On the Necessity of Proving Things

[R_Daneel]

In many books I have read stories (by independent authors) about an iron-nosed witch who could curse anyone to turn into pigs. If I recall correctly, one of the authors was called Hans Christian Andersen, a very prolific and successful teller of these wonderful stories. Observe, that his middle name is “Christian”! Very significant fact, which cannot be chalked up to mere coincidence. Naturally, no one could dismiss these stories without being close-minded. If they do, it is obviously due to the fact that they are willing to do anything and everything to protect their cherished beliefs about the non-existence of iron-nosed witches.

To accept the ludicrous and fake stories of an alleged moon-landing (who knows if the Moon is really there and not just a fake artifact made by evil scientists to fool us) and to discard the independently written (obviously true) stories about a rib-woman who was seduced by a talking snake into eating a magical apple… now that kind of attitude is obviously a sign of closed and confused minds.

By the way, who knows if the Moon is not made of cheese? We have not been there, so it might be just a big round piece of cheese. The scientists say otherwise? Well, they are just theorizing in order to accept big grants from the gullible public who mistakenly think that science is able to separate true from false statements. No sane person would take “scientists” seriously. After all they keep changing their mind. What was considered true yesterday, is considered false today. They change their minds according to the direction the wind blows!

At least according to WSP, our resident winner of all the debates. All hail his superior genius!

 

[AlbertBall]

1. Where do you find the evidence that physical objects exist?
2. What interprets that evidence?

Until you answer these questions all your assumptions are not worth a farthing!

Oh your so right, TVs, Cars, Planes, Modern Medicine, Computers, etc etc. Not worth a thing.

 

[Image_of_God]

So facts are undisputable, while the interpretation of facts can differ. And the qustion is how to decide which interpretation is valid, and which is not. Fine. That is in line with the purpose of this thread. That is what epistemology is all about.

But also, how do you arrive at these facts? You simply cannot arrive at them without taking (sometimes) a number of unproven assumptions. Geometric Mathematicians understand this completely. No wonder they admit that there are postulates. That a line is what is, we consider fact. But it is unproven and since it is unproven, we trust that it is what it is. Unless, you can prove to us that a line is a line, without making appeals to reason?

Another point of interest is that theorems, those facts which are “proven” are nothing more than a summation of certain unproven facts, or postulates.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. “What” exists, or needs to proven to exist?

I was referring to the man with an axe in his head. Please do prove that he exists.

First it is not “my” question. Second, I consider the question meaningless, because it presupposes that time is independent from the universe.

I suppose that I should consider your rebuttal meaningless, because it presupposes that time is not independent from the universe.

Regardless of whether the question is yours or not, it still deserves serious consideration. What happened before we came to be exactly?

Well, of course I presume rationalism. But the point is this: either one accepts that the moon-landing happened, or assumes that all the physical and testimonial evidence is faked. I am appealing to the fact that “secrets” of this kind and of this magnitude cannot be kept secret.

If you are presuming rationalism, then you cannot presume empiricism to the degree that you claim to be. And please, do not be under the impression that I reject the moon landing. I truly do not. And we accept it for the same exact reason, although you are in denial about it.

Since you have resorted to science purely, appealing to a tendency that cannot be accurately verified greatly undermines your position. Saying that it is impossible to contain a secret of such magnitude is a claimed truth that simply cannot be empirically verified.

Well, well. Let’s take another example. The air-molecules in a room move randomly. **Theoretically **it is “possible” that all the air molecules just happen to move away from the middle of the room, and crate a perfect vacuum. Mathematically speaking this is not an “impossible” event. Realistically, it will not happen. Not now, not ever. Just like it is possible “theoretically” that all the alleged witnesses engaged in a huge conspiracy and none of them ever revealed the truth. Again mathematically speaking this event is not “impossible”. Realistically it is.

Again, you are appealing to reason, not an empirically tested event. Never has such a tendency been subject to empirical tests. So you cannot make such a claim with the absolute certainty that you do (according to empiricism). For you to know this, you’d have to be omniscient. Better you say that it isn’t probable than that it isn’t possible.

Yes.

