On November 12 2005 19:17 LTT wrote: Proof outside of an axiomatic system does not exist. Knowledge certainly does.
What is knowledge outside of an axiomatic/logical system?
In order to assert "I know that p", four conditions must be met: 1.) That p be true. 2.) That I believe that p. 3.) That I have good reasons, or sufficient evidence, for my belief that p. 4.) That I have no other evidence that might undermine my belief.
(Taken from Abel's Man is the Measure) I'd highly recommend this book for you BigBalls. It goes into quite a bit more detail and does a fairly good job of presenting contrasting views on a variety of philosphical subjects.
I think this is true, although by logic is it hard to find one which is false, otherwise it hasn't been proven. But we can watch the tendencies of the past (newton for example claiming that speed at which objects fall down was dependant of weight). Many past 'proofs' have been found to be wrong, and there are undoubtedly many more...
Again, can you give us examples of what has been "prooved" wrongly by the humanities and why we have no clue? I am going to defend my field of interest from ignorant remarks.
I think this is true, although by logic is it hard to find one which is false, otherwise it hasn't been proven. But we can watch the tendencies of the past (newton for example claiming that speed at which objects fall down was dependant of weight). Many past 'proofs' have been found to be wrong, and there are undoubtedly many more...
Again, can you give us examples of what has been "prooved" wrongly by the humanities and why we have no clue? I am going to defend my field of interest from ignorant remarks.
Dunno if you count ancient philosophy as part of your field of interest or not, but... Xeno's achilles and tortoise paradox. Just a flawed inductive proof ;D
what's interesting to me is what angles people approach the question from, based on their different backgrounds.
let me sort of rephrase the question. since there is no formal proof outside of an axiomatic/logical system, what is accepted as a proof? I suppose an overwhelming amount of evidence and data supporting a theory that cannot possibly be a statistical anomoly could be considered a loose proof. any way we can generalize proofs in different areas of study?
Me 22, become 23 soon. Major in computer science and mathematics. PHD student, 1st year. I liked your formulation very much. Anyhow, as I pointed before, statistical evidence can prove wrong when the factors that have impact on experiment aren't quite clear. 2 moltke: Let me answer you with an anecdote. A writer, a phisic and a mathematician are travelling in a treain through Scotland. They see sheep grazing in a field. Writer: "Watch! How interesting...In fact, all the sheep in Scotland are black!" Phisic: "Hmm...I'd say that in this part of Scotland most of the sheep are black" Mathematician: "All I can state is that there are some sheep in Scotland which are black on at least one side...".
A proof will always require a leap of faith somewhere (a premise/postulate/assumption) that you must take as truth. Then you deduce new statements from your set of premises using basic logical inference rules. One of these new statements might be the statement you are looking to prove. The tough part is actual being convinced that your premise is "correct". Once that occurs, you can immediately prove a statement when you have the inference trail figured out.
Without the leap of faith, all you have is a definition - an arbitrary declaration made by a human stating "this is MY truth". Sure, if you want, look at a definition as the simplest albeit degenerate form of a proof.
proof is the act of bringing into appearance convinced-being. you can't take it out of context. if you're talking about one individual, making them convinced is proof. if you're talking a nation, what convinces "them", or rather, "your them," is different but still clear cut. and for most educated people, it comes down to convincing those endoctrinated in science; but doesn't that leap over the whole question? it sure does. how do you convince someone that something is a scientific fact? it is still with text and for the most part they never can verify it fully but rather trust their specialized "society," all the same as we commoners do in a different, maybe less consistent form, but trust and convinced-being nonetheless!
On November 14 2005 01:32 mitsy wrote: proof is the act of bringing into appearance convinced-being. you can't take it out of context. if you're talking about one individual, making them convinced is proof. if you're talking a nation, what convinces "them", or rather, "your them," is different but still clear cut. and for most educated people, it comes down to convincing those endoctrinated in science; but doesn't that leap over the whole question? it sure does. how do you convince someone that something is a scientific fact? it is still with text and for the most part they never can verify it fully but rather trust their specialized "society," all the same as we commoners do in a different, maybe less consistent form, but trust and convinced-being nonetheless!
