Why proof or evidence is not enough: The role of worldview in accepting new information

[PoetPhilosopher]

Many people ask for proof or evidence when they encounter a claim that challenges their beliefs or assumptions. They think that by seeing the proof, they will be able to evaluate the claim rationally. However, proof is rarely the issue, in my opinion. The real issue is usually trying to find someone who can connect their worldview to the proof, and maybe even explain how it's practical to believe the proof.

What do I mean by worldview? A worldview is a set of beliefs, values, and assumptions that shape how we perceive and interpret reality. It is influenced by various factors. A worldview is not necessarily true or false, but it can be more or less coherent, consistent, and comprehensive compared to other worldviews.

Why does worldview matter? Because it affects how we process information, especially new or unfamiliar information. We tend to filter out or ignore information that contradicts our worldview, and accept or confirm information that supports our worldview. This is called confirmation bias, and it can lead to rejecting valid proof or evidence simply because it doesn't fit our worldview.

How can we overcome this bias? One way is to find someone who can bridge the gap between our worldview and the proof or evidence. This person should be able to understand both sides of the issue, and communicate effectively, clearly and respectfully. They should be able to explain how the proof or evidence relates to our worldview, and how it can enhance or expand our understanding of reality. They should also be able to show us how it's practical or beneficial to believe the proof or evidence, and what benefits and consequences it has for our lives.

Of course, finding such a person is not usually easy. They may not always exist in a given group or discussion thread, or they may not be accessible in general. They may also have their own biases or agendas that influence their presentation of the proof or evidence. So, a better way should be not to rely solely on them, but also try to develop our own critical thinking skills and open-mindedness, and be our own relater of information who if necessary, can bridge the gap between our existing worldview, and the evidence/proof, should it be deemed appropriate upon evaluating the information and sides of the coin or argument.

Proof or evidence is important, but it is not always enough. We also need to connect it to our worldview at times, and see how it affects our lives. I'd argue that only then can we truly appreciate and accept the proof or evidence, and make informed decisions based on it.

But the real crossroads is deciding whether we should to begin with.

References:

Worldview - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I'm going to invite a couple of people to read this topic, just in case they want to chime in or have anything they want to say:

@Evangelicalhumanist

@It Aint Necessarily So

 

[Nakosis]

Many people ask for proof or evidence when they encounter a claim that challenges their beliefs or assumptions. They think that by seeing the proof, they will be able to evaluate the claim rationally. However, proof is rarely the issue, in my opinion. The real issue is usually trying to find someone who can connect their worldview to the proof, and maybe even explain how it's practical to believe the proof.

What do I mean by worldview? A worldview is a set of beliefs, values, and assumptions that shape how we perceive and interpret reality. It is influenced by various factors. A worldview is not necessarily true or false, but it can be more or less coherent, consistent, and comprehensive compared to other worldviews.

Why does worldview matter? Because it affects how we process information, especially new or unfamiliar information. We tend to filter out or ignore information that contradicts our worldview, and accept or confirm information that supports our worldview. This is called confirmation bias, and it can lead to rejecting valid proof or evidence simply because it doesn't fit our worldview.

How can we overcome this bias? One way is to find someone who can bridge the gap between our worldview and the proof or evidence. This person should be able to understand both sides of the issue, and communicate effectively, clearly and respectfully. They should be able to explain how the proof or evidence relates to our worldview, and how it can enhance or expand our understanding of reality. They should also be able to show us how it's practical or beneficial to believe the proof or evidence, and what benefits and consequences it has for our lives.

Of course, finding such a person is not usually easy. They may not always exist in a given group or discussion thread, or they may not be accessible in general. They may also have their own biases or agendas that influence their presentation of the proof or evidence. So, a better way should be not to rely solely on them, but also try to develop our own critical thinking skills and open-mindedness, and be our own relater of information who if necessary, can bridge the gap between our existing worldview, and the evidence/proof, should it be deemed appropriate upon evaluating the information and sides of the coin or argument.

Proof or evidence is important, but it is not always enough. We also need to connect it to our worldview at times, and see how it affects our lives. I'd argue that only then can we truly appreciate and accept the proof or evidence, and make informed decisions based on it.

But the real crossroads is deciding whether we should to begin with.