But there is. You can imagine that you will win the lottery, but you are not certain. If you know the theory of probabilities, you can even estimate the chance of winning. So there is less than 100% but greater than 0% certainty for the future events.

If you are not certain, then you are uncertain. Period. You are confusing probability and certainty. If you asked someone whether they thought it would rain tomorrow and they told you that they were 50% sure you would probably look at them and say, “Are you sure or are you not?” Probability refers to an event itself and certainty refers to a person perspective of that event which may or may not be based on any mathematical probability.

The past is similar. Either you know that something happened, and then you have 100% certainty, or you don’t know, which means that your certainty is less than 100%. But less than 100% certainty is not total uncertainty. I may not “know” that snow fell last year at the North Pole, but the chances are quite good that it did.

Here again you confuse probability with certainty. If you are less that 100% certain, you are uncertain. If you do not know whether snow fell at the North Pole or not, you are uncertain. It may be most likely, almost likely, not likely, whatever, but since I do not know, I do not know.

Since you dragged in certainty, probabilities etc. into the discussion, make sure that you know what you are talking about. I am really not interested in a futile discussion akin to the arguments which are spouted by WSP. I am interested in a rational discussion.

And what is your idea of “rational discussion”? I hope it does not exclude philosophy. This is a Philosophy Forum and this is a philosophical discussion.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

To be honest its none of your business. .

this is laughable. almost everybody has a 4 year degree. why do you think that makes you more aware of ‘science’ than anybody else?

 

[Image_of_God]

yup. i once heard an empiricist called a ‘rival metaphysician with a different dogma.’

ultimately this conversation has nothing to do with the actual practice of science.

You are very much right here. Science, in her daily laments to the Philosophies, must say, “You must be glad you are not me. At least there are many of you and each one speaks for herself. But as for me, I have many who love to put words in my mouth!”

Great, but what does any of that have to do with the scientific evidence for the moon landings?

It has everything to do with the post to which it was addressed. You might ask the same question to that post.

 

[Image_of_God]

Oh your so right, TVs, Cars, Planes, Modern Medicine, Computers, etc etc. Not worth a thing.

Tonrey’s post has gone completely over your head. All of those things are independent of themselves and it takes a mind to connect them.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yeah the capsule made its own way to the moon, total guess, its amazing it managed to get there.

a chemical reaction isnt science either.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

ONLY IN YOUR WORLD, LOL. Trust me in science

what do you mean by the phrase ’ in science’? do you mean scientists, or what? if so is that all scientists, or just the ones that agree with what you wnat to believe.

understanding a process as EVERYTHING to do with credibility or a claim.

how so? because the bone-through-the-nose-tribesman wouldnt think a lightbulb credible, nor would descartes believe a moonlanding credible…unless they understood the process. yet we knnow, whether or not a tribesman, or descartes understands a the process behind a lightbulb or the moonlanding. both are credible.

clarkes 3rd law again

’any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic’.

I have told you i can accept the evidence that comes from CREDIBLE sources. This is another basic aspect of science and law that you don’t seem to understand.

how do you consider a source credible?

The books which are all heresy

no they arent. most are eyewitness reports.

I have no been bragging i am simply pointing out that you seem to think your lack of eduction is some sort of basis for an argument, it isn’t!

from what youve said, you have an average education. how does that qualifies you to make these kind of statements?

Can you read, do you make this stuff up in your head, or are you just a lier? Where did i ever say “the Church had some motive to make up or promote Christianity”.

can you read? where did i say, that you had said that?

So now your great defense is NASA is involved in some great conspiracy theory, just when i thought this couldn’t get any more ludicrous! Priceless!! LOL

are you saying that hundreds of billions of dollars isnt a reason to commit fraud? i assure you fraud is commited over just a few hundred much less hundreds of billions.

so id like to know what do you base the credibility of your sources on?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The thing you seem to be missing is whether or not you accept the evidence for the moon landings, it is STILL THERE.

and you still have no way to show it is evidence of a moonlanding happened. for all you know it could be a bunch of props.

