Scientific knowledge about atoms is true

[Speakpigeon]

This argument may be a bit difficult to parse, but it is definitely either valid or not valid. So, if you have an opinion, thanks to share it.

If the following sentence is true,

If scientific knowledge about atoms is true, then atoms exist,​

then scientific knowledge about atoms is true;

Therefore, scientific knowledge about atoms is true.

EB

 

[steve_bank]

W ha we know objectively is experiment with instrumentation and observation. Math models that are predictive.

Whether an atom exists as we imagine it is not knowable.

As Carver Meade said, I do not know if an electron exists but I know I can do useful things with the concept.

I go with Popper. The only reasonable objective knowledge is an experiment. Beyond that it becomes subjective interpretation.

One of AE's bombshells was that there can be no absolute frame of reference. Therefore all knowledge is relative. All measurements are relative to a standard, which for science is SI.

If the following sentence is true,

If scientific knowledge about atoms is true, then atoms exist,​

then scientific knowledge about atoms is true;

Therefore, scientific knowledge about atoms is true.

For me the first sentence is false. for reasons stated above. The two conclusions are then also false.

Logically then scientific knowledge about atoms is true; does not follow from If scientific knowledge about atoms is true, then atoms exist,


It seems to reduce to 'if knowledge about atoms is true then knowledge about atoms is true', Nothing is proven. 'then atoms are real' has no bearing n the argument.

 

[DBT]

Because not everything is not known or understood doesn't mean that nothing is known or understood. There is no complete understanding of atoms, but something is understood or known about the properties of atoms.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Because not everything is not known or understood doesn't mean that nothing is known or understood. There is no complete understanding of atoms, but something is understood or known about the properties of atoms.

Thank you to vote before commenting.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

The existence of atoms does not make scientific knowledge about atoms true. The existence of atoms is proof there are atoms, that does not prove scientific knowledge of atoms is true beyond knowing of their existence.

Its even worse. It's not true that if scientific knowledge of atoms is true that atoms exist. It's only true that (some) scientific knowledge of atoms is true.

 

[Ahab]

“Scientific knowledge about atoms is true” does not follow from “If scientific knowledge about atoms is true, then atoms exist”.

 

[Speakpigeon]

“Scientific knowledge about atoms is true” does not follow from “If scientific knowledge about atoms is true, then atoms exist”.

Sure, but that is not at all what the argument claims.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The existence of atoms does not make scientific knowledge about atoms true. The existence of atoms is proof there are atoms, that does not prove scientific knowledge of atoms is true beyond knowing of their existence.

Its even worse. It's not true that if scientific knowledge of atoms is true that atoms exist. It's only true that (some) scientific knowledge of atoms is true.

I don't know but in any case this is not what the argument claims.

I knew it would be a bit too difficult to parse.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

I was responding to the fail of claim atoms exist. And, if anything I probably parsed a bit more than the text was intended to imply.