multilis wrote:"It'd still be logically incorrect. "All horses I have seen are black" does not translate to "all horses are black"."
It would also be logically incorrect to say there is not a 300 pound sasquach monster from planet mars living in my bathroom, only logical to say "I have not seen a sasquach monster in my bathroom".
Unless you have a concrete definition of "three-hundred-pound Sasquatch", and the objects in the location defined as your bathroom do not fit that definition.
If you define "Sasquatch" as "giant monkey-thing that is physical and visible", which I don't think would be too much of a stretch, then it's perfectly logical to say that there isn't one in your bathroom (assuming that you've checked). The invisible dragon argument only holds if you're willing to let the other person stretch the definition so far that it has no meaning.
Almost everything we claim true/false would be "logically incorrect" by your logic
No. I don't think you understand my position.
eg electricity, atoms
These are actually proven. The hypothesis is "electricity exists" or "atoms exist". Logically, all that is required to prove that is a single example of electricity or atoms. Both of these are readily available.
speed of sound, e=mc2.
E=mcc and the speed of sound are examples of what we call "strong induction". Please read the link above. You are correct, however, in saying that my position entails that they are not proven to be correct.
They aren't (well, E=mcc is, kind of. See below).
In science, there is always room for doubt. Science relies on induction, which means that it can hardly ever be one hundred percent sure of something. The measurements could always be off, or a fluke. All we have is theories which are very likely
to be true. The speed of sound isn't proven. It's estimated. Wery closely
estimated, but estimated all the same. On the other hand, we do know that sound has
a speed - that's the same thing as the atoms and electricity, above.
E=mcc is somewhat of a special case. It is proven if
one assumes relativity to be true. There is still the possibility that relativity is false, though. It's small, but it's there; it might be possible that something else entirely is the correct explanation, and relativity is simply an incorrect theory that happens to give us very close models.
C itself is still not absolutely nailed down, either. Like the speed of sound, we know the general area, but we can't be entirely sure of its exact value simply because we can't ever make instruments that sensitive.
all are based on assumptions based on what we normally see.
Sound for example could really have infinite speed and variations are due to the tooth fairy and her gremlin friends giving speeding tickets to fast objects (sonic boom) and playing tricks on your equipment.
It is possible, yes.
This goes back to another discussion that I was having in another thread: something which behaves in all situations exactly as though it has a certain property does have that property.
Sound - and all the universe's other mechanics - behave in all situations exactly as though they are simply autonomous, with no tooth fairy guiding them. Unless you can find a situation which indicates that the tooth fairy is the driving force behind it, the only reasonable conclusion is that she does not exist. It isn't proven
that she doesn't exist, but there's no reason to believe it.