You can claim it is fake, however we still have the rockets, the suits, the trajectories, the technology, the physical evidence. So you can say its fake, however i will accept NASAs word over yours.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

In many books I have read stories (by independent authors) about an iron-nosed witch who could curse anyone to turn into pigs. If I recall correctly, one of the authors was called Hans Christian Andersen, a very prolific and successful teller of these wonderful stories. Observe, that his middle name is “Christian”! Very significant fact, which cannot be chalked up to mere coincidence. Naturally, no one could dismiss these stories without being close-minded. If they do, it is obviously due to the fact that they are willing to do anything and everything to protect their cherished beliefs about the non-existence of iron-nosed witches.

andersen didnt claim any of the stories he wrote were historical events.

To accept the ludicrous and fake stories of an alleged moon-landing (who knows if the Moon is really there and not just a fake artifact made by evil scientists to fool us) and to discard the independently written (obviously true) stories about a rib-woman who was seduced by a talking snake into eating a magical apple… now that kind of attitude is obviously a sign of closed and confused minds.

 

[R_Daneel]

But also, how do you arrive at these facts? You simply cannot arrive at them without taking (sometimes) a number of unproven assumptions. Geometric Mathematicians understand this completely. No wonder they admit that there are postulates. That a line is what is, we consider fact. But it is unproven and since it is unproven, we trust that it is what it is. Unless, you can prove to us that a line is a line, without making appeals to reason?

Every system has some unproven, basic assumptions, axioms, postulates. That is the only way to avoid infinite regress. No one denies that. What of it? These basic assumptions are not articles of faith. They are accepted because they are self-evident.

Another point of interest is that theorems, those facts which are “proven” are nothing more than a summation of certain unproven facts, or postulates.

To be more precise, they are the logical corollaries of those basic postulates.

I was referring to the man with an axe in his head. Please do prove that he exists.

Didn’t we observe him together in the example? That was the thought experiment all about.

I suppose that I should consider your rebuttal meaningless, because it presupposes that time is not independent from the universe.

It is the currently prevailing theory, and nothing contradicts it. Physicists at the time of Newton assumed a fully deterministic, clock-work-like universe, which “travels” along the lines of absolute time within an absolute space. Einstein showed that this world-view was incorrect and that time and space are not independent from matter/energy. However, even Einstein was reluctant to accept quantum mechanics according to his oft-quoted saying: “God does not play dice with the universe”. Our view of what “the world really is” - is constantly changing. Why is that a problem?

Regardless of whether the question is yours or not, it still deserves serious consideration. What happened before we came to be exactly?

Does it now? Should we also waste time on pondering what is to the north from the North Pole? Or should we contemplate how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle? Fascinating questions, aren’t they?

If you are presuming rationalism, then you cannot presume empiricism to the degree that you claim to be.

And to what degree do I “claim” empiricism?

Again, you are appealing to reason, not an empirically tested event. Never has such a tendency been subject to empirical tests. So you cannot make such a claim with the absolute certainty that you do (according to empiricism). For you to know this, you’d have to be omniscient. Better you say that it isn’t probable than that it isn’t possible.

Guess what? I am intimately familiar with the concept of probabilities. I have been lecturing it for many years. In reality there is no “absolute” certainty, only in the exact sciences - which are also based upon basic axioms and postulates.

What is that you wish to talk about?

Here are a few requirements, if you wish to conduct a conversation (not a debate). They are my requirements, take them, or leave them, as you wish:

1. there are basic axioms, postulates, principles which are not articles of faith.
2. the current world-view may change in the future, but **for now **it is the basis of consideration, with the proviso that it may change, if warranted.
3. empiricism is a method of making hypotheses about reality. It is not a method employed by the exact sciences.
4. only in the exact sciences does one **prove **anything. To prove something is to show a logical chain which ends at the basic axioms and postulates.
5. in the natural sciences one **substantiates **or **verifies **a hypothesis, or **falsifies **it.
6. rational and logical thinking is not to be abandoned. (They are not the same.)

These terms are not negotiable. The ball is in your court.

 

[AlbertBall]

this is laughable. almost everybody has a 4 year degree. why do you think that makes you more aware of ‘science’ than anybody else?