References:

Worldview - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I'm going to invite a couple of people to read this topic, just in case they want to chime in or have anything they want to say:

@Evangelicalhumanist

@It Aint Necessarily So

Proof to me is independent validation. And, one person's independent validation is not enough. Taking a number of people of differing experiences and levels of expertise all reaching the same conclusion based on available evidence. Which you yourself can evaluate and freely criticize the conclusions of others. Only after all such criticisms have been sufficiently answer would I begin to consider the conclusions being supported by the evidence. Still never absolute proof but something we can accept as sufficiently reliable.

 

[Stevicus]

Many people ask for proof or evidence when they encounter a claim that challenges their beliefs or assumptions. They think that by seeing the proof, they will be able to evaluate the claim rationally. However, proof is rarely the issue, in my opinion. The real issue is usually trying to find someone who can connect their worldview to the proof, and maybe even explain how it's practical to believe the proof.

What do I mean by worldview? A worldview is a set of beliefs, values, and assumptions that shape how we perceive and interpret reality. It is influenced by various factors. A worldview is not necessarily true or false, but it can be more or less coherent, consistent, and comprehensive compared to other worldviews.

Why does worldview matter? Because it affects how we process information, especially new or unfamiliar information. We tend to filter out or ignore information that contradicts our worldview, and accept or confirm information that supports our worldview. This is called confirmation bias, and it can lead to rejecting valid proof or evidence simply because it doesn't fit our worldview.

How can we overcome this bias? One way is to find someone who can bridge the gap between our worldview and the proof or evidence. This person should be able to understand both sides of the issue, and communicate effectively, clearly and respectfully. They should be able to explain how the proof or evidence relates to our worldview, and how it can enhance or expand our understanding of reality. They should also be able to show us how it's practical or beneficial to believe the proof or evidence, and what benefits and consequences it has for our lives.

Of course, finding such a person is not usually easy. They may not always exist in a given group or discussion thread, or they may not be accessible in general. They may also have their own biases or agendas that influence their presentation of the proof or evidence. So, a better way should be not to rely solely on them, but also try to develop our own critical thinking skills and open-mindedness, and be our own relater of information who if necessary, can bridge the gap between our existing worldview, and the evidence/proof, should it be deemed appropriate upon evaluating the information and sides of the coin or argument.

Proof or evidence is important, but it is not always enough. We also need to connect it to our worldview at times, and see how it affects our lives. I'd argue that only then can we truly appreciate and accept the proof or evidence, and make informed decisions based on it.

But the real crossroads is deciding whether we should to begin with.

References:

Worldview - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I'm going to invite a couple of people to read this topic, just in case they want to chime in or have anything they want to say:

@Evangelicalhumanist

@It Aint Necessarily So

I think a lot of it would depend upon the context of the discussion. If it's a more neutral context, where people are simply imparting information to people who want to learn about it, then it wouldn't necessarily be confrontational or adversarial.

However, in an adversarial environment, such as a courtroom, political debate, or a religious debate, people generally already pick their side, so asking for proof or evidence is more like a defense attorney trying to refute the claims of the prosecution. Naturally, they're going to question, challenge, and try to dismiss every single piece of evidence brought forth.

Such discussions invariably take on a confrontational and adversarial tone, where it no longer is an open-ended discussion about comparative worldviews and differing perceptions, but something more akin to a trial between hostile parties.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I think a lot of it would depend upon the context of the discussion. If it's a more neutral context, where people are simply imparting information to people who want to learn about it, then it wouldn't necessarily be confrontational or adversarial.

However, in an adversarial environment, such as a courtroom, political debate, or a religious debate, people generally already pick their side, so asking for proof or evidence is more like a defense attorney trying to refute the claims of the prosecution. Naturally, they're going to question, challenge, and try to dismiss every single piece of evidence brought forth.

Such discussions invariably take on a confrontational and adversarial tone, where it no longer is an open-ended discussion about comparative worldviews and differing perceptions, but something more akin to a trial between hostile parties.

That makes sense. However, I'd say that in many cases, to ask for proof can also work against one's own arguments.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm going to invite a couple of people to read this topic, just in case they want to chime in or have anything they want to say

Thanks for thinking of me. I'll try to make a contribution here

Why does worldview matter? Because it affects how we process information, especially new or unfamiliar information. We tend to filter out or ignore information that contradicts our worldview, and accept or confirm information that supports our worldview. This is called confirmation bias, and it can lead to rejecting valid proof or evidence simply because it doesn't fit our worldview.

