Is this correct in syntax and form?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

1.

If Science is logical, analytical thought, AND
All logical, analytical thought is rational, THEN
Science is Rational.

A=Science uses Logical, Analytical thought
B=Reason is logical, Analytical thought
C=Science uses reason

Sidenote: All things which use reason are rational. Science uses reason, therefore it is rational

If (A /\ B) -------> C


2.

Given the above:

If irrational is the denial of reason AND
Religious Faith denies reason, AND
Christianity relies on religious faith, THEN
Christianity is therefore irrational.

A= Denial of Reason is Irrational
B= Religious Faith denies reason
C= Chritianity relies on Religious Faith
D= Chrisitianity reliance is Irrational

If (A /\ B /\ C) ---------> D

It has been so long that I cannot remember.[/u]

[Zero]

Don't say faith denies reason. This isn't about syntax or form, but people will say that faith doesn't deny reason, despite the fact that this is obviously wrong. Say that faith is independent of reason, and things independant of reason are irrational. You'll get a better responses that way.

[Uveron]

Thank will only work In the ‘Purest’ of forms of science and Faith.
As I see it there are 2 key Problems..
1st Science is not Always Logical Through because , Logic requires Knowledge . And Knowledge can be Known through the process of Science and/or Faith.
2nd Faith is At its Core Logical, with only basic Knowledge – we are Alive so we must have been born, and at some point it the past We (are asetures) must have also been Born, But as with all things there is a start and at that point we where made.

But anyway :-
All Faiths have a core of logic as with Science and in a hypothec being The were the same, as both logical used the key facts, but the defence between the to is that
Faith excepts Knowledge, Science always looks at Knowledge to find more Discover more and to re-study old Knowledge as ask old questions with logical derived from new data.

This leads me to the last point:-
So you formula almost works but you need to do this

A=Science uses Logical, Analytical and Re-Analytical thought in
B=Reason is logical, Analytical thought
C=Science uses reason and Also Re-Reasons

A= Faith uses Logical , Analytical thought.
B= Faith Fails to use Re-Analytical Thought – making the logic Floored
C= Floored Logic is Irrational
D= Religious Faith Uses Floored Logic thus is Irrational
E= Religious Faith is Irrational


But it must be pointed out that again this is an oversimplification as Science also uses Faith.

[Zero]

How does science use faith?

[Uveron]

Science uses faith,
Ok lets look at this
First I will be boring and use a Dictionary.

Faith :-
1. A strong Unshakable Belief In Something
2. A specific System of religious Beliefs
3. Christianity:- Trust in God and In his Actions and Promises
4. A conviction of the truth in of certain doctrines of religion esp when not based on Reason
5. Complete trust in a person remedy extra

There re other definitions but I don’t what to go on to long with this post

Ok for since to operated there must be faith- {def 5} in others to do the work no one man can learn everything and A element of Faith is needed when using others research

Faith def 3- Has nothing to do with science
Faith def 4 – Impart applies to science but it has to be based on reason – in since you must have conviction in your methods so you can gain accurate results the foundation of all good science witch is almost like definition 1.

But I will Make this point Science is not a Religion, but in part Scientific method requires Faith in principles, Results and other Peoples work.
It is not the same type of Faith as a religious but it is faith but is faith all the same.

[Zero]

Part of the scientific method is the process of testing and retesting at many places by many people using the same processes and conditions. How does this require faith in one other's work? Logically, if something's not true, then being tested and retested by many people would reveal deviations in results from person to person. This doesn't require faith, it requires common sense.

As for definition 4... it's wrong, because by that definition, reason must be independent of said conviction. Besides this, scientific theories are constantly subject to change if new observations don't fit an old theory, which is why definition 1 doesn't apply either.

So explain again how faith has ANYTHING to do with science.

[Kuroneko]

1.
If Science is logical, analytical thought, AND
All logical, analytical thought is rational, THEN
Science is Rational.

This is valid, but unsound. Science is synthetic, not analytic; if it was analytic, it would be devoid of any knowledge of the universe.

