On the Necessity of Proving Things

[warpspeedpetey]

I pointed out the absurdity behind this statement once before, but you ignored me. Logic tells us NOTHING about the soundness of an argument. It only tells us whether it is valid. For example, can logic point out the flaw in this reasoning below?

1. All substances above 90 degrees are frozen.
2. My blood is a substance above 90 degrees.
   C. Therefore, my blood is frozen.

According to logic, this is flawless reasoning. Of course, logic is helpless when it comes to the truth or falsity of premises. Does logic know that many substances above 90 degrees are not frozen? No? What a shame. It looks like we need an inductive system. Ya know, something like the scientific method? Wait, are you telling me the system that is better than science depends on science to determine soundness?

we are not talking about replacing the practice of the scientific method with logical syllogisms. that is obviously a ridiculous idea. if you want to practice the physical sciences, then use the scientific method.

we are talking about what methodology is a better arbiter of truth.

given that empiricism, and verification/falsification schemes are self refuting and therefore false. regardless of their utility, they are not arbiters of truth. because they are false.

the laws of logical inference are not self refuting, we do not know they are false the way we know the empiricism, and verification/falsification schemes are self refuting and therefore false.

We’ve been through this before, too. Just as no experiment can “prove” empiricism, no logical argument can “prove” the law of identity. You assume it. Axioms cannot be demonstrated by the systems they contribute to; you’ll always end up with circularity if you attempt to do so. In this regard, neither logic nor any other system is better off than empiricism.

as ive demonstrated repeatedly, empiricism is self refuting. logic is not

so

logic- probably true

empiricism- demonstrably false.

you cant disprove the law of identity, but i can disprove empiricism.

this isnt a new idea, its decades old, entire books have been written demonstrating that this argument is true.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Look at the pot calling the kettle black. Empiricism has many definitions. Personally, I understand it to be the belief that claims about the physical world are only justified if physical evidence supports them. In other words, observation is the best way to determine facts (facts are different than conceptual truths and tautologies, of course). That’s all I’m saying.

thats called verification/falsification. it to is self refuting and therefore false.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Verification-_and_falsification-principles

Verification- and falsification-principles
The statements “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically verified” and “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically falsified” are both claimed to be self-refuting on the basis that they can neither be empirically verified nor falsified[31]

a false standard, cannot be the basis for a standard of truth.

scientific inquiry only applies to the very narrow idea of what is available to our physical senses. denying the existence of things on the basis that they dont fit these self refuting schemes is not justified. specifically because that is a self refuting, false standard.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, science is in conflict with religion.

no its not. people try to use science as a tool against religion, but left to their own devices, there paths rarely meet in the modern world

Fortunately, Christians always have their Church officials around to revise silly claims like the biblical claim that the first people lived to be 800-900 years old. Now, that stuff is merely held to be symbolic. But hey, that’s religion for you: today’s assertions are tomorrow’s symbols. You do realize that such things were not always considered symbolic, right? Those were serious claims back in the day, until science came along.

i dont know that is symbolic. those people did live to that age. if your going to call it ridiculous, then you should prove it.

simply not knowing the process that caused an event, doesnt say anything about its occurence. as Clarkes law says

**any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic. **

i dont believe in magic, i hope you dont believe in magic. so what does that leave us with?

a technology we do not understand. and that applies to every “miracle”. they arent magic, we just dont know how they were done.

So yes, I disagree that science and religion should work in conjunction. What we see before us is this cycle: religion makes outrageous claims, science demands evidence, religion claims to be above providing evidence, then some discovery makes the religion backpedal, claiming that the previous claim was meant to be understood symbolically. Religion is constantly receding from the advance of science in panic, and everybody who can read a history book knows it. The God of the Gaps is running out of gaps.

religion doesnt make outrageous claims, they only seem out outrageous because you dont know how they were done. any more than we do.

the problem is then, science says they are impossible!

the problem is, science can only say this based on what the current scientifc theories are. and since scientific theories are constantly superseded, this is a false standard. as another of clarkes laws demonstrates

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong

science claiming something is impossible is a complete farce as has been demonstrated by the march of science throughout history.

