Proof is that which convinces the mind, plain and simple. Not every mind, that is not possible and the word loses its meaning. The reliability of proof will depend on the mind. The mind decides what is acceptable proof. There is a particular kind of proof that is popular among large groups of persons, and that is scientific proof. Scientific proof requires that application of the scientific method. This can be a handy type of proof, because there are defined standards which have the high aspiration of being objective. All of those who favor scientific proof will in fact claim objectivity, even when they disagree with each other. Each will point out how the other’s vision has been blurred by subjectivity. They will show the result of their tests, and the other will point to other tests and other measurements. Scientific proof attempts to take the subjective nature of tools, measurements, reasoning, logic, the mind, and produce objective results. And it often does a very good job of this. If I want to know the nature of water, give me science every time. Yes, scientific proof is a wonderful thing, in the application of science. In the application of religion and philosophy, it is abysmal. It fails often and firmly. There are some things which lend themselves to reason only, and experimentation is not possible. In such cases science is not able to provide any convincing evidence, any proof at all. Only strong evidence this way or that, but no pronouncements of actual proof. This limitations of scientific proof can be frustrating, unless one is willing to settle for evidence alone, without proof. Others seek actual proof, mind convincing evidence. And it exists outside the world of scientific proof. This is because this idea of proof being scientific in nature is one particular epistemological viewpoint. A legitimate perspective, without a doubt. But like all perspectives, it is subjective. How can it be any other way? Epistemology tells us there are other viewpoints. Whether or not they are valid will depend on the mind. Some minds are very myopic, and only see their own epistemological viewpoint. I find it odd that some of the very minds which seek objectivity, are those least able to see the possibility of other views. Many of them of course have considered other views, and rejected them. But their rejection is so strong, they lose objectivity.
Those that you say are least able to see other POV are not always going to lose objectivity because they reexamine them from time to time to see if anything "positive" has changed within that area. Just because you don't think theu do doesn't mean they don't. But, like scientists, once you find an experiment doesn't lead to anything new why keep going back over it if you already know the outcome. It would seem to be a waste of time and energy wouldn't it?
Certainly loss of objectivity is not required. But I find often this reexamination is done with the same standards. All of us say, I accept my own standards, and if yours differ, I do not accept them. Some of us do not accept them for ourselves, and some of us say they are not acceptable for any reasonable person. Is either/both position(s) objective?
In that senerio no. But if someones standards are different it doesn't mean that anyone is right or wrong , only different. To understand that difference is called respect and tolarance but if that difference is to far against ones views then it would be very difficult to ever change your POV about them. An example would be killing someone that was raped because she allowed it to happen . Now that actually was going to happen but through intervention she was allowed to live. I don;t believe many people would think that the woman was at fault for being raped let alone to kill her because she was is very wrong and doesn't deserve respect but change.
cosmictraveler I say someone who says 'Your standards of proof are reasonable for you, but not myself', is being objective. You seem to agree, but it is not clear. I do not believe standards of proof are morality issues, rape and killing are.
BeHereNow, you seem to think that Science deals with "proof". It doesn't. Mathematics does - but Science doesn't. Science deals with merely understanding causes and effects, to varying levels of probability. E.g. That the sun rises every day, and has done since records began, is not "proof" that it will do so tomorrow. But the chances are certainly high that it will (high enough to consider it a scientific fact) because we understand the cause. Unless you are defining "proof" as merely that which convinces the mind? If so then this is a poor definition - and certainly not usable - as how can "proof" be later shown to be wrong - when surely you accept that people can be? e.g. If one is convinced of X, given the "proof" - but it later transpires that X is wrong, you are saying that the "proof" was wrong. But I don't see how "proof" can be wrong - as something is either proven or not. If proven it holds - it is truth - objective truth. If it isn't proven to that degree then, in science at least, it is not proven and there is no proof. So I feel you do need to change your wording - as clearly words have slightly different meanings in different circles - and to hold to the same meaning across science and colloquialism will lead to confusion and disagreements.
