1. If the premises of a demonstration are scientifically known, then they must be demonstrated. 2. The premises from which each premise are demonstrated must be scientifically known. 3. Either this process continues forever, creating an infinite regress of premises, or it comes to a stop at some point. 4. If it continues forever, then there are no first premises from which the subsequent ones are demonstrated, and so nothing is demonstrated. 5. On the other hand, if it comes to a stop at some point, then the premises at which it comes to a stop are undemonstrated and therefore not scientifically known; consequently, neither are any of the others deduced from them. 6. Therefore, nothing can be demonstrated. A second group accepted the agnostics' view that scientific knowledge comes only from demonstration but rejected their conclusion by rejecting the dilemma. Instead, they maintained: Demonstration "in a circle" is possible, so that it is possible for all premises also to be conclusions and therefore demonstrated.

My position is akin to the idea of circular demonstration; however, instead of requiring that "for some set of fundamental principles, each principle could be deduced from the others", I point out that there exists no explanation of anything which cannot be mapped into my model. That is to say that what one chooses as "fundamental principles", is immaterial to the final solution. No matter what that solution might be, it can be mapped into the model I present.

As I alluded to in my previous post, you misunderstand the nature of the problem that is presented. So, let me ask this question:

Question 6: If an explanation is not grounded on the observation of 'physical things', then what separates a religious astral explanation from that of scientific explanation of some physical phenomenon? [By astral explanations I mean 'out of body' experiences where some people claim they can float in the air and see their bodies sleeping.]

• Nothing! - doctordick - December 4, 2004 - 00:03 UTC