You guys are making claims, and all scientists want is evidence to support those claims. If you feel offended by that request, then please feel free to migrate to a place that doesn’t require such a high standard of evidence, like a third-world country. Have fun.

thats not a high stadard of evidence, it is a false standard of evidence as we have repeatedly demonstrated.

Logic and math deal with concepts, not with the natural world. Religions claim that there is more than the natural world and that the beings in that supernatural world react with this world. They then claim that they need not provide evidence for this additional world they posit. If that’s so, then I should be able to posit a separate universe consisting of unicorns, goblins, and fairies while using the very same tactic: “I discovered this world through reason, but I can’t be expected to provide evidence for it.”

we have a ton of evidence, its been documented in dozens of books in the Bible.

 

[R_Daneel]

And why did you believe that at least two of them celebrate their birthday on the same day of the year? Because you thought it to be reasonable.

Heck, no. It is anything but obvious or intuitive or reasonable. My reason is simple: I calculated the proper probabilities.

If common sense is not it, please explain to me why I should believe material matter exists and why I should believe in the various theorems and facts and laws of science and mathematics and why I should believe that certain historical events occurred. If these things are not supposed to be believed because they are “self-evident”, then why should we believe them? Prove to me that they exist…all of them. Maybe after your done proving them to me, you will understand. If you can figure out a way, I will accept. But I’m almost certain that there is no other way.

Common sense is not “out”, but it is not an arbiter of truth. Intuition is not “out”, but it is merely a first step on the road. Some things are self-evident to anyone who is able and willing to contemplate them, like the laws of logic, the axioms of mathematics.

 

[Schn]

Science may not be “the final aribiter on truth, justification, and intellectual inquiry”, but it is the best one devised so far, and no other methods should be used unless it is shown they are superior to science.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Science may not be “the final aribiter on truth, justification, and intellectual inquiry”, but it is the best one devised so far,

no its not, it rests on demonstrably false foundations. it cannot, even were it the only methodology, be the best one, because it is false.

and no other methods should be used unless it is shown they are superior to science.

mathematics and logic are both better standards.

further, sciences domain, is strictly the physical, and that is all it talks about. yet another reason it is an inferior standard of truth.

neither mathematics or logic has this failing.

so. to be clear.

science is the inferior measure of truth and therefore should not be used.

 

[Syntax]

Science may not be “the final aribiter on truth, justification, and intellectual inquiry”, but it is the best one devised so far, and no other methods should be used unless it is shown they are superior to science.

But what I’ve been asking for over a week now is what reason do you have for thinking this is true, since all past theories have been abandoned? Utility and truth have always come apart in science since theories themselves eventually fail by these very empirical standards used to arrive at them. So what makes you think these standards are “the best” if they are always giving us false theories? Since you don’t even know what the truth is, how do you decide empirical methodology is, in fact, “the best”? What evidence do you have for thinking scientific methodology is “truth-telling”?

 

[Image_of_God]

Heck, no. It is anything but obvious or intuitive or reasonable. My reason is simple: I calculated the proper probabilities.
How exactly did you do this?

Common sense is not “out”, but it is not an arbiter of truth. Intuition is not “out”, but it is merely a first step on the road. Some things are self-evident to anyone who is able and willing to contemplate them, like the laws of logic, the axioms of mathematics.

If something is not accepted as self-evident by common sense, then tell me how else ought it to be excepted. How do I accept that a segment is the connection of two points? How? Is there any proof or logic involved?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Since you don’t even know what the truth is, how do you decide empirical methodology is, in fact, “the best”? What evidence do you have for thinking scientific methodology is “truth-telling”?

ummmmm…deeply held desire to protect a cherished belief?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If something is not accepted as self-evident by common sense, then tell me how else ought it to be excepted. How do I accept that a segment is the connection of two points? How? Is there any proof or logic involved?

because a geometry book said so, of course. dont you know that we can trust as true any book that doesnt talk about religion? just on its says so? that just doesnt apply to the Bible, because we dont want it to.

