNA was junk (more than %98). With this false knowledge they resisted to acknowledge that at least some non-coding DNA have useful functions.

Please read the summary of the article to find out the root of my worry. If you have more time read pages 71-80 for my full argument.

Howdy Ziaedin Shafiei,

I think your question and your explanatory comments are very clear. I am confident that to follow your article proposal that ". . . such deductive arguments should not be allowed in philosophy and science . . ." would be a terrible mistake and in fact implements the concept that we know enough to do so.

The problem is the human need for certainty and desire for control that pollutes exploration. I believe that any good scout/explorer must end up in a box canyon on occasion, so also with learning and using present knowledge. The problem is persons of influence who are controlling their world for their own purposes: banning deductive arguments in science cannot change that.

I feel sympathy for the affliction of certainty among those in control, and have empathy for all of us who have been brushed aside or overrun by them, but another form of control does not seem better to me. Humans have good qualities too and knowledge of value as well as mistakes. It all takes time and many paths.

Thank you for raising the original question again. It is good to have the rationale supporting my opinion clarified.

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Jiolito Benitez

JB "What do you mean by philosophical discoveries?"

Philosophy is full of discoveries. Unfortunately, the majority of them are wrong. That is why human introduced experiment-based science to put an end to those false assertions. Examples are gods-of-the-gaps such as so called "progressive history" in Marxism. I have discussed this issue in more details in

Preprint SCIENCE IN THE SHADOW OF METAPHYSICS Part 1 -Gods of Science!?

Howdy Ziaedin Shafiei,

A quiet moment here, Spring breaking after a 192 inch snowfall winter with shoveled trenches to the bird feeders and supporting thoughts in accord with your concern: humanity will endure. Science will emerge over and over despite scientists who worship: I know, over and over, sigh.

Were there any feeling of adversity from me in our exchanges, please discard it, and allow as how I only dispute the details of your intents while affirming your concern and efforts to address the bulbous sows of science squashing the piglets who will replace them.

Good vibes guy, Happy Trails, Len

Here is a useful resource

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/deductive-argument

Dear Chuck A Arize and Karl Pfeifer

This discussion is not about a good deductive argument rather about its use in new scientific discoveries. For example, do you have any idea how it can be used in discovering and nature of "junk DNA", "dark matter" and "dark energy"? I simply say even GOOD deductive argument is useless in these and similar cases.

Ziaedin Shafiei

Yes, deduction can't give you information that isn't already there is some sense in the premises. But it can serve to entail conclusions that function as predictions which can then be tested by experiment or observation. In that way we might discover what the nature of something is using deduction as a step in the process.

Dear Karl Pfeifer

In that case we agree that deduction must not be in the driving seat during a scientific discovery. We may use it as a secondary tool, say, by utilizing mathematics to elucidate the new discovery to fellow scientists.

Now, this is what I also wanted to ask by starting this discussion. Is not Schrodinger equation a use of deduction in a new scientific discovery? That is a law of subatomic world is exposed not by an experiment or two but by borrowing from classical physics and then honing the formula to a desired shape using various postulates. By inventing the equation, scientists put deduction in the driving seat during the then new discovery.

How do you determine what experiments to perform without using deduction from hypotheses and background assumptions? I think the old distinction (or something like it) between context of discovery and context of justification is also relevant here. Where do hypotheses come from? Insight and deductions therefrom often play a role. It may be a "new" discovery or revelation that something follows from something else but it isn't yet a new discovery of something empirical prior to empirical confirmation. Anyway, I think deduction is ubiquitous in scientific reasoning, even though it may be intuitive and not explicitly articulated.

Howdy Folks,

It just struck me that the softness of a volume of meaning space that one could label "deductive argument" is part of the difficulty on this topic. What were the underlying currents in Max Planck's mind when he chose to require discrete energy per frequency in the harmonic oscillators he conceived as radiators in his Blackbody Radiation formula? In Schrodinger's case a similar question could be asked. How rich is the wave pattern of our minds, and how complex are the probably non-linear events behind insight? I expect, given the model of consciousness, a fair amount of deduction and other forms of association occur before the insight is delivered to our consciousness in an aHa! Syndrome event. In any event, any effort to control what is used in our "mind as a whole" is unlikely to succeed. I am able to imagine a rebellious mind being triggered by such a ruling to deduce a new relationship that turns out to be a verifiable scientific "truth" for a while, that is until it is fixed by new discoveries.

