Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Miracles

Rate this topic


Seanjos

Recommended Posts

I'm not concerned with miracles, just the argument. This from Dr Peikoff is a logical fallacy:

"Miracles cannot happen because they would defy the laws of nature"

Why do you think it's a fallacy?

A miracle like, say, walking on water, would perforce break any number of natural laws. Therefore it cannot happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he means that he has a problem with the statement when it is reduced to:

An event that appears to be inexplicable by the laws of nature cannot happen because it would defy the laws of nature.

Without any other context of the passage, that's all I can think of.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he means that he has a problem with the statement when it is reduced to:

An event that appears to be inexplicable by the laws of nature cannot happen because it would defy the laws of nature.

Without any other context of the passage, that's all I can think of.

But that would mean a misinterpretation on his part, because the correct reduction is:

An event that is inexplicable by the laws of nature cannot happen because it would defy the laws of nature.

(Point being is that the quote is about miracles, not things that appear to be miracles)

Plenty of events can happen that *appear* inexplicable based on our current, limited, flawed understanding of the laws of nature. 1000 years ago, a modern electric motor would have appeared to be miraculous (or demonic) to an observer of the time. Today, however, we understand electromagnetic fields well enough to consider them mundane.

Edited by Greebo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if he was to say that the laws of nature cannot be defied because that would be a miracle because miracles cannot happen because that would defy the laws of nature, that would be an error in reasoning (as opposed to an error in fact), which is what a logical fallacy is. I think it's obvious why. (my final conclusion showed up as a premise a few lines back. At best, there is a reasoning that is simpler and leads to the same conclusion, at worst, my whole argument is crap)

Also, if he were to say miracles can't happen because dogs have four legs: logical fallacy. (error in reasoning, since it doesn't follow)

However, from "the laws of nature cannot be defied" it follows that "there are no miracles". No error at all. (in fact it is obvious that it follows, because the definition of miracles itself says that they involve defying the laws of nature)

I assume that the source of your confusion is that you think using the definition of miracles as the premise should not be allowed, but it is. In fact, back in school, I used to love it when a theorem could be deduced straight from the definition. I would just write: (XYZ is a triangle, def. of triangle) ==> (X ,Y, Z cannot all be on line d). q.e.d.

Obviously, if he were to never argument why the laws of nature cannot be defied, the whole book would be pretty silly. But he most definitely does, without using "there are no miracles" as a premise, the way I did in the first example. As long as a conclusion doesn't appear as the premise of its premise, and all conclusions follow from their respective premises, there aren't any logical fallacies in a reasoning. Also, definitions are true statements, not conclusions (nor can they ever be conclusions), so they can appear as premises anywhere, as many times as you wish.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that would mean a misinterpretation on his part, because the correct reduction is:

An event that is inexplicable by the laws of nature cannot happen because it would defy the laws of nature.

Or, to make it even more overt, "an event that defies the laws of natures (a miracle) cannot happen because it would defy the laws of nature". This is a self-evident statement of the form "A is A", which is obviously true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care about miracles. I'm disturbed that the statement, as worded and in it's proper context is guilty of petitio principii.

Edit: I had this confirmed yesterday by our Doctor of letters.

Edited by Seanjos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his lecture 'Understanding Objectivism', Peikoff answers a question about circularity, noting the difference between "bad circularity," which is fallacious, and "good circularity," which is merely an extension of the law of identity. This is just an example of the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care about miracles. I'm disturbed that the statement, as worded and in it's proper context is guilty of petitio principii.
Are you assuming that the sentence itself is intended to be an argument for some other claim? It doesn't have the logical structure of petitio principii -- it's a simple statement A=A.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care about miracles. I'm disturbed that the statement, as worded and in it's proper context is guilty of petitio principii.

Edit: I had this confirmed yesterday by our Doctor of letters.

It is not circular. Read my post. The fact that the laws of nature cannot be broken (let's call it P) is proven in OPAR independent of miracles not existing.

If we were to call "miracles don't exist" R, and the definition of miracle ( that which defies the laws of nature) Q, the structure of the sentence, if we include the implied definition of miracles, is this: (P,Q) ==> R . That is all the logic that can be attributed to the sentence you quote. There's nothing else, no hints, no suggestions. About as obviously not petitio principii as you can get.

Now, if there were some reference to the reason why the laws of nature cannot be broken, and it has to do with "there are no miracles", that's still not a logical fallacy, as long as the person making the argument admits that he needs to prove one of this statements independently of the other, equivalent statement.(though logically, it is needless to make both those arguments) But so far you haven't even presented anything that may suggest that, let alone something that proves that Peikoff's conclusions rely on petitio principii.

P.S. Your "Doctor of letters" link (if it was intended to be a link) ain't workin'. If it contains additional quotes from the book, which are supposed to create this petitio principii, that would be helpful (to me, in showing that it is indeed just " a miracle and defying the laws of nature are equivalent" type of statement, without ever claiming to prove both by saying that: it would be petitio principii, if, after only these two sentences < no miracles means no breaking of the laws of nature ; no breaking of the laws of nature means no miracles >, Dr. Peikoff would say: and that's my argument for Objectivist metaphysics, end of chapter.)