BeHereNow, It's evidence that you're talking about... not proof. Evidence is a demonstration that some idea/notion corresponds to actual reality.
You are mistaken. Scientific theories cannot be proven true. The best they can do is withstand centuries of testing and peer review without being disproved. At that point, we accept them as "true beyond a reasonable doubt," but that is the language of the law, not the language of science. We casually refer to them as "truth" when speaking to laymen, but that is just dumbing down the language for laymen. For us they are still theories, each with a higher or lower probability of ever being proven false, but not a zero probability. Only mathematical theories can be proven true because they deal only with reasoning applied to abstractions. The principles of Lobachevskian geometry, for example, are true, even though there may be no place in the universe where they could be applied to reality. The rest of your post is way off base because science does not work that way. Perhaps you're describing "science" as it's currently practiced in America, where reason and intellect are out of vogue. Many scientists are reduced to the indignity of working in the corporate world, where they are ordered to "prove" a desired result rather than to discover the truth. After doing this for a little while they lose the right to be called scientists, but their corporate nameplate still has the word on it. Where did you get the odd notion that our tools and measurements are subjective? The whole point of the peer review process is to reproduce the original work and discover whether you get the same results. If there's any subjectivity involved in either iteration of the work, then you probably won't get the same results. At this point all you've got is a theory that didn't survive peer review. And now you've got the even odder notion that reasoning and logic are subjective? That's really bizarre! Reason/logic is an abstraction like mathematics. The rules are simple and it's easy to determine whether they've been violated. It's far easier to peer-review a theory than it is to do the original work! The scientific method works very well on religion. It exposes it as illogical and antiscientific. The fundamental premise of science is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be understood and predicted by deriving theories logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior. This is a theory itself and it is recursive. It has been tested and peer-reviewed for about five hundred years and it has never been disproved. Religion on the other hand implores us to give up on science for no reason, and to instead accept the hypothesis of a supernatural universe than cannot be observed and is often illogical. Science is also very helpful in analyzing the phenomenon of religion. Jung discovered that each religion is a collection of archetypes, which are instinctive quasi-memories that are hard-wired into our synapses by our species' DNA. It helps us understand why people believe things for which not only is there no evidence but there may even be evidence to the contrary: they simply feel true because we were born with them. This is the second time that someone has misrepresented the definition of science that way in the last couple of days. Experimentation is not a requirement of the scientific method. If this were true, then astronomy, which seems to have been our first science, would not be a science at all. Experiments are useful but good solid scientific theories can be based only on observation. They can even be based on indirect evidence, such as the theory of evolution. This is probably where you got steered wrong about it being possible to prove a scientific theory. All we're doing with any of them is sitting tight and waiting to see if someone comes forth with new evidence that disproves one of them; they are never proven true. The stronger the evidence and the longer the theory goes without being disproved, the lower the probability that it will some day be disproved, but the probability never reaches zero. The ones we accept as building blocks of the scientific canon are the ones we reasonably believe to have very low probabilities of being disproved. The canon is robust enough to withstand the occasional collapse of one of its theories. It's our job to make sure that our theories are solid enough that those collapses are indeed only occasional. You have really gotten off track and it's difficult to salvage very much of value from your discourse since it's based on a fundamental error, the notion that science proves rather than disproves. Science does not prove things. Please bear that in mind. Theories can be disproved but never proven true. The whole rest of your post becomes meaningless because of the error in your premise. Sorry.
I didn't get through the whole thing, but I don't agree that proof is a deception. It's just a different measure, equal to half a percent - so 40 proof is 20 percent. It's mental effects are persuasive, though, that I will grant.