A=Science uses Logical, Analytical thought
B=Reason is logical, Analytical thought
C=Science uses reason
If (A /\ B) -------> C

No. The above is a clear case of the categorical syllogism, with the first line being the major premise and the second line the minor premise, or alternatively a hypothetical syllogism. [Which one depends on whether or not one thinks of science is a single term or a category of 'things that are science'; in the end, it is not really relevant, but the interpretation as a categorical syllogism is a bit cleaner.] Let's try: A(x) = 'x is Science', B(x) = 'x is a logical and analytical thought', C(x) = 'x is rational'. The logic is then clear: [(A->B)&(B->C)]->(A->C).

Sidenote: All things which use reason are rational. Science uses reason, therefore it is rational.

Incorrect as stated. Reason is such a versatile tool that it is quite possible to use it internally within contexts that are, on the whole, quite irrational. A good example of this is theology.

If irrational is the denial of reason AND
Religious Faith denies reason, AND
Christianity relies on religious faith, THEN
Christianity is therefore irrational.
If (A /\ B /\ C) ---------> D

As above, a clear case of the polysyllogism. The logic is essentially [(A->B)&(B->C)&(C->D)]->(A->D); see if you can fill in the terms as a categorical polysyllogism (not quite in the order they are presented in above).

[Uveron]

Ok
To start with definition 4 is right, I got this from my Dictionary not what I will inteript as.

Next scientific theories are Not constantly subject to change if new observations don't fit an old theory, Because quite often because of the strength of conviction of the individual. But that’s beside the point.

The point I was trying to make is that for Logic to work there has to be faith, because Unless you do every single test your self then for since to work you must trust and believe that other results were derived at through Proper methods,

So as a hole Science uses Faith Not Scientific method, scientific method is not universal and subject to many interpretations. But as I was commenting upon in my first post is that things are not clear cut, no ones perfect and sort cuts will always be made, and this is were faith appears in science, because with out it scientist will only be able to work on what they have discovered and or seen.

But finally, This debate is not what this thread was about now if people what it as a debate, I shall write one with a clear introduction and the reasoning in clear defined words for all to debate.

But any way as I tried to make clear there is no Black and white definition between faith and since as I said it was complex

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Ok
To start with definition 4 is right, I got this from my Dictionary not what I will inteript as.

Next scientific theories are Not constantly subject to change if new observations don't fit an old theory, Because quite often because of the strength of conviction of the individual. But that’s beside the point.

El-wrongo Tex. If new observations don't fit an old theory, we, as scientists, reexamine the old theory and come up with new theories to that try to explain the old observations, while restricting the old theories where they are known to work. (Example: Newtonian mechanics work just fine for explaining motion at non-relativistic speeds, so we still teach them, even if Einstein's theories have surpassed Newton's, since for most non-relativistic cases, Newton does the job just fine. Example 2: The theory of evolution. Originally, the thought was that speciation was a slow, orderly process through generations of natural selection. However, evidence shows that isn't always the case, so we introduce the concept of punctuated equillibrium (where speciation occurs rapidly, in short bursts, spaced out by long intervals of relatively little change) into the theory.)

The point I was trying to make is that for Logic to work there has to be faith, because Unless you do every single test your self then for since to work you must trust and believe that other results were derived at through Proper methods,

Did you get your science education in high school? This smacks of an appalling ignorance in how science works. Scientific results are extensively documented and subjected to peer review. Furthermore, they're usually independently verified by other scientists. All generally accepted scientific theories have reams of testing and documentation backing them up. And all of that is readily available in hours of dry reading of scientific journals.

So as a hole Science uses Faith Not Scientific method, scientific method is not universal and subject to many interpretations.

Wrong. Refuted above. In fact, the rest of your post is refuted above, so I'll not waste bandwidth quoting it.

[Kuroneko]

The point I was trying to make is that for Logic to work there has to be faith, because Unless you do every single test your self then for since to work you must trust and believe that other results were derived at through Proper methods, ...