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care about miracles. I'm disturbed that the statement, as worded and in it's proper context is guilty of petitio principii.

Edit: I had this confirmed yesterday by our Doctor of letters.

BTW, are you reading the responses in this thread? Because David explained a while ago (and then repeated) that the portion you quoted is not even an argument in the first place, so how can it be an invalid argument?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following Peikoff's instruction, real thinking requires painfully thorough understanding of the radical: the what and why.

When I first read the statement my thought was, as David and West have pointed out: a self-evident extension of identity. Perhaps there is nothing else to understand, I could be looking for something that isn't there (I have before). But it's better I do in order to really "get it".

It's a funny feeling, I told a colleague that I just wasn't smart enough to do what I want to do (in science), so I've got to get strong(er). She said if I got any smarter my head would blow off. Exceptional test scores were a result of memory organised by common sense, just letting things wash over me. I'm paying for it now, I'm re-learning how to think...properly/independently. I'll get it though :dough:

Back to it:-

  • That which defies the laws of nature is a miracle
  • You cannot defy the laws of nature

  • .'. You cannot have miracles

Begging the question. The conclusion appears as an assumption in a different form: petitio principii.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to it:-

  • That which defies the laws of nature is a miracle
  • You cannot defy the laws of nature

  • .'. You cannot have miracles

Begging the question. The conclusion appears as an assumption in a different form: petitio principii.

There's one conclusion: -miracles cannot exist ( B )

and two premises (what you called assumptions, I think) :

-a miracle is that event which defies the laws of nature (the definition of the word miracle)

-you cannot defy the laws of nature( A )

You're right, the phrase "miracles cannot exist"( B ) is the equivalent of the statement "you cannot defy the laws of nature"( A ). If A is equivalent to B ( A=B, because that's how we defined B ), then B follows from A, and A follows from B .

In fact, you have acknowledged that this is true, by saying that the conclusion is the assumption in different form. You actually repeated my statement (that A=B ), which means Dr. Peikoff's statement is obviously also true(A==>B ). So it cannot be an error in reasoning any more than your statement, explaining why it is an error in reasoning, can be.

How can something that is obviously true ( A=B , meaning A==>B and B==>A) be an error?

[edit]What is your source for what "petitio principii" is?

Merriam-Webster:

petitio principii - a logical fallacy in which a premise is assumed to be true without warrant or in which what is to be proved is implicitly taken for granted

Dr. Peikoff's premise (the laws of nature cannot be defied) is not assumed to be true, nor is it taken for granted. It is proven, before the word miracle is ever introduced.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merriam-Webster:

petitio principii - a logical fallacy in which a premise is assumed to be true without warrant or in which what is to be proved is implicitly taken for granted

Dr. Peikoff's premise (the laws of nature cannot be defied) is not assumed to be true, nor is it taken for granted. It is proven, before the word miracle is ever introduced.

In fact to go further, you must first prove that you cannot defy the laws of nature. But that premise is not a gratuitous assumption, it is already established. The linguistic relationship between "miracle" and defying laws of nature is also proven (get a dictionary). The minor premise is trivial -- it's really the major premise that takes work, but the work has been done. Neither premise if assumed without warrant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake_Ellison. Agreed, the reasoning is valid, but is the conclusion sound ? (see bottom line)

In fact to go further, you must first prove that you cannot defy the laws of nature. .

Ah this is great David, I'm at the ceiling of my understanding <_< .

How can you prove that you cannot defy the laws of nature without reasoning in a circle. Musn't it always come down to an assumption ? What am I missing here ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake_Ellison. Agreed, the reasoning is valid, but is the conclusion sound ? (see bottom line)

If the reasoning is valid, then the conclusion is exactly as sound as the premise. (or the weakest of the premises, if there's more than one)

In this case, the definition of miracles doesn't appear to be in dispute, so that leaves "the laws of nature cannot be defied". You're the one reading OPAR, so you tell me: Does Dr. Peikoff make a good case that "the laws of nature cannot be defied" because "Existence exists."?

And that should give you the answer to the "Are we going in circles?" question as well: No, we are not going in circles, but following a straight line from "Existence exists." to "the laws of nature cannot be defied.".

As for "Existence exists.", that is an axiom, but that doesn't mean it was established through logical fallacy(such as "going in circles"-petitio principii). In fact it precedes logic. By using logic, you implicitly admit that "Existence exists.", and "A is A". Again, luckily you are reading OPAR, which explains all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact to go further, you must first prove that you cannot defy the laws of nature. But that premise is not a gratuitous assumption, it is already established.

But it is not proven. It is taken as axiomatic. A = A. Not the same thing as assumed (assumptions can be disproven) but an easy point of confusion.

If one does not accept the axiom that A = A, then to that one, the statement that Miracles cannot exist would appear to be assumed w/o warrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it is not proven. It is taken as axiomatic. A = A. Not the same thing as assumed (assumptions can be disproven) but an easy point of confusion.
I disagree: the statement is not axiomatic. It can easily be reduced to the axiomatic, but requires reasoning involving hypotheticals, the concept of "law", identity and causality, what "defy" describes. The statement "you cannot defy the laws of nature" logically depends on "cannot", and "cannot" is not an axiomatic concept.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...