I have friends who tell me science can prove things to themselves and others. Are they mistaken? They say science proves to them that the earth is over 10,000 years old. Are they mistaken? How can something be proven, if there is no proof? Can science prove nothing to us? Are you one of those who says there is a distinction between convincing evidence, which leaves only doubts of such a unbelievable magnitude, that only an unreasonable person would think proof has not been provided. Certainly in this sense, proof is not attainable, by any standards, even mathematics, for one can always claim mass hallucinations. Some things are so convincing, no reasonable person would deny the evidence as proof. Your example of previous sunrises promising another one tomorrow, can be shown by not only the historic calendar, but other astronomical evidence. We can provide so much evidence, it is compelling to all reasonable persons, just short impossible not to happen. One can always theorize aliens destroying our galaxy with a death ray, but seriously. . . . If you want to say the chances of the sun rising tomorrow is less than 100%, and therefore no proof exists that says it will, I will make the claim that your usage has no practical applications, except possibly in the field of mathematics. Even them you will have to make the case that any mathematical proof might not be the product of a bad dream, alien induced hallucination, or that it is only true in certain dimensions, and not a true proof as you use it. If you want the word “proof” to be language specific to mathematics, you are free to do that. However since the majority of those of us who might have occasion to use the term are not mathematicians, surely you will understand we choose to use the word in the broader, more useful sense. When the mind is convinced, it has received proof. Proof is continually changing what the mind knows. Science continually changes what models it accepts as representative of the real world. Certainly not every scientific truth has been proven wrong, but it has happened. And of course it depends what we mean by ‘science’. Was there no science before the scientific method? Then science is an infant, and has hardly beaten a path. One major finding or convincing evidence for a new view of reality may be right around the corner. There is no scientific proof time travel is not possible. Worm holes, time warps, all possibilities that if ever realized, are bound to change some established scientific truths. If we can agree that science is older than the scientific method, by about a millennium, then certainly the standards of proof changed, therefore known “truths” were reformulated. It has always been this way with science. That is its strong point, flexibility. The only objective truth is existence. Any other than that has been filtered, and is subjective. Mathematical proofs, are conditional on their mathematical symbols, which try to be representative of actual existence. They may be earth specific, galaxy specific, or dimensionally specific. There is no mathematical evidence or proof that geometry works the same in other galaxies. Once intergalactic travel becomes possible, all of the geometry books may have to be rewritten, to rid itself of the folklore of the 21st century. What can be more simple than proof is that which convinces the mind? For mathematics, there is a certain meaning for the word proof. For scientists there is a certain meaning for the word proof. For religion there is a certain meaning for the word proof. None of these agree with each other. There is a meaning for proof that is universal, and universally accepted. That meaning is [/i]“that which convinces the mind”[/i]. All agree that that which convinces the mind is proof, and for the mathematician, that is mathematical proof. For the scientist, that is. . . . . . .etcetera. . . . Why would we expect it any other way. Each want the others to use only their particular meaning for the word. And every one believes they are being objective, and their only concern is to reveal the objective truth of the world, only that which exists in reality. What they are all saying is, ”I am only accepting what convinces my mind as proof.’, and they want everyone else to accept the same standard. Of course I am using mathematician or scientist is the general sense, certainly some individuals would have broader views. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A demonstration? What is a demonstration? Is reasoning a demonstration? Is observation a demonstration? Are memories a demonstration? If I see you standing in front of me, is that proof you are standing in front of me? If I believe George Washington was the first president of the U.S. because I have been taught it, is that a demonstration, do I have proof? When I have sufficient evidence, I have proof. If I have just a little evidence, I do not believe it. At some point evidence becomes proof, or do you say there is no proof? I have friends who say there is no proof, so we say convincing or compelling evidence. If it will make you happy, we can say there is no proof of or for anything, but we sent a man to the moon based on compelling evidence of many things. I will go to work tomorrow because I have compelling evidence I will have a job and building to work in. ~ ~ ~ ~ Fraggle Rocker Tell me, can science prove the earth or universe is over 10,000 years old? I tried to use your post to answer this question, and was not able. Can science provide convincing, compelling scientific evidence of the same? The tools of science are continually changing, improving. You will have to tell me the birth year of science to be