On the Necessity of Proving Things

[Image_of_God]

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

I ask this question because I have come to a realization that every philosophy and worldview is founded on unproven ideas. It is kind of like geometry, I think. There are theorems which are proven truths. But these theorems are based on “unproven truths” called postulates. Every belief is based on unproven ideas, even empiricism.For this reason (including others), I accept neither materialism nor empiricism to be true. Immaterial things could be just like the “unproven truths” (Christianity holds some to be revealed) mentioned previously. Just because something isn’t proven (rationally) does not mean it isn’t true.

I think that there has been an unfortunate underestimation of intuition and other things excluding the intellect in many materialist and empiricist circles. Intuition is vital to any philosophy. Things must just be known. So, if this is the case, why should the revealed truths of Christianity be thrown away? Why can’t faith and reason work together? Why does the intellect and the intuition have to be separate in our search for Truth?

 

[NowAgnostic]

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

Just for clarification, what you really mean is “to be known as true.” Empiricists and materialists would admit there are true things that aren’t proven.

I ask this question because I have come to a realization that every philosophy and worldview is founded on unproven ideas.

Yes, indeed, that’s why I am NowAgnostic.

One could try to start with the idea that things (meaning everything) must be proven rationally to be known as true and go from there. But the proposition itself that things must be proven rationally to be known as true is not proved but only assumed or believed.

One could attempt to rationally prove the proposition “things must be proven rationally to be known as true” and thus claim knowledge of it as true. But this would of course be already assuming the truth of what is supposed to be proved; namely, that rational proof → knowledge, right off the bat.

So it’s impossible to have a philosophy where everything is proven.

I think that there has been an unfortunate underestimation of intuition and other things excluding the intellect in many materialist and empiricist circles. Intuition is vital to any philosophy. Things must just be known. So, if this is the case, why should the revealed truths of Christianity be thrown away? Why can’t faith and reason work together? Why does the intellect and the intuition have to be separate in our search for Truth?

This doesn’t help you. How do you judge the rightness or wrongness of intuition, if not by the intellect? And if you use further intuition, you get stuck in an infinite regress. How to choose between this or that set of unproven assumptions to get off the ground?

But someone could tell me that I needed to use a set of assumptions even to arrive at agnosticism. So in theory, I should be agnostic about agnosticism. And then further agnostic about that agnosticism, since assumptions were made to arrive at that conclusion also.

YEEEOOWWW… wonder why more philosophers don’t commit suicide.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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

because our educational system teaches no philosophy of greater depth than a historical overview.

I ask this question because I have come to a realization that every philosophy and worldview is founded on unproven ideas. It is kind of like geometry, I think. There are theorems which are proven truths. But these theorems are based on “unproven truths” called postulates. Every belief is based on unproven ideas, even empiricism.

empiricism is a logical contradiction, but because we are not taught even rudimentary logic, few people know this and therefore demand an explanation for things that is rational in the light of empiricism.

For this reason (including others), I accept neither materialism nor empiricism to be true. Immaterial things could be just like the “unproven truths” (Christianity holds some to be revealed) mentioned previously. Just because something isn’t proven (rationally) does not mean it isn’t true

.

even here, among us who know better, we conflate what is rational with what is empirically verifiable. immaterial thinngs are as “natural” as material things. it is only that worship of the false idea of empiricism that leads us to question their existence.

I think that there has been an unfortunate underestimation of intuition and other things excluding the intellect in many materialist and empiricist circles. Intuition is vital to any philosophy. Things must just be known. So, if this is the case, why should the revealed truths of Christianity be thrown away? Why can’t faith and reason work together? Why does the intellect and the intuition have to be separate in our search for Truth?

i read piers anthony a lot as a child and i see to remember that he thought of intution as a another form of reason by which we arrive at the correct conclusion without being aware of the steps that we actually took to achieve it.

that said revelation need not be thrown away, but then for the mere existence of G-d reason alone is sufficient.

it all boils down to the lack of decent education.

 

[Michelle_in_WV]

NowAgnostic is right. It is not possible for every true statement, or for every fact to be proven. This is why in our (USA) legal system, the requirement put upon the prosecuting attorney is not to prove, absolutely, that the defendant committed the crime in question, but only to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think this standard can and should be applied to any philosophy or religious belief system: Is the proposition which is being put forward as a Truth reasonable given the evidence?