So granting the fresh focus on the Schrodinger equation, and the question whether it were "a use of deduction in a new scientific discovery" I must reply, probably so, but only in part. If it works, don't we want it?

Just came to mind: Shakespeare's King Lear, Act 1, Scene 1, Duke of Gloucester quote "But I have, sir, a son by order of law, some year elder than this, who yet is no dearer in my account: though this knave came something saucily into the world before he was sent for, yet was his mother fair; there was good sport at his making, and the whoreson must be acknowledged."

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Karl Pfeifer

I absolutely agree with open eyes, educated guesses and solid assumptions during a discovery. But we must not force our past knowledge to any new case we encounter, say, by fiddling with borrowed equations. That is why I asked what is our approach for finding and nature of junk DNA, dark matter and dark energy, to test the ability of deductive argument. For example, which formula should we play with to explain the nature of dark matter?

Our wise ancestors thought Eve was made out of an Adam’s rib to emphasizes the connection and unity between man and woman. We similarly took an equation from classical physics and made it to our liking to explain the subatomic world. Is this the way of science?

The least bad consequence is believing in something completely wrong as "the creation of women" and a few amendments and additions to uncertainty principle.

P.S.

For an analysis of uncertainty principles please see:

Preprint SCIENCE IN THE SHADOW OF METAPHYSICS Part 2 -The Issue of Existence

and my question in RG "Where are all the virtual particles".

Dear Karl Pfeifer

Most unfortunately, the problem is not limited to Schrödinger equation. For more than 5 decades top physicists have been busy working on a grand metaphysical endeavour only because a PhD student found a formula which exhibited certain mathematical properties that resembled the behaviour of strings. Physicists and mathematicians are still enthralled by their new mathematical toy and meanwhile have tried to explain the world, even its origin with string theory - so called brane cosmology. This is the state of science when scientists are not adhering to scientific principles.

Howdy Ziaedin Shafiei,

"The attached article proposes that such deductive arguments should not be allowed in philosophy and science as it is the tell-tale sign that human wrongly presupposes omniscient." Oh?

"This is the state of science when scientists are not adhering to scientific principles." By what omniscience are acceptable "scientific principles" the only permitted ones?

I'm confused, and it is a long thread with many "answers." Had we a specific objective, succinctly stated, what would it be? Why? I'm interested.

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Leonard Hall

Deduction presupposes omniscience. When Tom says all swans are black, it means either

That is why true science accepts that it can be wrong and always in progress.

I have given a real example in my main comment under this question regarding Kalam cosmological argument. If you want the full argument you may read the attached article to the question.

Part one of the article - gods of science - shows our not-so-correct attitude towards the word we live in. Part two - the issue of existence - shows an example of this attitude. The summary of my points are in the summary section of part one.

Dear Leonard Hall

LH "... what omniscience are acceptable ... ?". None

In my previous comments I tried to give two examples of how scientists pick a formula (or, in the religious world, a Bible story) and try to force the world to be obedient to it. In real science we do not go with the Bible in hand or a magic formula such as the Veneziano amplitude.

Howdy Ziaedin Shafiei ,

Or, 3. Tom is formulating a series of thoughts to unravel a mystery as a responsible explorer, and proceeds to examine all that comes to him as a result. He just starts with the assertions, and while some individuals are lousy scientists, that does not make the activity wrong in itself.

The fraction of the population able to do science well is similar to the fraction that should be permitted near a violin. At least we are free to disagree pleasantly, and disagree we do.

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Leonard Hall

Your thought in option 3 is absolutely correct as Tom STARTS with several assertions but he does not unreasonably push one of the assertions in his effort.

