Archived

Craig vs Krauss

Read 102055 times

abc

  • ***
  • 1250 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #30 on: April 03, 2011, 06:32:30 pm »
JeffDavid wrote: Nevertheless, I could care less if I offended people like you. Theo, you are a sickly human being. I can't believe the things you said about WLC. And don't think for a minute that your comments are seen as an honest criticism or assessment of Craig and his works. I do not know how you sleep with yourself at night.

Hmm... Well, I suppose that's the end of the conversation. I'm glad to defend myself if you'd like to discuss any concerns further. In the meantime, I have an intellectual curiosity and a desire to pursue it.

1

Jeff Harris

  • **
  • 272 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #31 on: April 03, 2011, 06:55:13 pm »
Bye, Theo

2

abc

  • ***
  • 1250 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #32 on: April 03, 2011, 06:57:00 pm »
JeffDavid wrote:

Quote from: theowarner
Quote from: JeffDavid
I don't think he's saying that "Aristotilean logic and peano arthmatic" are wrong. I think he's saying that they have been surpassed by science as a tool as discovery.

You didn't listen to the debate, did you? Krauss said, (and this is a direct quote) "...classical logic such as 2+2=5, or 4, it can't equal 5, is wrong."

Yeah.

Uh... out of curiosity, do you think 2+2 can equal 5? If his report of the math is correct, then he's right that "can't equal 5" is wrong.

But, the point here is that 2+2=4 is also correct. So, math isn't pointless. And neither is logic.

So, when he suggests that they have been surpassed by science, he isn't suggesting that they wrong in the broad sweeping sense that I took you to mean in your original comment.

And yes, I have watched the debate. I'm watching it again right now.

3

abc

  • ***
  • 1250 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #33 on: April 03, 2011, 06:59:36 pm »
Fanofdrcraig wrote: Bye, Theo

Where are you going?

4

Jeff Harris

  • **
  • 272 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #34 on: April 03, 2011, 07:03:40 pm »

Oh, I thought you were leaving. Darn it!


5

Jeff David

  • **
  • 52 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #35 on: April 03, 2011, 07:28:31 pm »
theowarner wrote:
Yeah.
Uh... out of curiosity, do you think 2+2 can equal 5?
LOL! Uh, do you?
If his report of the math is correct, then he's right that "can't equal 5" is wrong.
He's saying the claim "2+2 can't equal 5" is "wrong." Just to be clear. That's an example of denying peano arithmatic.

But, the point here is that 2+2=4 is also correct. So, math isn't pointless. And neither is logic.
He didn't say pointless but "wrong". There's a difference. 2+2 equals 4 or it doesn't. It can't equal 4 and 5 at the same time. Just like how square-circles can't exist, Theo.

So, when he suggests that they have been surpassed by science, he isn't suggesting that they wrong in the broad sweeping sense that I took you to mean in your original comment.
But he did say they were wrong. In the broad sweeping sense.

And yes, I have watched the debate. I'm watching it again right now.
If you're watching it then pay attention. I quoted him verbatim where he said classical logic (ie Aristotilean Logic) is wrong. And you're saying that he didn't say that - when he did. Sorry, but I think Krauss knows himself better than you know him.

6

abc

  • ***
  • 1250 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #36 on: April 03, 2011, 07:49:52 pm »
Jeff, I'm not a mathematician, so I can't get into a conversation about math with any real expertise.

I understood Krauss to suggest that 2+2=5 within some obscure system. He said "for extremely large values of two." Now, perhaps this simply a joke that I don't understand. But, I do understand that mathematicians can really fancy stuff with numbers that I don't understand. I understand base numbers thought and I understand that in different bases, simple statements come out differently.

Putting all that aside, do you understand Krauss to be claiming that every claim made using Aristotelian logic is false? And, every claim made using Peano arithmetic is false?