I use the term confirmation bias to refer to an unconscious filtering process that arises when somebody chooses to believe an idea that is not demonstrably correct, that is, not empirically verified, and sometime contradicted by evidence. If one's worldview is the result of critical thought, skepticism, and empiricism, then I do not call that filter a confirmation bias to avoid confusing it with the unconscious process of defending a faith-based belief in a reality that doesn't support it.

One of my favorite resources on the topic of confirmation bias comes from a young earth creationist (YEC) and geologist, Glenn Morton, who became an old earth creationist as he studied geology. He describes his confirmation bias as a YEC using the device of an unseen demon who sat at the portal of his awareness screening ideas and throwing those that disagreed with his faith-based belief out to protect him from contradictory evidence. From The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2002 :

"But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen."

This is nothing like critical thinking, which invokes a bias as well, but a rational one, not a faith-based one, namely, that nothing should be believed beyond what the relevant evidence supports. It is used to confirm or disconfirm that claims are sound, but I wouldn't call it a confirmation bias for reasons given (ambiguity). This is a conscious and deliberate process trust in which is justified by its prior successes. It works. It's reshaped the world and improved the human condition.

How can we overcome this bias? One way is to find someone who can ...

Confirmation biases are seldom overcome. Morton did it, but most don't. And most encased in one see no problem and therefore seek no advice or solution for it.

The best way is to avoid faith-based belief and thus confirmation bias completely. Be a critical thinker whenever trying to decide what's true about the world. The next best thing is to be aware of what critical thought is and does, and who can help you if you're not adept at it yourself, that is, to recognize expertise in others and take their advice. But if you're in that last tier that is unaware of this world's existence and what this (critical analysis) method can do, which is what the Dunning-Kruger syndrome describes, then you have no reason to seek counsel, and you end up saying things like, "That's just your opinion" about demonstrably correct ideas.

I'm thinking of the Covid vaccine here. We had morbidity and mortality data stratified by vaccination status. If you could understand the implications of that data, you got the vaccine. Even if you couldn't interpret the data yourself, if you understood that there are people who have expertise in the area and correctly identified them - let's say a world renown specialist in infectious disease, virology, and epidemics - you can let them do the thinking and take their advice. But if you can do neither of these things and you're a "Well that's just your opinion, Dr. Fauci. Mine is that bleach and dewormer is a better plan" kind of person, you're deep into Dunning-Kruger territory and become saddled with unhealthy confirmation biases.

evidence is important, but it is not always enough

Right. One also needs to learn the rules of inference that generate sound conclusions from that evidence.

I hope this is what you wanted.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I hope this is what you wanted.

I'm more than satisfied with the given answer, yes. Thanks. I just @ 'ed you because I respect your opinion, and I figured that you might have something to say.

 

[Echogem222]

Many people ask for proof or evidence when they encounter a claim that challenges their beliefs or assumptions. They think that by seeing the proof, they will be able to evaluate the claim rationally. However, proof is rarely the issue, in my opinion. The real issue is usually trying to find someone who can connect their worldview to the proof, and maybe even explain how it's practical to believe the proof.

What do I mean by worldview? A worldview is a set of beliefs, values, and assumptions that shape how we perceive and interpret reality. It is influenced by various factors. A worldview is not necessarily true or false, but it can be more or less coherent, consistent, and comprehensive compared to other worldviews.

Why does worldview matter? Because it affects how we process information, especially new or unfamiliar information. We tend to filter out or ignore information that contradicts our worldview, and accept or confirm information that supports our worldview. This is called confirmation bias, and it can lead to rejecting valid proof or evidence simply because it doesn't fit our worldview.

How can we overcome this bias? One way is to find someone who can bridge the gap between our worldview and the proof or evidence. This person should be able to understand both sides of the issue, and communicate effectively, clearly and respectfully. They should be able to explain how the proof or evidence relates to our worldview, and how it can enhance or expand our understanding of reality. They should also be able to show us how it's practical or beneficial to believe the proof or evidence, and what benefits and consequences it has for our lives.

Of course, finding such a person is not usually easy. They may not always exist in a given group or discussion thread, or they may not be accessible in general. They may also have their own biases or agendas that influence their presentation of the proof or evidence. So, a better way should be not to rely solely on them, but also try to develop our own critical thinking skills and open-mindedness, and be our own relater of information who if necessary, can bridge the gap between our existing worldview, and the evidence/proof, should it be deemed appropriate upon evaluating the information and sides of the coin or argument.

