Nobel physicist calls ID "dead-end" idea for science

[Melendwyr]

It is possible for us to believe something is false -- and for that thing not only to be true, but to be necessarily true. (And, of course, vice versa.)

You didn't understand a thing I said.

A statement can be necessarily true (given premises) only if certain logical operations that can be applied to those premises hold.

 

[drkitten]

You didn't understand a thing I said.

Absolutely. That's because not a thing you've said in this thread makes sense. Nor did your "clarification" improve your record.

A statement can be necessarily true (given premises) only if certain logical operations that can be applied to those premises hold.

.... which, note, -- even if your statement above were true -- need not imply that we know that those logical operations hold. The meta-knowledge that all human knowledge is fallable suggests that the question of whether a given statement is "necessarily true" cannot be conclusively known by humans, not that no statement can be necessarily true, or even that a single statement believed by humans to be necessarily true is, in fact, not so.

 

[Melendwyr]

.... which, note, -- even if your statement above were true -- need not imply that we know that those logical operations hold. The meta-knowledge that all human knowledge is fallable suggests that the question of whether a given statement is "necessarily true" cannot be conclusively known by humans, not that no statement can be necessarily true, or even that a single statement believed by humans to be necessarily true is, in fact, not so.

You're missing the point.

Necessarily true in terms of what? What rules cannot describe a world? Even if you establish (to any arbitrary level of satisfaction) that a given statement is true, what does it mean to say that it's necessarily true? If you reference other statements which it is true in relation to, are those statements necessarily true or not?