 

[Ignatius]

Why do some believe that things must be proven (rationally) in order be true?

They don’t have to be proven to be true. Proof is verifying that it is true. Without proof, people can hold to be true what is not true. If someone makes some contention as true, it is up to them to provide proof that shows that it is indeed true.

 

[Image_of_God]

They don’t have to be proven to be true. Proof is verifying that it is true. Without proof, people can hold to be true what is not true. If someone makes some contention as true, it is up to them to provide proof that shows that it is indeed true.

I don’t disagree with you, but I think you misunderstood the context of my question .

I am not discarding the necessity of proving things (hence I use theorems in the OP). However, I am discarding the idea that things are true on the condition that they can be proven, which some people on this forum hold. It is an idea that just doesn’t work in a great many cases. For example, you cannot prove that historical events occurred. All you can do is gather enough evidence to remove most doubt. And what about the man in court, who although can find no evidence to support his case, is nonetheless telling the truth. Is the fact that he can provide no evidence, prove him false?

We cannot provide proof that Jesus walked the Earth and did miracles. Outside of the Scriptures (which many have rejected as false) there is no concrete proof. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t walk the Earth and perform miracles. This is where faith (believing without proof) comes in. We can believe despite not having “concrete” proof because God is trustworthy.

When our reason dictates that a person is trustworthy, we will believe him despite the lack of proof. Sometimes, there is just no other way. Many of the empiricists on this thread do this, even though they refuse to confess it. They believe what they’re reading to be trustworthy and that’s the only reason why they hold it to be true. And even in many cases where “concrete” proof is provided: proof does not serve to provide absolute certainty.

If you hold tightly and absolutely to the idea that you have typed, you will find that you will have to reject everything as false. Many proven truths are based on unproven truths. How do you arrive at those proven truths if you won’t even recognize the truths needed to get to them simply because they cannot be proven?

 

[R_Daneel]

How exactly did you do this?

Ok, math course is coming up. Since the people are randomly selected, the probability that any specific person was born on any specific day of the year is 1 in 366. We suppose an equal distribution, which is not exactly correct, because more people are born in the summer, than in winter. But this discrepancy is not relevant, it actually raises the chance of a “duplicate birthday” a little bit.

We talked about 30, randomly selected people. We can generalize and talk about “n”, randomly selected people, and then look at the special case, where n = 30.

Now with any selected group, there are two possibilities: 1) all people were born on different days, and 2) at least two people were born on the same day. Let “p” be the probability of case 1). Obviously “1 - p” will be the probability of case 2).

It is much simpler to calculate the value of “p”, and then subtract the value from 1. We shall call it a “good” day if it is separate from all the previously “selected” days.

Now, for the “meat”. The first person selected could have been born on any day, so his chance of being born a good day is 366/366 (no days have been taken yet). The second person only has now 365 “good” days to choose from (one is already taken), so his chance of selecting a good day is 365/366. For the third person there are only 364 days remaining. For the fourth one, only 363 days remain, and so on. Since the birthdays are independent from each other, the chance that “n” people all were born on a different day of the year is:

p = (366/366)(365/366)(364/366)(363/366)…*((366 - (n-1))/366)

You could use a hand-held calculator to find out the value of “p” for any given “n”. Then subtract this value from 1 to get the probability of having at least one duplicate birthday. For the value of 30 the probability of having at least one duplicate birthday is about 73% - amazingly high. For 40 random people the probabilty is over 90%. For 60 people it is over 99%. It is almost impossible to collect 60 random people and not find at least two of them who were born on the same day of the year.

There is nothing intuitive or self-evident about this.

If something is not accepted as self-evident by common sense, then tell me how else ought it to be excepted. How do I accept that a segment is the connection of two points? How? Is there any proof or logic involved?

Lots of things are accepted as self-evident - and rightfully so. That is not the problem. The problem is to assume that everything which **looks like **self-evident is supposed to be accepted as self-evident. This is the point when the adage should be: “shut up and calculate” or “shut up and measure” - depending on the topic.

