John Smithson wrote: > One time occurrences are called anomalies, > David, and are not part of a logical process , > by definition.
I don't know why you think that that logical processes are forced to ignore one time occurrences. Due to the nature and goals of inductive inference, we want repeatable events, but that does not mean that we are forced to ignore one time events. John Smithson wrote: > Studied? How does that occur from a > scientific-method point of view? Can > you name any scientific studies involving > single event occurrences? That anomalies > play a role in "rational thought" is not to say > that they can be considered from a logical perspective. I certainly do not mean to give the impression that science revels in one time events. Clearly it does not. Anecdotal studies were much more prevelant 100 years ago than they are now. Nevertheless, scientists have entire publications that tend to devote themselves to these anecdotal studies. Let me give you an example of how this works. I was conducting a foraging study of a population of mangrove water snakes that lives in Tampa Bay, Florida. Scientists had made some speculation concerning how these inhabitants of a saltwater environment obtained freshwater. These snakes are very closely related to a freshwater race which cannot survive without fresh water. One night as I was out searching for these snakes to collect the foraging data that I was interested in, a thunderstorm came along and dropped some heavy rain. Within minutes of the start of the downpour, I came across a mangrove water snake hanging down from a mangrove tree. It was drinking the water that was flowing along its body and running off its mouth. I could clearly see its jaws working and drinking in the water. This was a one time event that had never before been described in the literature, so it was considered important to both me and my colleagues to publish. The problem is, of course, that most scientific journals do not publish simple observations like this. However, we do have one called "Herpetological Review" which does publish these kinds of things. The observation provokes some questions about this snake's genetic predisposition toward freshwater, so to make the report more interesting and more readily publishable, I did some simple tests in our laboratory at the university to add to the field observation. Basically I just tested the tongue flick response of newborn snakes of this species (Nerodia fasciata compressicauda) to cotton swabs dipped in freshwater versus swabs dipped in saltwater. The report was easily published in Herpetological Review and I had several scientists from around the world comment on it. It was no earth shattering study and it would certainly not be published in another publication we have like Copeia where I later published the foraging study itself, but it answered the question of whether or not these snakes drank freshwater in the field, and if so, how did they obtain the freshwater. John Smithson wrote: > You confuse reason with logic. The two may be very different. How so? Reason is defined as thinking logically or to use rational facilities. John Smithson wrote: > You want to reject the logic of the world while > creating and maintaining for a logic of the Spirit. No, I do not want to reject the logic of the world. What gave you that idea? I consider logic to be found in Jesus Christ. The world uses it only because their Creator gave it to them. Whether a Christian uses logic or the world uses it, it is all the same process. I see no distinction between "logic of the world" versus "logic of the Spirit." The reason the world and the Spirit do not see eye to eye is not because of logic per se, but because of their different premises and assumptions. Certain important premises are hidden from those of the world. John Smithson wrote: > I accept it or reject it based on my personal bias, > nothing more and nothing less. Logic does not > work in giving me an answer for this particular healing. What about the witness of the Spirit? Isn't that more than just personal bias? What about rational thinking in terms of the following: 1. God is the Creator. 2. Therefore, God has the ability to heal. 3. Others who I trust have testified to God healing today and in times past. 4. I myself experienced healings like this. 5. Therefore, God does at times heal. 6. This person seems to be sincere and honest. 7. There really is no motive for this person to lie to me. Etc, etc. The point is logical and rational thinking similar to the above considerations can determine what you do with this person's testimony. David Miller wrote: >> Something else you do is confuse the idea of logic >> being the only source of truth with the idea that logic >> might still be intact in those areas where revelation >> was the source of the truth. John Smithson wrote: > Actually, David, I would say you are the one who > makes this confused comparison. I certainly do > not believe that logic is the only avenue to truth, > or even the best method. " What I was trying to communicate is that you were constructing this "straw man" and knocking it down when the opinion I expressed was something different. I had said that although logic and reason are not the sole sources of truth, all truth will be found to be logical and rational. You then jump on the bandwagon Lance started when he said that my statement was false. You are arguing against something I already stated that I did not believe. John Smithson wrote: > "that logic might still be intact in those areas where revelation was > the source of the truth" is a statement that is hard to argue > since it is based on speculation. On this side of eternity (as > they say) our knowledge of the supernatural is admittedly > limited -- OF COURSE the miraculous (for example) will make > more sense when we become a part of that destiny. Why > would you feel the need to say this. Do you think this old > divorcee thinks the mysterious things of God will never by [sic] > fully understood??? I only reiterate what I had originally stated, that truth always will be logical and rational. I state it this way to clarify yet again that in those cases where logic is not the source of a particular truth, that does not mean that the truth apprehended is inherently illogical. From your comments here, it seems to me like perhaps we agree to great degree. I'm not sure why you felt compelled to disagree with me. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
