Sarah Palin critical of the Pope for not being enough of an extremist nutjob

[masonryan]

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion was a bit of an eye-opener.

It certainly was. That a supposed intelligent person could profiteer so much from writing a book full of absurd and weak arguments that wouldn't be taken seriously by a 6th form debating society.

[DirtyDog]

The most fundamental pillars would be the laws of logic, which I doubt some of you even know what they are.

The most fundamental pillar of chemistry, prior to splitting the atom, was that the atom was the smallest unit of matter. Once that was categorically proved to be false, science moved on.

Where is the logic in chemistry prior to splitting the atom, which still prevails today?

[masonryan]

I think you failed to read what I said. There may indeed be absolute laws of logic, but humans don't know what they are, and so cannot possibly base science upon them; we can only base science on our understanding of logic as it stands at the moment of doing science.

You cannot do science without at least an assumption about the laws of logic, your problem is you cannot account for them hence can't trust them except to say science seems to work alright using them as base assumptions

[doodab]

You cannot account for the unchanging nature of these laws of logic. If they changed they would not be laws and science would not work.

Science works because it accepts explanations that agree with observation and rejects those that don't. Other than the simple rule that "if nature does something different than your theory says, it's the theory that is wrong" logic doesn't have to come into it. It might be used because it's useful, but it isn't necessary by any means.

Even so I'm not sure why I need to account for the nature of the laws of logic.

[masonryan]

The most fundamental pillar of chemistry, prior to splitting the atom, was that the atom was the smallest unit of matter. Once that was categorically proved to be false, science moved on.

Where is the logic in chemistry prior to splitting the atom, which still prevails today?

I'm talking about the laws of logic, you clearly have no idea what they are

[doodab]

So there is no absolute right and wrong then, in your view?

Absolutely.

[Mich the Tester]

You cannot do science without at least an assumption about the laws of logic, your problem is you cannot account for them hence can't trust them except to say science seems to work alright using them as base assumptions

An assumption about the laws of logic does not equal an absolute law of logic.

[masonryan]

Science works because it accepts explanations that agree with observation and rejects those that don't. Other than the simple rule that "if nature does something different than your theory says, it's the theory that is wrong" logic doesn't have to come into it. It might be used because it's useful, but it isn't necessary by any means.

Even so I'm not sure why I need to account for the nature of the laws of logic.

Another person who has no idea what the laws of logic are.

[masonryan]

An assumption about the laws of logic does not equal an absolute law of logic.

So, are there are absolute laws of logic?

[DirtyDog]

I'm talking about the laws of logic, you clearly have no idea what they are

And I'm talking about chemistry. It's OK if you can't answer the question, I don't think any less of you for it.