I don't read Krauss in that way. I read him to be saying that Aristotelian logic can result in false statements. His point (especially when you take the gravity example into consideration) seems to be about one method of thinking which is good up to a point but is ultimately insufficient to investigate the world entirely and efficiently. Clearly, an experiment investigated different falling speeds better than Aristotle's abstract reasoning about it. So, again, I think that the proper way (or closest thing to Krauss' meaning) to read Krauss is that he is suggesting that the limitations of logic must be acknowledged and science, therefore, embraced.

Another way to put this is: Do you think Krauss simply holds to a very stupid position? That hardly seems like you're giving him the benefit of the doubt which, I think, is the first step towards any sort of real conversation.

And, I don't think you're giving me the benefit of the doubt, either.

7

Jeff David

  • **
  • 52 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #37 on: April 03, 2011, 08:12:11 pm »
theowarner wrote:
Jeff, I'm not a mathematician, so I can't get into a conversation about math with any real expertise.
But your whole message here is about getting into a conversation about math (among other things). You even asked me about Krauss and peano arithmatic below. So why bring it up if you say you can't have a conversation about it? You're not making sense.

I understood Krauss to suggest that 2+2=5 within some obscure system. He said "for extremely large values of two." Now, perhaps this simply a joke that I don't understand. But, I do understand that mathematicians can really fancy stuff with numbers that I don't understand. I understand base numbers thought and I understand that in different bases, simple statements come out differently.

Putting all that aside, do you understand Krauss to be claiming that every claim made using Aristotelian logic is false?
No, he's saying classical logic in of itself is wrong. How many tiimes do we have to keep going over this?
And, every claim made using Peano arithmetic is false?
No. He's saying PA is wrong in of itself. You're not catching on, are you?

I don't read Krauss in that way. I read him to be saying that Aristotelian logic can result in false statements. His point (especially when you take the gravity example into consideration) seems to be about one method of thinking which is good up to a point but is ultimately insufficient to investigate the world entirely and efficiently. Clearly, an experiment investigated different falling speeds better than Aristotle's abstract reasoning about it. So, again, I think that the proper way (or closest thing to Krauss' meaning) to read Krauss is that he is suggesting that the limitations of logic must be acknowledged and science, therefore, embraced.
You've been saying this over and over again... I just don't see why you can't concede that Krauss said classical logic and PA are wrong when he said so.

Another way to put this is: Do you think Krauss simply holds to a very stupid position?
Some of it, I do. It would be extremely stupid to think that necessary truths (like classical logic and PA) are wrong.
That hardly seems like you're giving him the benefit of the doubt which, I think, is the first step towards any sort of real conversation.
I'm taking him in context. You're giving him a position that he doesn't hold to. Do you even know what a real meaningful conversation consists of?

And, I don't think you're giving me the benefit of the doubt, either.

Guilty as charged.

All I did was present Krauss' position faithfully with evidence. You refused to look at it in any meaningful sense. Instead you totally made something up about Krauss. Sorry, but Krauss said that Aristotilean Logic and Peano Arithmatic were wrong. If you can't see that, then what more is there to discuss?

8

abc

  • ***
  • 1250 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #38 on: April 03, 2011, 08:22:33 pm »
JeffDavid wrote:
All I did was present Krauss' position faithfully with evidence. You refused to look at it in any meaningful sense. Instead you totally made something up about Krauss. Sorry, but Krauss said that Aristotilean Logic and Peano Arithmatic were wrong. If you can't see that, then what more is there to discuss?

Okay. I'll concede that he says Aristotilean logic is wrong.

What I'm trying to discover is: what does he mean by that?

You've conceded that he does not mean that all claims made using Aristotilean logic are false. So, some claims made using Aristotelian logic must be true.

Thus, Aristotelian logic is not worthless... but it does result in some false statements, such as: 2+2 cannot equal 5.

9

Matt

  • **
  • 309 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #39 on: April 03, 2011, 10:05:57 pm »
theowarner wrote:
Thus, Aristotelian logic is not worthless... but it does result in some false statements, such as: 2+2 cannot equal 5.


