Good answer. A real quandary. For myself, I will say science provides philisophical proof, which is as objective as reasonably possible. (Except for those things currently out of bounds for science.) In the end, mankind will always have the delimma of trying to understand the objective with subjective tools, measurements, and perspectives.
You misunderstood my intention. I have no interest in discussing the matter with you because you show no understanding of what you wish to debate. I cannot see this changing, You have not even picked up the simple point I made that there are no degrees of objectivity because you say above " .....as objective as reasonably possible. "
Semantics. People are talking about (or in your case, interpreting) different definitions of the word proof. I don't think we disagree. "Proof" in philosophy is nothing more than words that might or might not convince someone else of an idea. An arguement. An opinion. Maybe you could philosophically prove why people shouldn't steal now?
So you would say there is no scientific proof in the biological sciences. Just varying degrees of subjectivity? Scientific proof is just an extremely high degree of probability, not absolute certainty. This is the point with which you agree. That’s a strange usage. I would say proof is that which convinces the mind, particularly the mind of the self, and has nothing inherently to do with words. Words could be used I suppose, certainly not needed. Certainly to be avoided, because of their subjective nature. Words provide the weakest type of philosophical proof. Prove something I do not believe? Not interested. Maybe you could scientifically prove why people should steal now. If you are not able to do that, I will have evidence to consider that people should not steal now. If science cannot prove it is true, there is likelihood it is false. I have heard that argument for the nonexistence of god.
Myles Please comment on Fraggle Rocker's meaning of scientific proof: "all scientists agree that the probability of its falsification is so small as to be reasonably dismissed, but nonetheless some give it a higher probability than others." Are to say simply that the results of the Process of Science are subjective?
Xelios I see some of the problem. What you call philosophical proof I would call a philosophical argument. By philosophical proof, I mean the philosophical meaning of proof (as opposed to scientific proof, which is the scientific meaning of proof). The philosophical meaning of proof is to convince the mind. That which convinces the mind, is a meaning of proof, not in the scientific sense, but in the philosophical sense. This would be clear considering all of my posts, but may not have been clear from what you have read. A philosophical argument may convince the mind that particular evidence is suitable for a belief in truth. That particular evidence now becomes a type of proof, but not in the scientific sense. I consider that personal experiences (that I do not doubt), convince my mind, and therefore serve as a type of proof for my mind.
This is easy to do if you have a few assumptions ya know. One could logically prove it wrong so long as the supporting assumptions are agreed upon.
Not subjectivity, no. It's all objective, but there's always the possibility that new evidence will reshape a theory. Very rarely does a proven theory turn out to be completely wrong, incomplete maybe, but not wrong. For example, the existence of evolution is proven, the mechanism of evolution is not. You can call it that if you want, but I wouldn't agree that it's a type of proof. Proof to me is something that doesn't hinge on your mindset or preconceptions. A proof is valid no matter what you believe, otherwise what's the difference between a proof and an arguement? An arguement is just an arguement until it convinces the other person of your position, then it's suddenly a proof? It's a moral question, which as you fully agree isn't in the realm of science. It's philosophy, so it shouldn't be surprising to you that you can't prove that scientifically. Not that it's false, but with no way to tell if it's true or not it's a belief, or an opinion. And if the assumptions are not agreed upon it becomes impossible to prove. I could prove anything if I make a few assumptions that the other party agrees to, the trick is proving something if the other party disagrees. That's something science can do, that philosophy can't. And that's what I would call proof, something that can't be argued with, something that's not dependent on a person's opinions or assumptions to be valid.
Observation is the most basic form of evidence, and is therefore the cornerstone of the scientific method. Nonetheless, anyone who has served on a jury knows how easily even the most honorable and assiduous among us can err in either the act of observation itself, or in its recording, recall and recounting. Once you've lived as long as I have and had some of your most trusted observations shown to be incontrovertibly wrong, you understand why observations become much more reliable as evidence when they are corroborated by the observations of others. You even learn to be a little more reluctant to insist to others that you know what you're talking about because of your "personal experiences."
Xelios, from previous posts in this thread: It is clear to me that these quotes are inconsistent to the meaning Fraggle Rocker has given us for Scientific Knowledge: "all scientists agree that the probability of its falsification is so small as to be reasonably dismissed, but nonetheless some give it a higher probability than others." I am grateful to him, as I believe this says it much better than my clumsy attempt. The nonexistence of scientific proof, is also pointed out several times here: The conventional wisdom of the board says in science there is no proof (except possibly mathematics), and yet you make comments such as “in science every proof is objective, and …a proven theory. . .. Is it that you disagree with the conventional wisdom, or was your wording, less correct than it could be, and if so would you please modify your statements, or make a new explanation, to make them accurate and consistent with conventional wisdom. If you disagree with conventional wisdom, I for one would enjoy a rebuttal. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I am referring to event occurrences of various body parts. Such a broad category of activities could certainly include imagination, as well as artistic expression, sexual fantasies, dreams, and even aspirations, but such things do not have the kind of value worthy of the convincing evidence one might consider as proof. For yourself, imagination may be sufficient, being as well developed as it appears.
I find nothing I can disagree with. I will point out that there is a wide range between simple observation, and related experiences which span decades with awareness and purpose. Observing the stars one evening will not make me an astronomer. By observing the stars properly, methodically, repeatedly, consistently, I may become an astronomer, rudimentary though it may be.