specific. Was there any science before the scientific method? If science is only a few hundred years old, we have seen little change, but change none the less. If science is as old as Plato, the acceptable tools have changed many times. Science, at any particular point in time, tries to be as objective as possible. History has shown that some tools were so inferior as to have caused many errors. Reasoning alone was an acceptable tool for scientific truth before the scientific method. In each generation, scientists view themselves as totally objective, even when they disagree with the truths taught to earlier generations. It is because of this occurrence that you have the position you do, that truths only come after all other reasonable possibilities have been eliminated. This is a new standard in science, and was not always true. Science has always thought it truths to be true, by those living it. But with hindsight we see they were not critical enough of the evidence. Future generations will undoubtedly say the same of this generation. Given a real world problem, that needs solved, not all who use reason and logic will arrive at the same solution. In theory logic and reasoning are faultless, yet when reasoning and logic are used to decide the global warming issue, different solutions result, different causes result. If you want to say in principle reason and logic are objective, but in practice the ideal is seldom, if ever, realized, I will agree. If you want to say reasoning and logic always yield one perfect solution to daily problems, I will say you are not reasonable. After all, the thread is about what is acceptable evidence to meet standards of proof, for application in understanding existence, what is real, not some mathematical model. I did not ask what is proof to a mathematician. Or do you argue that only mathematics are real? Please list for me the qualifying, indispensible, elements of the scientific method. Or is it your argument there is no specific scientific method? Because when I went to school they taught us the steps of the scientific method. Now you and I will agree that there is science without the scientific method, but the scientific method is the heart of science, and all steps are followed closely whenever possible. If experimentation is not possible, one can certainly practice science, but one cannot apply the scientific method, as it was taught to me. If you can document otherwise, I am willing to learn. How about if I word it this way: ”Science provides evidence to individuals, so the individuals can show compelling and convincing evidence for the existence of certain things.” For example, science provides evidence that is acceptable proof that the compound known as water will boil at 100 degrees centigrade at sea level pressure, all other things being standard. Is that statement false?
It's an observable progression / outcome of the correspondence between an idea and reality. Sometimes. No. Observation is an acquisition of fact. No. It is evidence (a demonstration). My understanding is that proof requires accounting for all variables and visibility limitations would prevent humans from having that information in many cases... which is why mathematics (where all the variables are accounted for) can use proofs. If you purposely state that variables beyond a certain level of visibility will not be considered then you can achieve a contextual proof. It shouldn't be an issue either way as evidence is often sufficient to determine if something is true or not. No and No. A demonstration might be showing artifacts from his life, a grave, his diary, etc. Because time machines don't exist at present, the best we can do is trust in the objective documentation, analysis, and presentations by historians.
Hi BeHereNow, Welcome to Sciforums Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Nice Avatar. I won't bother with repeating what everyone said. Yes there are mathmatical proofs and scientific theories. If someone uses the word proof/proove in a layman way then that's OK for common discussion however when used in a Scientific manuscript is has a specific meaning that must be followed - and that's what everyone is going on about. Cheers, Michael
There are many uses for the word proof. At first you are talking about a particular kind of proof. Then you say: ”evidence is often sufficient to determine if something is true or not.” This is, as I read it, exactly what I am saying. Evidence convinces the mind of a truth. We consider this to be proof. When the mind has been convinced, acceptable proof has been provided. That which convinces the mind is acceptable proof. Scientific or mathematical proof beyond any possible doubt is another thing. If you see me standing in front of you, and you are convinced you are not being fooled, you will have acceptable proof I stand in front of you. Tomorrow you will not be able to provide scientific proof that I stood in front of you, but in your mind, you will have been convinced. You will need no further evidence to know the truth of my standing in front of you. You have all of the evidence you need. When you cross the street, you have all of the convincing evidence you need that you will not be run over. You cross the street when you have sufficient evidence to believe it is true you will not be hurt. If you are in doubt, you will not cross. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Michael Yes Michael, thank you. This is the philosophy section, so I do not believe it should be assumed I present or expect a scientific or mathematical context. Quite the opposite. My intent is to discuss what, philosophically speaking, constitutes proof.
