Quote:
Originally Posted by yossarian  However if we observe something that is counter to logic enough times, then we have to admit that that logic does not apply in that situation. |
No, that's the beauty of logic. It is always correct. We are the ones that are wrong. If one presents a statement that invalidates another (presumably true) statement, then the original statement was false; it probably got there because of some wrong initial assumption.
Alright, now I'm off to fix the axioms.
EDIT:
Quote:
|
Mathematical systems are always incomplete.
|
Either incomplete or inconsistent. ;-) And, of course, that doesn't imply they're wrong (well, for the former).
EDIT2:
Quote:
|
You (the original poster) are doing the same thing when you use the rules of logic and mathematics to disprove the "supernatural" which is, honestly, just the "natural" that is not yet explored.
|
True, but it's good exercise to try! But I find it ironic that you include that last phrase.
EDIT3:
Quote:
|
I do know that the way to find it out is to have an unwavering respect for empirical data. We must keep that in mind at all times.
|
Human experience and claims are not empirical data. Steve sees something purple as gray, but a computer can tell you gray and purple are different wavelengths of light wave emissions. Most often, supernatural phenomena are reported by humans. That's why I'm resorting to the only thing I can use (I have never experienced a situation where I felt, or someone I knew claimed to be feeling a supernatural entity; I also don't have the equipment, money, or willpower necessary to investigate such phenomena in a physical environment).
EDIT4: I know, I know, I need to work on those axioms. But...
Quote:
Originally Posted by yossarian An easy one is the geocentric vs. heliocentric debate. Both models are certainly correct because they recover the same empirical results. |
Like the fact you can get to the other side of the Earth by digging straight down?