 

[Oreoracle]

We cannot provide proof that Jesus walked the Earth and did miracles. Outside of the Scriptures (which many have rejected as false) there is no concrete proof. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t walk the Earth and perform miracles. This is where faith (believing without proof) comes in. We can believe despite not having “concrete” proof because God is trustworthy.

The whole reason Christians want to have Jesus’s existence (and his miracles) accepted as truth is so they can demonstrate the existence of God, correct? But here, you’re saying that accepting the truth of God’s existence (and his truthfulness) demonstrates Jesus’ existence…In other words, the belief in Jesus is dependent on the belief in God and the belief in God is dependent on the belief in Jesus. This is just one huge circular argument.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ok, math course is coming up. Since the people are randomly selected, the probability that any specific person was born on any specific day of the year is 1 in 366. We suppose an equal distribution, which is not exactly correct, because more people are born in the summer, than in winter. But this discrepancy is not relevant, it actually raises the chance of a “duplicate birthday” a little bit.

We talked about 30, randomly selected people. We can generalize and talk about “n”, randomly selected people, and then look at the special case, where n = 30.

Now with any selected group, there are two possibilities: 1) all people were born on different days, and 2) at least two people were born on the same day. Let “p” be the probability of case 1). Obviously “1 - p” will be the probability of case 2).

It is much simpler to calculate the value of “p”, and then subtract the value from 1. We shall call it a “good” day if it is separate from all the previously “selected” days.

Now, for the “meat”. The first person selected could have been born on any day, so his chance of being born a good day is 366/366 (no days have been taken yet). The second person only has now 365 “good” days to choose from (one is already taken), so his chance of selecting a good day is 365/366. For the third person there are only 364 days remaining. For the fourth one, only 363 days remain, and so on. Since the birthdays are independent from each other, the chance that “n” people all were born on a different day of the year is:

p = (366/366)(365/366)(364/366)(363/366)…*((366 - (n-1))/366)

You could use a hand-held calculator to find out the value of “p” for any given “n”. Then subtract this value from 1 to get the probability of having at least one duplicate birthday. For the value of 30 the probability of having at least one duplicate birthday is about 73% - amazingly high. For 40 random people the probabilty is over 90%. For 60 people it is over 99%. It is almost impossible to collect 60 random people and not find at least two of them who were born on the same day of the year.

There is nothing intuitive or self-evident about this.

Lots of things are accepted as self-evident - and rightfully so. That is not the problem. The problem is to assume that everything which **looks like **self-evident is supposed to be accepted as self-evident. This is the point when the adage should be: “shut up and calculate” or “shut up and measure” - depending on the topic.

“the birthday problem” why not just tell him to google it?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

so how do you “shut up and calculate or measure” any event you didnt witness? you dont, you are still in the position of trusting someone else.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The whole reason Christians want to have Jesus’s existence (and his miracles) accepted as truth is so they can demonstrate the existence of God, correct?

they are accepted because they actually happened and are documented by the many books written by the witnesses. these books, compiled into the compendium that we now call the Bible, all document G-ds existence for 1500 years prior to Christ, or the New Testament.

 

[AlbertBall]

they are accepted** because they actually happened **and are documented by the many books written by the witnesses. these books, compiled into the compendium that we now call the Bible, all document G-ds existence for 1500 years prior to Christ, or the New Testament.

You do NOT KNOW they happened.

 

[davidv]

You do NOT KNOW they happened.

And you do NOT KNOW that they did not happen. Which leaves your argument from silence without merit.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You do NOT KNOW they happened.

sure i do, to the exact same degree that we know any historical event happened, that we didnt witness.

 

[Ignatius]

You do NOT KNOW they happened.

The preponderance of the available information indicates that they did.
By the same argument one could say that we don’t KNOW the Hannibal existed. Although there is very scan evidence for Hannibal, .no educated person with intelligence in the normal range actually denies that he did.