I don't interpret it as the same. Emotion and value testing also convince the mind of truth as well (regardless of whether or not something is actually true). I think it would be more accurately phrased: that which convinces the mind is conformity, feeling, and value. That might be related to the issue. There is no need for yet another definition of proof as the hard scientific and mathematical definitions cover everything. In the scenario you provided I would have strong evidence that you are standing in front of me; therefore, it would be true. Partially correct, because I saw a demonstration. I could have made a video recording demonstrating you were in fact standing there. If I told someone about you being there and didn't collect any evidence then (much like a historian) they would have to make a judgment call as to whether or not to trust what I was saying. This sounds like a strength of evidence scenario. A person might believe that running the red light will be safe; however, if they are hit by cross traffic then reality just demonstrated that the belief was inaccurate.
This is confusing. If there are two different definitions (you did pluralize the word), one must be chosen. Both cannot be used at the same time. If they have one and the same meaning, then I must assume they conform to the mathematical usage. This usage in practice, has no application outside the world of mathematics. Why should philosophers, or regular people, accept a meaning which removes nearly all usefulness from a word. We see the word proof in print very regularly. Are we to assume the word is always misused, except in the application of mathematics? I would say if a word is virtually always being misused, it is time to change the accepted meaning of the word. I would also say we need to change the dictionaries, because they do not agree with you. The mathematical meaning of proof does not agree with general usage, does not agree with the preferred meaning in reference books stating the meaning of words, does not have any practical usage except in a very limited way, and yet that is the meaning you choose. Can you tell us why? This seems to be the contextual proof you referred to. Am I to think then, that there is no actual truth (outside the world of mathematics), only contextual truth? Or can contextual proof reveal actual correlation with reality? Are you saying my standing in front of you does not confirm to reality, merely to some relativist relationship? I did not speak of other persons. Do you trust yourself? Do you need further substantiation to believe it to be true? Is your well considered recollection of an actual event sufficient to have you believe that event confirms with reality, in truth, or contextual truth,( depending on your usage)?
Colloquial usage of "proof". But it has different meanings in different fields. Yes - there is no "proof" - only a very high probability. Afterall, you can not "prove" that it was not created 6,000 years ago with everything set up to convince us that it is 10,000+ years old. Only the evidence and rationality provide us with the most likely, plausible and rational explanation - but it is not proof, in the strict sense - only in colloquial usage of the word. Not that I am aware of. When discussing things on a science forum, yes. Although colloquially I use "proof" in the same sense you do. Your prerogative to do so. However, I'll concede that my example was poorly chosen in that the level of evidence is so considerable. But then there is a difference between "fact" (i.e. objective reality) and "scientific fact" (i.e. that which science has built up almost 100% evidential proof - such as my example). But what % chance is then large enough to be considered "proof"? Is 50% chance proof? 90%? No problem, except when you use the word with colloquial usage in an area where it has more specific meaning. If you wish to use it in these places you will need to respect the meaning of the place you are in (i.e. science forum). Otherwise confusion / disagreement / argument will arise. No - it has received evidence that leads to a subconscious assessment of correctness. [quote[Proof is continually changing what the mind knows.[/quote]No - what the mind knows continually changes what proof is. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Because "proof" should be universally accepted by ALL - not just an individual mind. I would say a more acceptable version would be proof is that which is capable of convincing all minds. i.e. proof that exists now should be sufficient as proof in the future - or to someone in the past, should they be able to understand the premises on which the proof is based. Not accepted by me, it's not. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "Proof" should never be a matter of subjectivity. "Proof" is a confirmation of the matter in hand following a logical and rational process using the evidence at hand. Your "religious proof" is generally achieved through an illogical/irrational process - due to subjectivity.