Suppose Australian Alice notices a movement during her walk in a Tasmanian forest. Without any further observation she tries to figure out the identity of the source of the movement. There are countless possibilities but I will try to explain the way Schrodinger equation and String theory have been developed.

As few hours ago Allice saw a picture of a tiger in a book. Therefore she is confident the movement must be due to a tiger stalking her. This method is not even a bad deductive argument but we have allowed them in science.

Howdy Ziaedin Shafiei ,

We certainly read the history of scientific discovery differently. I disagree strongly with your Alice illustration of quantum theory and string theory, although it is good as rhetoric. But then, I explore possible parallels to allow their influence in developing my larger awareness, like seeing parallels between the formation of an eddy beyond a stone in mountain stream rapids and the formation of a revolution around a martyr in the social fluid of humanity. I guess I am "one of them."

If Alice is capable of your described behavior, how to you hope to change it by prohibiting the activity? I have been deeply offended by the arrogant academic's "it is known that, so shut up and memorize" approach and it does deter discovery for the persons who should obey it. I agree that your concern is valid, but as someone earlier has noted, humanity includes the behavior. We're stuck with us and it has turned out that enforced limits are dangerous and the enforcers need to be watched carefully.

It took Octavius Caesar decades to obtain absolute power as Caesar Augustus, but the cure was worse than the disease. Plutarch noted that the Romans were tired of the bother of a republic and Julius Caesar would have been a more generous replacement than Octavian. Brutus' noble act of rescuing the Republic from the tired Romans by supporting the assassination of Julius Caesar was bad history making.

If scientists have found another box canyon they'll find their way out; installing gates on possible box canyons which may have no way through requires a certain level of omniscience, doesn't it? That was my point with: "By what omniscience are acceptable "scientific principles" the only permitted ones?" "This method is not even a bad deductive argument but we have allowed them in science." ". . . we have allowed . . ." Well, yes. . . .

I do sympathize with your concern, and the religious tone you raise is quite appropriate, but humans long for certainty and safety in which they can believe; science is just going to have to survive it by recovering from its "gods" now and then. Comparative mythology notes "prayer wheels" in Tibet in the old days that were a comfort to persons who used them, while the Dali Lama had a deeper awareness.

Would "dropping deductive argument" be "lighting a candle in the darkness?"

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Leonard Hall

Please note what I said about string theory is not rhetoric. You can hear it from Leonard Susskind one of the pioneers of the theory in the following YouTube clip. It is only about 3 minutes long.

(5) Part 01: String theory - YouTube

Howdy Ziaedin Shafiei ,

But it doesn't matter who said "it." Working from the words you have used, I prefer my response with a focus on the future. The topic is about censorship in science: answer, no!

Expert is a useful concept, but experts have been wrong over and over in science as it has evolved. Authority is abhorrent in science, and the ruts "authorities" recommend in our minds are worse.

Guides for everyday scientific endeavor such as offered by Francis Bacon Novum Organum (1620), or even Aristotle's Organon have been valuable until "controllers" got hold of them and required unthinking obedience to control followers. The problem is in the disciples who did not comprehend the originator, so they follow activity by rote and required their mental ruts in others' minds. Thoughts in our minds are better than ruts, because they evolve; a thought may grow from "dead wrong" to "really right," while a rut remains a grave with the ends kicked out.

I suspect some measure of efficiency, effectiveness, value in human effort, focus that allows a favored idea, or just general benefit are behind all this writing for you, and I have no argument with such objectives, but through censorship(?), no!

Happy trails, Len

Dear Leonard Hall

Please see the video to find out what I said about the history of string theory is what the contributors to the theory have also admitted. This is not reasoning by reference to authority. It is showing the evidence.

OK, you can use deductive argument for discovering the nature of dark matter. Who am I to stop you. I can only say good luck.

Howdy Ziaedin Shafiei,

". . . admitted." Sigh.

"OK, you can use deductive argument for discovering the nature of dark matter." From whence came this?

Well, it's your discussion and anyone interested may find my opinion in earlier posts, so I'll wander off and continue to seek comprehension of a young mountain stream's capacity to negotiate with a few stones in a rapids, using any means my mind undertakes. After all, my best tuned muffler for a snowmobile came from a terrible idea that evolved to a good one.

