Let's discuss logic
Jul. 28th, 2007 07:56 pmConsider the following pair of statements:
A] God created the world.
B] A combination of random mutation and natural selection gives rise to new species.
There seems to be a persistent assumption that A implies not B. Even worse, there is a minor industry based on the false corollary that B implies not A, which really has no logical basis at all. This annoys me, because a lot of energy is being expended on debates which are logically stupid, but which also have harmful effects.
( further expansion )
Anyway, the main conclusion is that statements A and B are independent because they are different kinds of statements. If people want to argue for or against one, they shouldn't muddy the waters by trying to talk about the other. The secondary conclusion is that there are some extremely unpleasant people who have a vested interest in convincing people of not B, and that decent people should be very careful in how they argue against such unpleasant elements, to avoid accidentally playing to their hidden aims.
I have other things to say about this topic but this is insanely long anyway. It's prompted by various conversations on the topic, both around LJ and in person. So thanks to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
smhwpf, pw201, pseudomonas, rysmiel and anybody else I might have forgotten who's been going over this stuff with me. See also, if you're not exhausted by now!
And, er, sorry about the music choice...
A] God created the world.
B] A combination of random mutation and natural selection gives rise to new species.
There seems to be a persistent assumption that A implies not B. Even worse, there is a minor industry based on the false corollary that B implies not A, which really has no logical basis at all. This annoys me, because a lot of energy is being expended on debates which are logically stupid, but which also have harmful effects.
( further expansion )
Anyway, the main conclusion is that statements A and B are independent because they are different kinds of statements. If people want to argue for or against one, they shouldn't muddy the waters by trying to talk about the other. The secondary conclusion is that there are some extremely unpleasant people who have a vested interest in convincing people of not B, and that decent people should be very careful in how they argue against such unpleasant elements, to avoid accidentally playing to their hidden aims.
I have other things to say about this topic but this is insanely long anyway. It's prompted by various conversations on the topic, both around LJ and in person. So thanks to
smhwpf, pw201, pseudomonas, rysmiel and anybody else I might have forgotten who's been going over this stuff with me. See also, if you're not exhausted by now!And, er, sorry about the music choice...