I agree that it can be confusing; however, people do use multiple definitions of a word simultaneously. Take the word 'faith' for example. It's most common definitions are 'belief without evidence', 'unconditional trust', and 'religion'. People often use a combination of those definitions in communication with a single instance of the word. Simply put, the word 'evidence' covers all non-mathematical instances where 'proof' might be used. Evidence can show a correspondence without having to lay claim to absolute certainty of all variables. I do agree that definitions should adapt over time and in this case I think the adaptation you proposed makes it harder to work with objective reality. Truth is simply a correspondence. It doesn't have to be based on visibility into all variables. That what it does. Yep. If you stand in front of me then the idea of you standing in front of me corresponds to actual reality; hence, it is true. [/QUOTE] I trust myself to a degree. I know that a weak memory can become unreliable. I know memories from dreams, hypnagogia, and hypnopompia are not for consideration. I know that narcotics, hypnosis, and trauma can leade to memory corruption. So, it depends on the situation.
If we cannot agree on this point, we can not agree on much. Yes, this is a science forum. I see there is a section on Comparative Religions. Do they only discuss the scientific meaning of religions there? There is a section for World Events. Are they limited in their discussion of only scientific world events? The section on Art & Culture, is it only scientific art and culture they discuss? This is the General Philosophy subsection, of the Philosophy section, of a scientific forum. Philosophy may have given birth to science, but it has other children as well. Indeed the there is a subsection in Philosophy for Religion. Must they only use scientific meanings for terms in their discussions? It seems to me it is you who lack respect for the subsection you are in. There is General Philosophy about more than science. When proof is discussed in this subsection, the reader should expect a broader view of the world than that offered by science alone. After all, there is a area of study called the Philosophy of Science. You may not enjoy it, as it attempts to take an objective view of science, thorns and flowers alike. If your position is correct, then certainly I am wrong, and further discussion is useless. Call it colloquial if you will. Please explain to me the philosophical meaning of proof, in a general way of course. Show me how it differs from my usage. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Multiple and different are not the same thing. Multiple often means copies, or identical. It always implies likeness, repeated pattern of some sort. Different on the other had means quite the opposite. Different means they are not the same, not a chance of copies, it may be true there are some common qualities, but this is accidental, and not a requirement. I say your statement implies different meanings, and you do not argue, but say sometimes words are used meaning the things they have in common, simultaneously. You have created a strawman and missed the point. Here is what I say:"If I can convince someone that my position conforms to reality, my suggestion is real, actually exists, what I present is true, my statements about a thing, event, situation, are an exact representation (as much as this is possible, whatever your standards) of Truth, Reality, Existence, then I have given them sufficient evidence to provide proof they will accept. Disclaimer: this is not meant to say these words are equivalent and have the same meaning. They can, under certain usage, have intersecting meanings, and my focus is where they intersect. I am well aware that some of my friends say Truth is not congruent with existence. I am well aware that some of my friends say Reality is inside the mind, and not external to the being. I am well aware that some of my friends say Existence is the epitome of subjectivity, and contains no truth or reality. And many other arguments can be made to show the differences of these words under certain usage. By using all of them, I believe my meaning is clear, and each can pick the word or phrase they choose. Do you disagree with what I say, and do you have reasons for this disagreement?
I do disagree. If you can convince someone that your position conforms to reality then all you have done is convince someone. It could have appealed to how it makes them feel, how it stacks up against their values, etc. To actually demonstrate conformity means that reality has to agree irregardless of whether or not people accept it or not. For example, I can demonstrate that sweet potatos can power an mp3 player. You can see it and repeat it with identical results; however, you are still free to choose whether or not you accept it. Either way, its evidence... not proof as all the variables (quarks, electron orbits, dust, oxygen, etc. are not accounted for).