2 + 2 cannot equal 5.

10

abc

  • ***
  • 1250 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #40 on: April 03, 2011, 10:12:40 pm »
Matt1128Y wrote:
2 + 2 cannot equal 5.

Drs. Krauss and Craig disagree.

11

Matt

  • **
  • 309 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #41 on: April 03, 2011, 10:21:31 pm »
theowarner wrote:
Quote from: Matt1128Y

2 + 2 cannot equal 5.

Drs. Krauss and Craig disagree.

Regardless of what either thinks, the proposition "2 + 2 = 5" is necessarily false.


And the proposition "2 + 2 = 5" is not the same as the proposition "2 + 2 = 5 given that X, Y, and Z." Let's stop the misleading nonsense. That's what annoyed me the most about this debate, Krauss' abuse of the English language and his misleading statements. Other examples include referring to quantum fluctuations as nothing and deeming the universe illogical, despite humans being able to understand much of how the universe works using rationality (so far).


12

abc

  • ***
  • 1250 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #42 on: April 03, 2011, 10:31:39 pm »
Matt1128Y wrote:
Quote from: theowarner
Quote from: Matt1128Y

2 + 2 cannot equal 5.

Drs. Krauss and Craig disagree.

Regardless of what either thinks, "2 + 2 = 5" is always incorrect. It's necessarily false.

"2 + 2 = 5" is not the same as saying "2 + 2 = 5 given that X, Y, and Z." Let's stop the misleading nonsense. That's what annoyed me the most about this debate. Krauss' abuse of the English language and his misleading statements. Other examples include referring to quantum fluctuations as nothing and deeming the universe illogical.

Hm. Well, I think you're missing a serious point here.

All mathematical statements are true only when given certain statements. That's their limitation. They are sentences in reference to a system.

2+2=5, for example, is dependent on symbols with specific meaning. That "2" has a value, that "5" has a value, that "+" and "=" have meaning, and so on. We have to assume that only one system is in play and that this is system we learn in kindergarten. And then of course, there are silly objections: like what if it's a code.

So... "always"?

13

Matt

  • **
  • 309 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #43 on: April 03, 2011, 10:50:59 pm »

theowarner wrote: All mathematical statements are true only when given certain statements. That's their limitation. They are sentences in reference to a system.

Hm. I don't think I missed any point; and you haven't shown where I've missed a point. Although I do think you're going off on a bit of a tangent. In any case, let me see if I can try and explain this in even simpler terms, if that's even possible.

The proposition "2 + 2 = 5" is not synonymous with "2 + 2 = 5, given that X" in which X would represent some kind of condition that would make 2 + 2 = 5 a true statement. So, to try and equate these two propositions is dishonest and wrong. Moreover, both propositions are perfectly logical (presuming the condition X does actually make 2 + 2 = 5 a true statement). But Krauss was trying to trick the laymen in the audience into thinking that logic is sometimes wrong. That sometimes "2 + 2 = 5" is true. That's incorrect. "2 + 2 = 5" is necessarily false. I presume you read the rest of Krauss' t-shirt in which it included an additional condition that made "2 + 2 = 5" (so it was actually "2 + 2 = 5, given that X") a true statement. But again, that's not the same as saying "2 + 2 = 5" is sometimes true.

And the rest of your post is sort of irrelevant.

If you still don't understand, well, I can't help you.


14

abc

  • ***
  • 1250 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #44 on: April 03, 2011, 11:05:40 pm »
Matt1128Y wrote: "2 + 2 = 5" is necessarily false.

Really? It's not contingent upon anything?

I mean, if nothing else, symbol-to-meaning correspondence is not necessary.

Again, I don't know; I'm not a mathematician. I assume if both Craig and Krauss seem to believe that in some sort of system (again, I don't know which) 2+2=5 can be true... well, then it's hardly necessarily false.

Do you mean false within first order, base 10 arithmetic?