You fail to appreciate the distinction between pure deductive logic and rationality. The trust a scientist places in the scientific community as a whole is not a matter of faith, but itself a position backed by reason. The very basics of science up to relativity and quantum mechancs are perfectly verifiable to the undergraduate science student (e.g., basic experiments in electromagnetism, which are are staple of freshman physics courses, the much cleaner relativistic explanation of the the magnetic field, the photoelectic effect and its quantum explanation, etc.), much less a trained scientist, since there is a plethora of phenomena that are explained by them which would otherwise have no rational explanation. Mind, that is not quite so rigourous a test, but in the end it is a simple matter of Ockham's razor: are the rest of the scientific community either blunderers or malicious conspirators, in which case it the extent of their success becomes by far too incredible, or overall rather earnest in their work?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

This is valid, but unsound. Science is synthetic, not analytic; if it was analytic, it would be devoid of any knowledge of the universe.

Thanks. I wanted to see if I could remember how do do the format on this one. I didn't know science wasn't analytical. I thought it was partly an offshoot of logical postivism, which I read in Russel's book was analytic.

So to change this to make it sound, I would merely have to eliminate analytic? I was always under the assumption that Science is a "ratinonal" discipline. I guess it doesn't have to use every portion of the dictionary definition to actually qualify as rational?

Dictionary: 1. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior

2. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought

So why is Science Rational? Doesn't it formulate a basis upon logically cooridinated observations and analysis of the data? I think it partly uses inductive logic.

No. The above is a clear case of the categorical syllogism, with the first line being the major premise and the second line the minor premise, or alternatively a hypothetical syllogism. [Which one depends on whether or not one thinks of science is a single term or a category of 'things that are science'; in the end, it is not really relevant, but the interpretation as a categorical syllogism is a bit cleaner.] Let's try: A(x) = 'x is Science', B(x) = 'x is a logical and analytical thought', C(x) = 'x is rational'. The logic is then clear: [(A->B)&(B->C)]->(A->C).

Thanks here. I can never remember how to do the actual translation. So, it would really be like: [(A->B)&(B->C)]->(A->C). Cool.

Incorrect as stated. Reason is such a versatile tool that it is quite possible to use it internally within contexts that are, on the whole, quite irrational. A good example of this is theology.

Is theology rational though? Doesn't it base itself on Faith, which is supposedly irrational? I mean, you are correct in that discussing a particular concept, you can use reason, but how does that work in a system that doesn't seem to value reason anyway? SHould I be more general?

I was primarily working off of the Definition of Faith as put forth by Aquinace, since he said the religion only needed faith. I think looked up faith, and it literally seemed the opposite of Reason. It was belief without logical, analytical thought or evidence. So if his belief is that which has no real evidence or logical structure, would that classify as irrational?

As above, a clear case of the polysyllogism. The logic is essentially [(A->B)&(B->C)&(C->D)]->(A->D); see if you can fill in the terms as a categorical polysyllogism (not quite in the order they are presented in above).

Hey thanks.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: SHould it be all things which successfully use reason are rational? In any given circumstance?

[Kuroneko]

Thanks. I wanted to see if I could remember how do do the format on this one. I didn't know science wasn't analytical.

Aa. Methinks the problem is that the dictionary uses a meaning of 'analytic' other than the logical analytic/synthetic distinction. I suspect it uses the broader meaning of 'using analysis' rather than the logical meaning of 'tautologous' (mathematics is wholly analytic in this sense).

I thought it was partly an offshoot of logical postivism, which I read in Russel's book was analytic.

Then Russell was wrong. Logical positivism was neither analytic nor synthetic; it was metaphysical, which turned out to be very embarassing, since the logical positivism could be summarized as 'all metaphysical statements are bunk'.

Is theology rational though? Doesn't it base itself on Faith, which is supposedly irrational? I mean, you are correct in that discussing a particular concept, you can use reason, but how does that work in a system that doesn't seem to value reason anyway? SHould I be more general?

Rather, more specific instead of more general. Theology is not rational, but it uses quite a bit of reason internally, which is why the axiom of "all things which use reason are rational" is unacceptable; it is too permissive. Perhaps "all things that are both based on and consistent with reason are rational" would be better.

Edit: SHould it be all things which successfully use reason are rational? In any given circumstance?

Success is not a prerequisite for rationality. It is certainly possible to rationally arrive at a false conclusion because of a deficiency of evidence.