tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post8828965826641499857..comments2017-11-22T18:34:28.962-08:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: My defense of the contingent nature of the universe: Answer to Ryan M,Joe Hinmanhttps://plus.google.com/116031743767990323943noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-70938161840673478712017-07-17T21:44:57.288-07:002017-07-17T21:44:57.288-07:00Eric Sotnak said...
"Where is the law of logi...Eric Sotnak said...<br />"Where is the law of logic that says empirical arguments as good as deductive ones? "<br /><br />By "empirical" did you mean inductive/statistical?<br /><br />Because it is possible to have a deductive argument with empirically-supported premises. Example:<br /><br />1. All protons have mass.<br />2. x is a proton.<br />3. Therefore, x has mass.<br /><br /><b>well the problem is I've developed this problem in tying in last few years,I leave stuff out of sentences.I don't know why,I should have said "Where is the law of logic that says empirical arguments are NOt as good as deductive ones?" He did imply that.<br /> I agree that they are as good and you can mix them.</b>Joe Hinmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-81293129792897816202017-07-17T11:13:25.330-07:002017-07-17T11:13:25.330-07:00"Where is the law of logic that says empirica..."Where is the law of logic that says empirical arguments as good as deductive ones? "<br /><br />By "empirical" did you mean inductive/statistical?<br /><br />Because it is possible to have a deductive argument with empirically-supported premises. Example:<br /><br />1. All protons have mass.<br />2. x is a proton.<br />3. Therefore, x has mass.Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.com