Rather pathetic but interesting. Anyhow, having matematical education, I'd say that proof is something that is not dependent on individual being convinced. That is, every formal proof in a formal system can be FORMALLY verified by a donkey, because the proof can be reduced to application of some rules to axioms or preconditions(English is my third language, so sorry ). Let's mix these 2 concepts. We will distinguish proofs in formal and non-formal systems. With proof in a formal system well defined, let's try to define a proof in a non-formal system. "We will call a proof in non formal system evidence of facts/stastical information/experiments or whatsoever if they suffice to convince anyone with sufficient knowledge in the area." How do you like this guys?
whats your metaphysics, mr. math? ever get past the mind-body problem? got a formula for that?
Sorry, didn't get the point. I just tried to assemble your and Bigballs' defiitions of proof.
Mitsy was being either immature or just desiring to throw out random ideas he/she learned in a philosophy course. For whatever reason, mitsy threw out a classical philosphical problem about the relation between the mind and body, or more specifically how something immaterial can affect something material and vis versa.
The mind influences the body through such things as thoughts of food producing saliva, listening to scary stories producing goosebumbs, and thoughts of sex having obvious effects. The body influences the mind most noticably through things like caffeine, alcohol, or any sorts of drugs.
Science has come close to bridging the gap, but even if we could map out every electronic pulse that caused a certain state of mind, or every thought that caused a certain pulse to travel through us, would we be able to say that those pulses are identical to that state?
On November 15 2005 01:02 baal wrote: these threads are boring even for me, and im a pseudo intelectual sophistic biatch who loves to argue about philosophy.
I am sure you haven't read the thread but feel obliged to post some random stuff about discussion being boring. Or it is a must to post in every thread even if you have nothing to say? P.S. The discussion is not about philosophy.
All you need to do is ask: "What comes to mind upon hearing the word proof?" When something is proved, the only manifestations (the reality of it) are beliefs and predictions. People assume the proved thing is true and always will be, and make predictions based on that assumption. If we hold nothing as proved, we cannot make any assumptions and thus cannot deduce anything. We then live in an unstable world with no idea what's going on. Our desire to use assumptions actively in order to move through life with confidence is the chief motivator in proclaiming something as proved. The more abstracted from time and space and culture you want your beliefs to be, the more you struggle to get consistent proofs, or apparently consistent proofs (which come down to being the same thing, only the former is glorifying and the latter is negative).
I know rationalists will be disappointed and reject this view, but the thing is it actually describes how we live, and how we will live. It shows which factor (our desire to use assumptions actively in order to move through life with confidence) determines how "deep" or consistent upon analysis a series of statements called "proof" must be for a given person.
On November 15 2005 01:02 baal wrote: these threads are boring even for me, and im a pseudo intelectual sophistic biatch who loves to argue about philosophy.
I am sure you haven't read the thread but feel obliged to post some random stuff about discussion being boring. Or it is a must to post in every thread even if you have nothing to say? P.S. The discussion is not about philosophy.
On November 15 2005 10:03 Pseudo_Utopia wrote: All you need to do is ask: "What comes to mind upon hearing the word proof?" When something is proved, the only manifestations (the reality of it) are beliefs and predictions. People assume the proved thing is true and always will be, and make predictions based on that assumption. If we hold nothing as proved, we cannot make any assumptions and thus cannot deduce anything. We then live in an unstable world with no idea what's going on. Our desire to use assumptions actively in order to move through life with confidence is the chief motivator in proclaiming something as proved. The more abstracted from time and space and culture you want your beliefs to be, the more you struggle to get consistent proofs, or apparently consistent proofs (which come down to being the same thing, only the former is glorifying and the latter is negative).
I know rationalists will be disappointed and reject this view, but the thing is it actually describes how we live, and how we will live. It shows which factor (our desire to use assumptions actively in order to move through life with confidence) determines how "deep" or consistent upon analysis a series of statements called "proof" must be for a given person.
I think you are social/humanitarian. Clearly you mixed up a bunch of things.
On November 12 2005 21:23 Oxygen wrote: "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- Jean Chretien
Oh god i'm too tired to read if this has come up yet.
I think "Bible" has the truth and proof. If you wanna know something, just read there! It's all there if you make a few hundred assumptions, hit a few baby's head to the rock and make a crusade.
EPT
). 
