How is he going to argue for anything without applying a particular system of thought? Seems a bit self-defeating. "Anything goes" is itself a definitive statement.Infidel7 wrote:I have recently been arguing with a classmate about the differences between science and religion. His main argument focuses on the 'fact' that science requires as profound a leap of faith as any religion. Easy to refute, right? Well, then he proceeds to attack the very foundation of science itself.
He claims that logic is merely a human construct and is therefore fundementally flawed and cannot be trusted. I was under the impression that logic was independant of human input (minus the perspective issue).
He goes on to claim that science is based on logic which makes only assumptions. We can only assume that a stone will fall to the ground once dropped, but what's to say it really will. I know I cannot say that it will because it has every other time I dropped a stone it fell. That's a logical fallacy.
What are your ideas in this area? Is logic subjective/flawed? Is it logical to asssume the sone will fall?
The best he can accomplish is to cause you both to stfu, not to promote his own worldview above that of science.
-- Asuka