Proof or evidence is important, but it is not always enough. We also need to connect it to our worldview at times, and see how it affects our lives. I'd argue that only then can we truly appreciate and accept the proof or evidence, and make informed decisions based on it.

But the real crossroads is deciding whether we should to begin with.

References:

Worldview - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I'm going to invite a couple of people to read this topic, just in case they want to chime in or have anything they want to say:

@Evangelicalhumanist

@It Aint Necessarily So

Though I agree with you that developing our own critical thinking skills and open-mindedness is important, if you're using flawed reasoning to learn new things, then you'll lack the foundation needed to even get to that point.

Allow me to explain what I mean, the way we understand reality is by using logic, even our beliefs, we understand as being beliefs through logic, but if our understanding of logic is flawed, then we will lack the foundation needed to determine what is actually true, what could be true, and what isn't true.

Commony believed to be a logic system that works, Formal Logic is actually a flawed logic system. But just so you know we're on the same page, allow me to explain what formal logic is:

Four Main Laws of Formal Logic:

1.) Law of Identity (A is A): This law states that every entity or object is identical to itself. In other words, any statement or thing is what it is and cannot be anything else.
2.) Law of Non-Contradiction (Not both A and Not A): According to this law, a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. It means that contradictions are not allowed within the same context.
3.) Law of Excluded Middle (A or Not A): This law states that for any statement, it must be either true or false; there is no third option. There are no middle-ground possibilities.
4.) Modus Ponens: This is a valid logical inference rule. If we have a conditional statement "If A, then B," and we know that "A" is true, then we can logically conclude that "B" is true.

(yes, I'm aware that it's debatable that these 4 are truly the 4 main laws of formal logic. However, for the point I'm about to make, it's irrelevant.)

Formal Logic is just ourselves understanding in detail of how we determine what is true and what is false, we use formal logic all of the time, if this were not the case, after someone understands why 1+1=2, they could suddenly stop using logic and determine that 1+1 doesn't equal 2. Formal logic requires awareness to determine anything, so likewise, when we lack awareness, we can use formal logic to come to false conclusions. Just like how a flashlight can be used in the dark to allow us to see a limited amount of information in visual form, and cause us to come to a false conclusion about what we're actually seeing. But wait a minute, formal logic can be used to come to correct conclusions, but it can also be used to come to false conclusions when we lack awareness, so doesn't that mean it's a paradox? It would if you just left formal logic as is and didn't try to fix it. So I present to you the solution to this problem:

False conclusion Logic (FC Logic):

1.) Law of Identity (A is A)
2.) Law of Non-Contradiction (Not both A and Not A)
3.) Law of Excluded Middle (A or Not A):
4.) Modus Ponens
5.) Law of weakness to True conclusion Logic: FC Logic must be provable as being wrong using TC logic.
6.) Law of lack of awareness: Must lack awareness of the way things actually are.

True conclusion Logic (TC Logic):
1.) Law of Identity (A is A)
2.) Law of Non-Contradiction (Not both A and Not A)
3.) Law of Excluded Middle (A or Not A):
4.) Modus Ponens
5.) Law of immunity to FC Logic: TC logic must be unable to be proved as wrong with FC Logic.
6.) Law of awareness: Must have awareness of the way things actually are.

When people realize how they're prone to come to the wrong conclusion, they can be on guard for such issues, which can allow for a faster reaction time.

 

[Quintessence]

To add, many components of someone's default map of the territory (aka, worldview) are axiomatic. That is, they are ways of seeing that are so foundational they are not questioned - it is simply "how things are" or "self-evident" a "matter of fact."

Axioms are tricky, because we are often blind to our own axiomatic assumptions. This is especially likely to happen in where there is a high degree of cultural hegemony and a low degree of cultural diversity.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Formal Logic is just ourselves understanding in detail of how we determine what is true and what is false,

I'd say that Formal Logic doesn't determine what is true or false, but rather the validity of arguments. It deals with the structure and consistency of arguments.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding here.

 

[Echogem222]

I'd say that Formal Logic doesn't determine what is true or false, but rather the validity of arguments. It deals with the structure and consistency of arguments.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding here.

Though it's true that some people don't use their understanding of logic to determine what is true or false, that they use formal logic as you've explained, but with TC logic, the value of logic becomes something which can be used to determine what is true and what is false. This creates an even foundation for everyone to understand truth.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Though it's true that some people don't use their understanding of logic to determine what is true or false, that they use formal logic as you've explained, but with TC logic, the value of logic becomes something which can be used to determine what is true and what is false. This creates an even foundation for everyone to understand truth.

