In response to this
Very true. IMHO, the way that the universe does seem to be predictable is absolutely amazing.
You agreed with me!?!
Anyway, I also agree with the second sentiment.
I think I've got a subtlely different idea of what a truth is to you. Somehow slightly less personal or something. I suppose I think of truths as things that transcend an individual's beliefs.
So do I. In fact, I once decided that the only fact anyone could know, was this one. Other than that, we are relying on our senses. Thus the term "it makes sense". But *nothing* can actually be proven to be fact.
So, I was driving along and I saw my brother. I rolled down the car window (hit the pavement and got back in the car) and asked him, "what is fact?" Bewildered that I would ask such a simple question, he answered succinctly, "That which is, is". Bingo! Facts do exist, and we may even know them, but we will never *know* conclusively that that (ooh, good example of two "thats" in a row) which we know is actually a fact. Thus, we can only *assume* that something is fact, and that assumption is "proven" by tools of personal choice.
As such, Facts, or Truths, transcend all. However, the things that we choose to believe as "fact", are inherently personal.
In other words, there are lots of religious truths, which conflict to an extent,
Not within any one religion, sect, or doctrine. The same applies for Science too. Theories conflict. But, to each their own. Just no one scientist can use two conflicting things at th same time.
so according to my definition, they aren't all truths because they all can't be completely true. For example, one person says "there is only one God, not ten", and someone else says, "there are exactly ten Gods, not one". I don't understand how both can be true simultaneously,
That is a valid point. But, it is not a problem unless one person or group accepts both. Because each will deny that the other's "truths" are actually "truths".
but that's kinda a logical thing, and... yuck.
You caught on. Impressive.
(BTW, if you agree with the different disciplines and proving truths, or just want to work on the theory, I could use some help. I've been toying with it, but I'm not sure that it is well thought out enough. If interested, I'll start a journal entry when I break my laziness enough to write a decent entry. Sheesh! This comment has already taken up somewhere around fourty-five minutes in thinking, writing, and editing.)
And regarding logic: The only reason that we see logic around is because people understand it in a sense.
Actually, according to Meyers-Briggs, about 70% of men and 30% of women make logic-judgments (T). The rest make more complex value-judgements (F). Considering there are more women than men, I can argue that point by saying that the majority of humans use value-judgments over logic-judgments.
However, Fs do understand T logic-judgments (because they are easy, as opposed to to Ts who have a harder time with the more complex value-judgments). They just *prefer* to make value-judgments. So, you could say that everyone *understands* logic-judgments (except, maybe, Democrats). In which case, I'd have to agree with you.
It fits in with a certain mode of thought that many people are comfortable with after some practice,
And I'll disagree with that (so ha!). Since the majority of people make F value-judgments, and are repulsed by T logic-judgments.
and it can be applied in science, which as we've already established, isn't proof, but is useful. These things also apply to religion.
Yeah, I think all the tools can be used to at least help. Science doesn't use Logic as a major first-tier tool. It uses Observation and the like. Similarly, Religion uses Faith and the like, even though Logic can creep in after the first-tier.
Deduction is logical, but induction isn't.
>dict induction |grep --sanity-filter
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.44 [gcide]:
3. (Philos.) The act or process of reasoning from a part to a
whole, from particulars to generals, or from the
individual to the universal; also, the result or inference
Induction is the process by which we conclude that
what is true of certain individuals of a class, is
true of the whole class, or that what is true at
certain times will be true in similar circumstances
at all times. --J. S. Mill.
Interesting. That is not logical. It is (as dict pointed out) philosophical. (FWIW, Judaism has thirteen methods with which to study the Bible. This (induction) is known as, "Binyan Av", and is used by the Talmud all over the place.)
Anyway, does Science really use induction? Or does it just use induction to provide theories to be tested?
Even if you're just applying a theory, you still have to match up a physical situation to a more mathematical/logical description, which isn't covered by logic.
But until it is tested, it isn't accepted as a form of Truth. As such, they are not first-tier tools.
There are lots of ideas around, but that's beyond science's self-imposed boundaries at the moment. It might be beyond science's reach forever.
The reason many people choose Religion (or Philosophy) over Science is because while Science can provide answers *after* the first step it can't do anything about the first step itself! To many (including me) that shows its idiocy relative to other disciplines. What good is a theory that works everywhere but at the beginning? Would you accept a study based on all even numbers not being prime?
In a sense, I think Science should keep away from that which it cannot answer. Science has its uses, but its followers should realize where it does not apply and admit to the other disciplines.