Comments on: Null Hypothesis ≠ Presuppositionalism http://de-conversion.com/2008/09/03/null-hypothesis-%e2%89%a0-presuppositionalism/ Resources for skeptical, de-converting, or former Christians...... Wed, 22 May 2013 00:18:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Jason http://de-conversion.com/2008/09/03/null-hypothesis-%e2%89%a0-presuppositionalism/#comment-35160 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:35:26 +0000 http://agnosticatheism.wordpress.com/?p=1635#comment-35160 Pulling this one up from way back. As I de-convert I have had some contact with my pastor who in similar terms tried the presub side; basically admitting his view of the Bible was circular by accusing me of being circular to. It wasn’t very convincing, and I responded that I do trust at least some observation and don’t get so philosphical about whether I can know anything at all. But you spelled out here what the real problem is; he is trying to prove the bible starting from the Bible. I am trying to understand reality starting from the idea that I can know things at all. But I am not trying to prove I can know things at all, I just care about the rest of reality. If the first part is not true, well then it is not true and nothing else really matters. Maybe I am a brain in a jar. But even in this simulated world, it still acts like it would if it were real, so I’lll go with it.

]]> By: SnugglyBuffalo http://de-conversion.com/2008/09/03/null-hypothesis-%e2%89%a0-presuppositionalism/#comment-26404 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 06:18:36 +0000 http://agnosticatheism.wordpress.com/?p=1635#comment-26404 the chaplain-

Yeah, that’s another phrase for it. But it’s still basically proving an assumption false by showing how it leads to a contradiction. If the assumption doesn’t lead to a contradiction, it means nothing to the validity of the assumption.

]]> By: the chaplain http://de-conversion.com/2008/09/03/null-hypothesis-%e2%89%a0-presuppositionalism/#comment-26395 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 01:04:48 +0000 http://agnosticatheism.wordpress.com/?p=1635#comment-26395 Leo and Snuggly – I thought Leo was referring to the reductio ad absurdum argument, which is rather complicated. Am I right, Leo? I only used it in logic class, but would likely have difficulty constructing a really useful reductio in real life.

]]> By: SnugglyBuffalo http://de-conversion.com/2008/09/03/null-hypothesis-%e2%89%a0-presuppositionalism/#comment-26393 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:40:12 +0000 http://agnosticatheism.wordpress.com/?p=1635#comment-26393 Whoops, I recently downloaded Google’s Chrome browser, forgot to put my name back in; Anonymous above is me.

]]> By: Anonymous http://de-conversion.com/2008/09/03/null-hypothesis-%e2%89%a0-presuppositionalism/#comment-26392 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:38:16 +0000 http://agnosticatheism.wordpress.com/?p=1635#comment-26392 Leo, maybe I’m off my rocker here, but I think you’ve got that mixed up. As I recall, you assume the negation of you’re theorem, and then show how it causes a contradiction and is thus false, proving that the original theorem must be true (if not-A is false, A is true). Proof by Contradiction.

But, as you said, that only works in formal logic.

]]> By: Cooper http://de-conversion.com/2008/09/03/null-hypothesis-%e2%89%a0-presuppositionalism/#comment-26390 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:25:00 +0000 http://agnosticatheism.wordpress.com/?p=1635#comment-26390 Of course the above is based on the presupposition that some people enjoy very lame humor. :)

]]> By: Cooper http://de-conversion.com/2008/09/03/null-hypothesis-%e2%89%a0-presuppositionalism/#comment-26388 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:37:46 +0000 http://agnosticatheism.wordpress.com/?p=1635#comment-26388 Thank God for helping you to write the above article. It is very enlightening. Unless of course the presupposition exists that there is no way He could have helped you write it. Of course we need to discount all the reasons first why he didn’t help you write it, then we will really know if He did or not. While we are waiting though, I think the Lord really inspired you to write a very good piece of literature.

]]> By: blueollie http://de-conversion.com/2008/09/03/null-hypothesis-%e2%89%a0-presuppositionalism/#comment-26387 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:34:39 +0000 http://agnosticatheism.wordpress.com/?p=1635#comment-26387 Two points

1. The article is, of course, absolutely correct; a hypothesis test can only reject the null hypothesis or fail to reject it and

2. This article will make no difference at all as the percentage of the population that understands what the concept of a “null hypothesis” is microscopically small.

And of those who do understand what a null hypothesis is and continues to believe anyway eventually fall back to “I believe because it makes me feel better” situation. :)

]]> By: The Nerd http://de-conversion.com/2008/09/03/null-hypothesis-%e2%89%a0-presuppositionalism/#comment-26382 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:18:56 +0000 http://agnosticatheism.wordpress.com/?p=1635#comment-26382 This is exactly what I found so irritating in my apologetics studies: the blatent awareness of logical fallacies, and the finger pointing to draw attention from the severity of them, instead of simply trying to remove them from our arguments.

]]> By: LeoPardus http://de-conversion.com/2008/09/03/null-hypothesis-%e2%89%a0-presuppositionalism/#comment-26378 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:52:19 +0000 http://agnosticatheism.wordpress.com/?p=1635#comment-26378 There actually is a method in formal, symbolic logic for assuming the conclusion and using it as a premise. If you thereafter run into a contradiction in your proof, you have proved the conclusion false. If you don’t hit a contradiction, you’ve demonstrated the conclusion to be valid.

Of course it’s pretty much impossible to use this method in theology because it’s part of formal, symbolic logic, and theology doesn’t use that. Theology uses propositional logic for the most part.

So, in short, you’re completely correct in saying that Presuppositionalism is circular logic. Or, as I prefer to say, circular illogic.

]]>