LOL again you show utter ignorance. 20% of the uk population holds a degree of which one must imagine 1/4 at most will be science based, and as i said i don’t have an ordinary, i have a degree with honours.

statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/people.asp

Also again you can’t even comprehend basic english, or you again are lying. I never ever said “why do you think that makes you more aware of ‘science’ than anybody else?” I didn’t saying anyone else, i said you, because you are clearly scientifically illiterate.

 

[AlbertBall]

Tonrey’s post has gone completely over your head. All of those things are independent of themselves and it takes a mind to connect them.

And it seem that my reply has gone completely over your head. The benefits make the assumptions valid.

 

[AlbertBall]

how so? because the bone-through-the-nose-tribesman wouldnt think a lightbulb credible, nor would descartes believe a moonlanding credible…unless they understood the process. yet we knnow, whether or not a tribesman, or descartes understands a the process behind a lightbulb or the moonlanding. both are credible.

Utterly irrelevant and this fallacy has already been pointed out to you. However lets take the light bulb example. Say a i went back in time and took a torch. I put in on an claimed to a tribesman that i am god and that i can magic light. Well given that the tribesman has no way of assessing my claim he would **not be justified **in believing me, however there is now an unexplained phenomena and many people, people with your critical analysis skills would accept my claim.

Lets say i went to my brother with the same torch and the same claim. Do you think he would believe me? Of course NOT. For he understands exactly what a torch is.

The point is until we understand a process we must WITHHOLD belief. Sure we know many things are credible that people in the past didn’t know about, and in the future people will know things we don’t know. HOWEVER until these things have been demonstrated to be credible we must refrain from making unfounded claims about them. Very basic reasoning.

 

[AlbertBall]

im not claiming its fake, im pointing out that you dont know if it is real or not. you simply accept NASAs’ eyewitness testimony.

Nope, why don’t you go and read a scientific document. They don’t consisit of this happen because i saw it happen LMAO! LOL

yet you reject the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles.

They were not eyewitness, even among chrsitan scholars there is an agreement that nobody knows the authors of the bible.

Besides were talking about people who believed the sun orbited the earth, in other words they has little to no understanding of the cosmos.

The bible has no credibility, it claims that snakes talk, there was a world wide flood, the earth was made in 7 days, all of which we know are utter nonsense. Oh it also claims a virgin got pregnant. Given the track record of the bible i am going to appeal to consistency and conclude this is also utter hog wash.

 

[AlbertBall]

i listed you many pieces of evidence for the virgin birth, did you forget? or is that not evidence because you dont want to believe it, once again employing the usual double standard?

None of the things you listed landed any support to your claim. You listed trash, with no explanation as to why they supported you claim.

E.G. Birth robes. LMAO how on EARTH do births robes support the claim the mother was a virgin.

 

[AlbertBall]

how do you consider a source credible?

Many reasons. Publishing research and results, subjecting research to peer review, adhering to scientific principles, production of technology.

All of which NASA does, oh and none of which the bible does. Again because the two events are nothing like comparable, or equal in validity.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Where do you find the evidence that physical objects exist?
2. What interprets that evidence?
   Until you answer these questions all your assumptions are not worth a farthing!

A typical evasion which reveals inability to explain** the prime source of all human knowledge**, an obsession with material things and ignorance of what is most precious in life… an “answer” which is not worthy of a person! and has revealed your priorities - with TVs at the very top of your list…

 

[R_Daneel]

Many reasons. Publishing research and results, subjecting research to peer review, adhering to scientific principles, production of technology.

All of which NASA does, oh and none of which the bible does. Again because the two events are nothing like comparable, or equal in validity.

I would add one more. A source is credible, if it can demonstrate the validity of what he is talking about. Mere appeal to some authority does not make a source “credible”. According to an old Greek proverb someone claimed that once he jumped really far on the island of Rhodus. He was challenged: “Hic Rhodus, hic salta!”. (This is Rhodus, jump here!)

 

[AlbertBall]

A typical evasion which reveals inability to explain** the prime source of all human knowledge**, an obsession with material things and ignorance of what is most precious in life… an “answer” which is not worthy of a person! and has revealed your priorities - with TVs at the very top of your list…

The list was in no order. However if you cannot see the befits that TV’s have brought to society i am not sure what to say to you.

The prime source of human knowledge is the scientific method. This is an undisputed fact.