Perhaps a friend's observation with regard to intense discussions with his wife applies: "I realized we were never arguing about what we were arguing about."

Happy Trails, Len

Howdy Ziaedin Shafiei,

After-note: I regularly drive people to a frustrated "OK, you can use . . ." Please do not be disturbed.

That Leonard Susskind and other contributors "admitted it" was the authority reference for me. I agree with your "showing the evidence" in support of your description source, but it is still rhetoric, or worse, hyperbole!

"The attached article proposes that such deductive arguments should not be allowed in philosophy and science as it is the tell-tale sign that human wrongly presupposes omniscient." So what? That's why to have discussion and replacement of the nonsense when better things are known. Many a life went along well using "phlogiston" until it was replaced by combustion with oxygen, and the "powers that were" knew well enough that "it moves," as is now accepted, when Galileo was being sacrificed to religious domination of a society that needed the Earth to be special. Science is resilient and all will be well enough as it happens, although individuals will have suffered in the process. No authorities!

The secret of riding a rubber raft through an intense rapids is not to stay dry, it is to find yourself in the pool at the bottom close enough to the raft to swim over to it. Well, maybe not.

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Leonard Hall

I am not disturbed at all by your comments. Our primary aim should be to uncover the truth about the world using our limited capabilities, relying on established and reliable methodologies. If we fail to halt processes that generate nonsense, it becomes difficult to avoid perpetuating further falsehoods. In other words you try not to ride in a punctured/deflated rubber raft.

Howdy Ziaedin Shafiei,

It's been interesting. We certainly have provided readers with differences of opinion on whether "established and reliable methodologies" are sufficient when choosing their own courses, and whether nonsense and falsehoods are all that dangerous.

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Yordan Epitropov

I fully agree with your comment. However, I think you have not read my main comment under this question. May I ask you to read it to realize my point in asking this question.

Deductive reasoning is commonly used in scientific research, and it’s especially associated with quantitative research. Researchers taking a deductive approach will start with a compelling social theory and then test its implications with data. Deductive reasoning tests hypotheses proposed by researchers employing inductive reasoning to strengthen the existing theory or propose an alternative framework for the same social phenomenon

Dear Yordan Epitropov

I should also sincerely thank Karl Pfeifer and Leonard Hall for making this discussion worthy.

As we know deduction assumes full knowledge of the subject at hand, and consequently tries to attribute it to specific cases. For example, all swans are white so if I see a swan it is definitely white. Inductive reasoning however starts from lack of knowledge and then based on reasoning and experiment tries to generalise a new finding. The generalisation process makes us presume total knowledge. Thus there is a boundary, though not clear, and constant interactions between the two types of reasoning.

When we walk in an unknown path we can think both ways to ourselves:

• I have walked safely so far and as the path has been solid under my feet then it will be so for the rest of my walk, (induction)
• The path is solid, so it will be so the next step and afterwards, (deduction)

Besides my main point under the question I also prefer to use the first type of reasoning rather then the second one but it is not always that clear. Moreover, unfortunately, both reasoning can be catastrophically wrong.

Howdy Ziaedin Shafiei

Each post clarifies, thank you. However, wording I like from an online lookup: The main difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is that inductive reasoning aims at developing a theory while deductive reasoning aims at testing an existing theory. I can't buy "assumes full knowledge" as an inexorable constraint on a wise investigator using deductive logic to test a theory. Oh, well.

"then it will be so for the rest of my walk, (induction)" don't use this to protect yourself from quicksand unless there are footprints across it.

"both reasoning can be catastrophically wrong" Agreed! As I have written elsewhere, "We should have stronger warning signs on our foreheads than on our chainsaws."

Be wise, and think as you will.

Happy Trails, Len

Deductive reasoning is a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions. It’s often contrasted with inductive reasoning, where you start with specific observations and form general conclusions. Deductive reasoning is also called deductive logic or top-down reasoning.

Deductive arguments are sometimes illustrated by providing an example in which an argument’s premises logically entail its conclusion.