I'd say TC logic still deals with validity and soundness of argument, but not the truth or falsity of facts or statements themselves. TC logic is a way of demonstrating the strength of an argument.

 

[F1fan]

I'd say that Formal Logic doesn't determine what is true or false, but rather the validity of arguments. It deals with the structure and consistency of arguments.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding here.

It is the rules, much like baking a cake, if you lack ingredients there can be no final product. The rules of logic only work as far as the available evidence, facts, true premises, data, etc. This is why logic can't be applied to God claims, there isn't adequate evidence. How can anyone make a valid conclusions? They can't. Yet we see many do make a decision, and it is not based on evidence. For the most part all a person can say about God existing is: we don't know. That means we don't believe. It also means we don't "believe God doesn't exist" as some theists assert of atheists.

My point is that we don't have just two options, we can admit we don't know an answer, nor have data/facts to make an inference. It is OK to not know. It is OK to not have an opinion. It seems that there could be a habit where we think we need to be on one side of an issue or the other. This could be social pressure, I'm not sure.

 

[Echogem222]

I'd say TC logic still deals with validity and soundness of argument, but not the truth or falsity of facts or statements themselves. TC logic is a way of demonstrating the strength of an argument.

Though it's true you can use TC logic to determine the validity and soundness of an argument, it does confirm the truth because of how it affects FC logic. Of course, everyone who uses FC logic naturally thinks they're using TC logic (if they had awareness of TC and FC logic).

 

[Echogem222]

It is the rules, much like baking a cake, if you lack ingredients there can be no final product. The rules of logic only work as far as the available evidence, facts, true premises, data, etc. This is why logic can't be applied to God claims, there isn't adequate evidence. How can anyone make a valid conclusions? They can't. Yet we see many do make a decision, and it is not based on evidence. For the most part all a person can say about God existing is: we don't know. That means we don't believe. It also means we don't "believe God doesn't exist" as some theists assert of atheists.

My point is that we don't have just two options, we can admit we don't know an answer, nor have data/facts to make an inference. It is OK to not know. It is OK to not have an opinion. It seems that there could be a habit where we think we need to be on one side of an issue or the other. This could be social pressure, I'm not sure.

You can apply TC logic to God claims, but it requires having the awareness needed to do that, and that can naturally be tricky and extremely complicated. Having the right amount of awareness would mean understanding our reality enough to determine even a God or Gods as true or false.

Imagine that you understand everything within what can be comprehended by a human, naturally when something abnormal happens which is clearly outside of your comprehension could not be caused by what you can comprehend (so what is within reality). This would then allow you to determine the relationship of claims made within reality of things which do not exist within reality correctly.

And also, when someone uses the word God or Gods to describe a being, they are obviously doing so vaguely, in other words, not with full understanding. So if someone were to fully understand what the word God or Gods means, that would then also allow them to possibly understand how true such a God or Gods is with TC logic.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Though it's true you can use TC logic to determine the validity and soundness of an argument, it does confirm the truth because of how it affects FC logic. Of course, everyone who uses FC logic naturally thinks they're using TC logic (if they had awareness of TC and FC logic).

What do you mean by "confirm the truth", and how do you measure it?

 

[Echogem222]

What do you mean by "confirm the truth", and how do you measure it?

By 'confirm the truth,' I mean that TC logic enables us to arrive at conclusions that align with reality in a more accurate and consistent manner. When using TC logic, we consider the limitations of FC (False Conclusion) logic, which can lead to false conclusions due to factors like lack of awareness or preconceived biases. TC logic, on the other hand, encourages a more comprehensive approach.

In terms of measurement, it's not so much about quantifying truth, but rather about assessing the coherence, consistency, and awareness in our thought processes. When we employ TC logic, we aim to minimize the influence of FC logic's shortcomings. We become more open-minded to the possibility that our understanding can be flawed due to a lack of awareness, and we actively work to counteract these limitations.

In essence, using TC logic involves a shift towards a more holistic and reflective way of thinking, which fosters a greater alignment with truth by considering the potential pitfalls of FC logic. It's a mindset that acknowledges our own potential limitations and seeks to transcend them through a more complete awareness of our thought processes and their implications.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

By 'confirm the truth,' I mean that TC logic enables us to arrive at conclusions that align with reality in a more accurate and consistent manner. When using TC logic, we consider the limitations of FC (False Conclusion) logic, which can lead to false conclusions due to factors like lack of awareness or preconceived biases. TC logic, on the other hand, encourages a more comprehensive approach.

