Re: Refuting Aristotle et al (was Re: [asa] Dawkins on the fossil record)

From: dfsiemensjr <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Tue Dec 15 2009 - 21:31:55 EST

There are a number of problems with Aristotle. For example, try to apply
the laws of excluded middle and contradiction to "bald" or any other
characteristic that admits of degrees. Or try to do astronomy on the
basis that all celestial bodies are composed solely of the quintessence.
Or try to do chemistry on the basis of only four terrestrial elements. It
must also be noted that syllogistic (including the additional modal
logics) is not totally the same as medieval logics, and is quite
different from contemporary logics (from Frege on).

As for 2+2=4, it is not necessarily true, for there is modular
arithmetic.

As to a first entity of some sort, it is entirely possible that the first
one possessing all the human characteristics, by being in a breeding
group, did not have any offspring with the same complete set of
characteristics. There has to be a slowly changing breeding group for
speciation. The logical notion that there has to be a single first does
not necessarily apply to reality.
Dave (ASA)

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:55:19 -0500 Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
writes:
Murray,

Sorry, but this cuts no ice. If Gregory were simply making an appeal to
the Church fathers such that they or revelation should be trusted over
modern science... well, I'd have some problems with that, but "The year
is 2009" would *still* not suffice as a meaningful argument. There are
problems with trusting revelation over science (when the two are actually
in dispute, rather than it being a clash of philosophies), but the
'modern world' hasn't done anything but make that view unpopular.

But when Gregory is talking about how there must have been a first, I
don't see him as making a theological appeal. It's a logical appeal, one
of reason. Along the lines of, "Beings of type X exist now. Beings of
type X have not been reproducing since eternity. Ergo, there must have
been a first." That's the sort of reasoning a classic greek may have used
- but today's date does not change the validity of it.

To give another example: Aristotle is credited with the law of identity,
of contradiction, and the excluded middle. Old, old "laws". Is "It's
2009" anything close to an adequate way to dismiss them? Does it even
begin to do that?

Same for math. 2+2=4. You can find as much 'argued' (discovered?) in some
old, old references. Is the reasoning outdated? Is the conclusion now
suspect because of the passage of time?

So the "the world is fundamentally different" line doesn't go all that
far. Nor does, necessarily, scientific advancement. If tomorrow a
scientist tells me "2+2=71", he better have more than a declaration of
"It's 2009" onhand when I ask him to defend his view.

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
wrote:

Schwarzwald wrote:

Not nearly enough, Murray. And I'll bluntly say that the tactic of
refutation by referring to the date is the stuff of glaring intellectual
weakness. It can be deployed for just about any position, even contrary
ones.

The difference in scientific perspective between the ancient world and
today makes any appeal to Aristotle and the Church Fathers problematic in
the extreme - particularly when their opinion (as it is on the question
of the "first" human) is so markedly a product of their particular view
of the created order.

Simply citing those authorities as if they can be considered
determinative in any theological debate is PRECISELY to attempt to do
theology in a pre-modern intellectual context.

Let me note, further, that I purposefully used quote marks on
"refutation." I am aware that simply pointing to a calendar doesn't
disprove Greg's argument - but it DOES introduce a major consideration
that has to be addressed.

So the fundamental point is that our conceptual world is fundamentally
different from that of Aristotle and the Fathers. The only "glaring
intellectual weakness" is on the part of those who pretend otherwise.

In that respect, pointing out that there's been 2000 years of intervening
scientific progress since Aristotle (and 1500 years of same since the
Church Fathers) is not quite irrelevant.

Blessings,
Murray

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
____________________________________________________________
Online Loan
Click for online loan, fast & no lender fee, approval today
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=9EYgdgR-z2Y4kdljVkiv-gAAJ1C299ic4kQXCDEcUzIPh2aFAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQZAAAAAA=

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 15 21:39:01 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 15 2009 - 21:39:01 EST