This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
There is no proof, only evidence.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
TheMediator
Nothing can be truly proven; everything relies on evidence, or assumptions that cannot be truly proven. All we can do is gather enough evidence to say with reasonable confidence that we believe what we say to be true. True wisdom is to look upon all things with equal skepticism before examining the evidence and then deciding what seems
most reasonable
according to that evidence. There is always a remote chance that we are wrong, but to support a conclusion when strong evidence points against that conclusion is ignorance.
So, I don't really want to hear that someone has proof of X, or they have proven Y, because there is only evidence.
Post by
147929
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Evidence is what solves murders.
That's what I don't mean though, evidence doesn't "solve" the murder, it just provides strong support for a theory of what happened. Innocent until proven guilty is a misnomer, in truth it is innocent until evidence reasonably points towards guilt. If there were true proof, then you would never see innocent people in prison, and you would never see guilty people go free (aside from procedural error).
Post by
147929
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Evidence = correlation.
Correlation =/= causation.
Having said that, I think that you can have proofs, as long as you're willing to make an assumption about pre-existing truths. As in, 'this is true, this is true, therefore that is true', similar to a mathematical proof. But that's a theoretical proof.
In the real world, I think it'd be fairly difficult to prove causation - all we can do is identify extremely strong correlation (eg, our hand on the hot stove is highly correlated with our hand being burnt). Identifying the causal effect relies on the assumption that our understanding of physics is 'proven' and true, which is technically not, on the basis that we only have correlational evidence.
So yes, you're right, as far as real world applications go, I think. Most everything goes back to a series of correlations that support the laws of physics, as opposed to prove them.
Post by
147929
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Evidence = correlation.
Correlation =/= causation.
Having said that, I think that you can have proofs, as long as you're willing to make an assumption about pre-existing truths. As in, 'this is true, this is true, therefore that is true', similar to a mathematical proof. But that's a theoretical proof.
In the real world, I think it'd be fairly difficult to prove causation - all we can do is identify extremely strong correlation (eg, our hand on the hot stove is highly correlated with our hand being burnt). Identifying the causal effect relies on the assumption that our understanding of physics is 'proven' and true, which is technically not, on the basis that we only have correlational evidence.
So yes, you're right, as far as real world applications go, I think. Most everything goes back to a series of correlations that support the laws of physics, as opposed to prove them.
Exactly.
Post by
Squishalot
Can you gather enough theoretical proof to demonstrate a real world proof?
If I have one apple, and you give me one apple, can I say that I have two apples?
Or are you extending your skepticism to your perception as well?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Fact: Nothing can be proven.
Well, can you prove that?
The little gremlins on my desk here just proved that I exist and they don't.
Post by
MyTie
Nothing can be truly proven; everything relies on evidence, or assumptions that cannot be truly proven. All we can do is gather enough evidence to say with reasonable confidence that we believe what we say to be true. True wisdom is to look upon all things with equal skepticism before examining the evidence and then deciding what seems
most reasonable
according to that evidence. There is always a remote chance that we are wrong, but to support a conclusion when strong evidence points against that conclusion is ignorance.
So, I don't really want to hear that someone has proof of X, or they have proven Y, because there is only evidence.
This is possible. Can you agree that just because something is not proven doesn't mean it should not be accepted as fact?
Post by
TheMediator
This is possible. Can you agree that just because something is not proven doesn't mean it should not be accepted as fact?
I agree that certain assumptions are more reasonable to make than others.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You never answered my question.
Nothing can be truly proven
If that's true, then the statement itself cannot be proven, so why are you stating it as fact?
Post by
Squishalot
You never answered my question.
Nothing can be truly proven
If that's true, then the statement itself cannot be proven, so why are you stating it as fact?
I addressed it in my reply. Nothing empirical can be proven, but you can prove theoretical statements.
Besides, how are you proving that it can't be done? By citing numerous explanations of why you can't prove anything? That's just correlation, again. If you're using a theoretical argument, it can be proven.
Post by
TheMediator
If that's true, then the statement itself cannot be proven, so why are you stating it as fact?
I know you're just trying to troll me, would you rather I state, evidence supports the theory that nothing can be truly proven without making assumptions?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
If that's true, then the statement itself cannot be proven, so why are you stating it as fact?
I know you're just trying to troll me, would you rather I state, evidence supports the theory that nothing can be truly proven without making assumptions?
I'm not trying to troll you. I'm trying to show the absurdity embedded in your statement. I'd
rather
you make statements that don't contradict themselves.
Nothing empirical can be proven, but you can prove theoretical statements.
So, prove to me the theoretical statement that 'nothing empirical can be proven.'
I empirically know I exist. I can prove it to myself because I have the same empirical data as myself (duh). Just because you don't have that empirical data doesn't change the fact that I do in fact exist.
Post by
TheMediator
I empirically know I exist. I can prove it to myself because I have the same empirical data as myself (duh). Just because you don't have that empirical data doesn't change the fact that I do in fact exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_Jar
You have evidence to believe you exist. Very strong evidence, but still only evidence.
Post by
MyTie
I think this is an arguement in semantics about the word 'proof', which relies on your subjective interperretation. In the end, it is just how you look at it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I empirically know I exist. I can prove it to myself because I have the same empirical data as myself (duh). Just because you don't have that empirical data doesn't change the fact that I do in fact exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_Jar
You have evidence to believe you exist. Very strong evidence, but still only evidence.
By the very fact that '
I
have evidence' necessitates the existence of an 'I'. Therefore I have proof. If you admit one, you have to admit the other.
Which is why I would amend Descartes' statement to: "I... therefore I am."
Post by
Squishalot
Nothing empirical can be proven, but you can prove theoretical statements.
So, prove to me the theoretical statement that 'nothing empirical can be proven.'
I empirically know I exist. I can prove it to myself because I have the same empirical data as myself (duh). Just because you don't have that empirical data doesn't change the fact that I do in fact exist.
The empirical data that you, as a physical person, exist, is fundamentally flawed by the fact that your perception of yourself can be incorrect.
Descartes rationalised it on the basis that 'something had to be doing the thinking'. The thinker has to exist, because thought (presumably) can't exist in its own right. There's your theoretical proof that you exist. Can a thought exist without a thinker? I believe not. If I'm wrong, then no, we can't even *prove* that we exist, we can only strongly evidence the concept that we do.
Descartes then presumed the existance of an omnibenevolent God who would not deceive him. Thus 'proving' that his perceptions could be trusted, and that he, as a physical person, existed. But that still relied on the assumption of God.
Which is why I would amend Descartes' statement to: "I... therefore I am."
He can't, because he didn't have any evidence of his existence. The only proof he had that he existed was because his thought existed.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The empirical data that you, as a physical person, exist, is fundamentally flawed by the fact that
your perception of yourself can be incorrec
t
.
There. Right there. I in no way disagree. You think my evidence is in the yourself part of it. That's not my point. The very first word your. That I can predicate something of myself (dispite the fact that i might be a false predication) necessitates that there exist a subject prior to the predication.
Descartes rationalised it on the basis that 'something had to be doing the thinking'. The thinker has to exist, because thought (presumably) can't exist in its own right. There's your theoretical proof that you exist. Can a thought exist without a thinker? I believe not. If I'm wrong, then no, we can't even *prove* that we exist, we can only strongly evidence the concept that we do.
I don't agree with Descartes. I don't think thought has anything to do with it. It's the fact that there is a predication taking place.
Which is why I would amend Descartes' statement to: "I... therefore I am."
He can't, because he didn't have any evidence of his existence. The only proof he had that he existed was because his thought existed.
Again. The very fact there is a predication is enough.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.