I'm not even sure how to introduce this topic- other than just diving into what Nash says. It really doesn't have a main overall point (at least non that I can find). If you find a good way to squish this whole thing down into a condensed form, let me know.
Deductive Presuppositionalism
Gordon Clark:Treated Christian Faith like Geometry.
Thought there only are two kinds of knowledge-
- Actual propositions revealed in Scripture
- Truths that we deduce from Scripture.
Nash says here that he doesn't necessarily disagree with that, but that he feels like it's only part of the picture. (Basically he gets rid of the "only" part).
This sort of thinking is deductive presuppositionalism.
Here Nash talks about economic philosophies (Specifically the differences between his economic beliefs and a Man named Gary North's economic beliefs. ) It's sort of besides the point, so I won't really explain. If you really want to know- say so in the comment box.
Differences between Clark and Van Til (Two different school's of thought on Deductive Presuppositonalism)
Clark: necessary and essential laws (Basically, no relative truth). Humans can attain knowledge of God through General Revelations (Basically without direct reading of scripture, but rather through the Holy Spirit intervening).
Van Til: God created the Laws of Logic, therefore, there are no necessary truths (because those truths were "arbitrarily" made). Doesn't really take the time to defend the Law of Non-contradiction. Incomprehensibility of God. (Even on the Basis of scripture).
Nash's point: They were really arguing over the relationship between God and Logic.
Nash (In reference to Clark's argument): Truth- some things can be true not because scripture says so, but just because they are. Some things are just true.
Inductive Pressupositionalism:
1. Abductive (Nash's word)Traditional Logic mixed with hypothetical syllogism. Two premises and a conclusion.
Valid forms of this sort of argument:
If A then B.
If not A, then not B.
Invalid Forms:
If A, then B- Therefore, If B, then A.
If A, then B- Therefore, If not B, then not A.
This concept is introduced in most Geometry classes, but Nash applies the concept to logical thinking in general.
Contradictions:
This form of reasoning is technically invalid- BUT, we use it for at least 4 major school's of thought.
1. Scientific investigation
2. Crime investigation
3. Explaining Historical Events
4. Interpreting Text
Tentative 5th- Nash's version of Apologetics.
It's not a panacea, but does have some valid uses. Context is really important.
Nash goes into examples, but they really don't help much. If anyone has examples they can think of that show how this sort of argument works, or is contradicted, feel free to comment.
"This form of reasoning is technically invalid- BUT, we use it for at least 4 major school's of thought."
ReplyDeleteWhat form of reasoning are you talking about? It appears that there are two valid forms of this and two invalid forms of induction.
The invalid forms are definitely invalid, although we often use them to 'prove' the existence of God. "If God created the world, then the world exists - - The world exists, therefore there must have been a God." "A then B, therefore if B, then A"
And why would "If A, then B" be wrong? Seems perfectly legit to me. Maybe he is saying that it is difficult in science to determine whether one thing causes another thing. In science it is easy to see if two things are correlated, if they are connected together, but to say one causes another is a bit difficult.
I think he's talking about the invalid forms. To be honest though, I'm not really sure. My head was spinning in circles. I think the "if A, then B" is only "wrong" or "invalid" if you attach the conclusions on the end. (If A, then B- Therefore, If B, then A. If A, then B- Therefore, If not B, then not A.). I guess this is because these aren't always true, and therefore aren't "valid". The thing that really changes things up though is the content. Different relationships between A and B effect which premises work. For example, I disagree with Nash saying the The whole "If A then B. Not A=Not B. He probably has a good reason for it- I just don't understand. For example: If an animal is a dog, It is also a mammal. On one hand, I can assume that If I have a dog, it's mammal. However, I cannot say that If not A (If the animal isn't a dog), then not B (not a mammal), because I could have an mammal other than a dog. The whole "it is also" changes things. So would phrases like "only" or "never" or "sometimes". I don't think Nash is right to paint this like some black and white thing. It feels a bit more complicated than that.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're right, causation would be sort of like the "is also" thing. It's the relationship between A and B. I think that's why Nash brings up Reasoning to our best ability, because it takes a measure of common sense to know which would work in certain circumstances. I don't think they can really fairly be judged as valid or invalid. And I probably should have put that in the thing, but I was just concerned with getting out what Nash had to say, let alone process and comment on it.
ReplyDelete