In terms of measurement, it's not so much about quantifying truth, but rather about assessing the coherence, consistency, and awareness in our thought processes. When we employ TC logic, we aim to minimize the influence of FC logic's shortcomings. We become more open-minded to the possibility that our understanding can be flawed due to a lack of awareness, and we actively work to counteract these limitations.

In essence, using TC logic involves a shift towards a more holistic and reflective way of thinking, which fosters a greater alignment with truth by considering the potential pitfalls of FC logic. It's a mindset that acknowledges our own potential limitations and seeks to transcend them through a more complete awareness of our thought processes and their implications.

Thanks for the explanation. I'd say that true conclusion logic could also lead to false conclusions due to factors like insufficient information, paradoxes, or contradictions. I'd also consider the possibility that false conclusion logic could also lead to true conclusions due to factors like luck, intuition, creativity, or insight.

So, I'd have to stand by my statement, so far, that logic doesn't really determine what is "true" or "false", but rather the validity and consistency of an argument.

 

[F1fan]

You can apply TC logic to God claims, but it requires having the awareness needed to do that, and that can naturally be tricky and extremely complicated. Having the right amount of awareness would mean understanding our reality enough to determine even a God or Gods as true or false.

Awareness of what? What is the “right amount of awareness”? Wouldn’t what we understand of our reality be facts and data, not assumptions?

Imagine that you understand everything within what can be comprehended by a human, naturally when something abnormal happens which is clearly outside of your comprehension could not be caused by what you can comprehend (so what is within reality). This would then allow you to determine the relationship of claims made within reality of things which do not exist within reality correctly.

But this isn’t any of us. If we had a pan on the stove set on high and the water in it freezes, well that would be truly confusing. The examples we see that confuses most folks are things that science explains, like evolution. So it’s more sn issue of ignorance rather than being educated and seeing things outside of how nature works.

And also, when someone uses the word God or Gods to describe a being, they are obviously doing so vaguely, in other words, not with full understanding.

That is the dilemma we see. That is why reason is a useful tool.

So if someone were to fully understand what the word God or Gods means, that would then also allow them to possibly understand how true such a God or Gods is with TC logic.

Would you agree that atheists have done this?

 

[Echogem222]

Thanks for the explanation. I'd say that true conclusion logic could also lead to false conclusions due to factors like insufficient information, paradoxes, or contradictions. I'd also consider the possibility that false conclusion logic could also lead to true conclusions due to factors like luck, intuition, creativity, or insight.

So, I'd have to stand by my statement, so far, that logic doesn't really determine what is "true" or "false", but rather the validity and consistency of an argument.

That wouldn't make sense because of FC logic's: 5.) Law of weakness to True conclusion Logic: FC Logic must be provable as being wrong using TC logic. / and TC logic's: 5.) Law of immunity to FC Logic: TC logic must be unable to be proved as wrong with FC Logic. Also, TC logic's: 6.) Law of awareness: Must have awareness of the way things actually are. would prevent a person from coming to a false conclusion because they would lack the ability to lack awareness if they were truly using TC logic.

 

[Echogem222]

Awareness of what? What is the “right amount of awareness”? Wouldn’t what we understand of our reality be facts and data, not assumptions?

But this isn’t any of us. If we had a pan on the stove set on high and the water in it freezes, well that would be truly confusing. The examples we see that confuses most folks are things that science explains, like evolution. So it’s more sn issue of ignorance rather than being educated and seeing things outside of how nature works.

That is the dilemma we see. That is why reason is a useful tool.


Would you agree that atheists have done this?

Science is a belief system because it's founded on the belief that reality is real in the way science implies. For example, you could think that you learned science, that you had experiences where science was proved as real, but those could all just be faked memories (it's depressing to think about, I know).

So, science is not something which is true to us with full certainty, therefore your argument kind of falls apart because it seems to be based on that assumption.

Atheists have not proved God or Gods as false (to my knowledge), but through using science and reasoning they have given a lot of evidence (with the right amount of awareness) that proves many God and Gods as being an unreasonable belief. Kind of like how if you have a trusted friend who says they'll be there to an event of some sort and how a completely different person says they're your fated lover. Example number 2 can be explained to require more faith than example number 1. They're both beliefs but one requires more faith over the other, much like how many forms of atheism require less faith than many forms of theism.