Reply #199: But thats not what I am saying or advocating. [View All]

[patcox2]

Nor is it an accurate logical progression from the simple recognition that science cannot comprehend all.

I already said that the implication of Godel is simply that there are positive true statements that any system cannot make. In other words, just because science doesn't say something, does not mean that the thing not said must necessarily not be true. Science can say nothing about those things it cannot describe. Just because something has not been scientifically described does not mean it does not exist (and this is not the same argument about how it might exist somewhere far away, and has been so far undetected,it means it might be everywhere but not within the symbolic system's ability to comprehend it).

But this is not the same as saying you might as well disregard science because its as likely to be wrong as right. First of all, the logic of Godel's theorem only applies to true statements which are outside the theoretical system. The medical efficacy of competing treatments for cancer, one being a rock, the other a cancer drug, is within the logical system of science, and thus Godel's theorem has no application there.

To repeat, in your scenario, the efficacy of a rock as a cancer cure is obviously within the abilities of science to describe. Thats why your scenario is not logical. It does not logically follow from Godel that you might as well go with the unproven as with the proven. Its a non-sequitor. Only a liar would make such an argument, and only an ignoramus would beleive it.

Lying and stupidity of course exist, so someone could make such arguments, and they could be beleived, but that does not disprove the fact of Godel's theorem. Were you trying to disprove Godel's theorem? You would make quite a name for yourself if you could.

What then is your argument? Are you suggesting that we should suppress or censor Godel's theorem so that people won't make the logical mistake that is made in your scenario. Should we ignore uncomfortable facts and hold to a fictitious beleif that science (and human reason and loogic)is capable of omniscience? That would be a religious faith, I think. I'm not signing up.