I grew up with Protestant Fundamentalist beliefs, and I turned my back on religion by the time I was 15 years old. During the following 15 years, however, I came to the conclusion that some kind of god must exist given the evidence from quantum physics that the universe (the world of matter) is not stable, and I eventually decided that this god must be the God of the Jews because He is the only god among those worshipped by man who is described as having the attributes necessary to sustain the existence of the universe.

I do not think that faith, reason, and science are separate. Socrates is supposed to have said something to the effect that if we who are mere mortals can recognize immorality in the gods, then the source of morality must be something higher than the gods. I would add to this that if we can be logical, then a god who is not logical is not fit for us to worship. I see in the God of the Jews a God who is perfectly logical, perfectly reasonable, and so He is the one whom I have chosen to worship.

Michelle

 

[tonyrey]

But someone could tell me that I needed to use a set of assumptions even to arrive at agnosticism. So in theory, I should be agnostic about agnosticism. And then further agnostic about that agnosticism, since assumptions were made to arrive at that conclusion also.

YEEEOOWWW… wonder why more philosophers don’t commit suicide.

Total agnosticism is obviously self-refuting. Any proposition presupposes the power of reason.
It is absurd to argue that we cannot know that we cannot know anything! We can believe that we cannot know anything but we cannot believe anything we cannot believe anything without contradicting ourselves!

So why do you believe you cannot know anything? Surely to believe something implies that you have a reason for that belief. If you cannot give a reason for your belief you are obviously being irrational - and your belief is valueless…

At the very least you have to believe in the power of reason - and that reality is intelligible. We don’t have to prove we are rational beings and that truth exists. And that takes us a very long way…

 

[tonyrey]

But someone could tell me that I needed to use a set of assumptions even to arrive at agnosticism. So in theory, I should be agnostic about agnosticism. And then further agnostic about that agnosticism, since assumptions were made to arrive at that conclusion also.

YEEEOOWWW… wonder why more philosophers don’t commit suicide.

Total agnosticism is obviously self-refuting. It is absurd to argue that we cannot know that we cannot know anything! We can believe that we cannot know anything but we cannot believe that we cannot believe anything without contradicting ourselves!

So why do you believe you cannot know anything? Surely to believe something implies that you have a reason for that belief. If you cannot give a reason for your belief you are being irrational - and your belief is valueless…

At the very least you have to believe in the power of reason. Otherwise there is no point in expressing your ideas. We don’t have to prove we are rational beings. We **know **at least one fact - that we can distinguish between what is true and what is false. We also know that reality is fundamentally rational. And that takes us a very long way…

 

[Image_of_God]

Just for clarification, what you really mean is “to be known as true.” Empiricists and materialists would admit there are true things that aren’t proven.

Yes, that’s what I meant.

Yes, indeed, that’s why I am NowAgnostic.

One could try to start with the idea that things (meaning everything) must be proven rationally to be known as true and go from there. But the proposition itself that things must be proven rationally to be known as true is not proved but only assumed or believed.

One could attempt to rationally prove the proposition “things must be proven rationally to be known as true” and thus claim knowledge of it as true. But this would of course be already assuming the truth of what is supposed to be proved; namely, that rational proof → knowledge, right off the bat.

So it’s impossible to have a philosophy where everything is proven.

I agree exactly.

This doesn’t help you. How do you judge the rightness or wrongness of intuition, if not by the intellect? And if you use further intuition, you get stuck in an infinite regress. How to choose between this or that set of unproven assumptions to get off the ground?

How do I know what a line is a one dimensional connection of infinitely many points? I know this intuitively, somehow in accordance with reason.

This doesn’t help me against people who doubt everything except their own thoughts. However, it does help me against people who claim that everything has to be subject to rational tests in order to be true.

But someone could tell me that I needed to use a set of assumptions even to arrive at agnosticism. So in theory, I should be agnostic about agnosticism. And then further agnostic about that agnosticism, since assumptions were made to arrive at that conclusion also.

What kind of agnostic are you? Do you believe that we cannot know anything for sure? Do you just believe that we cannot God exists?

YEEEOOWWW… wonder why more philosophers don’t commit suicide.

 

[Image_of_God]

because our educational system teaches no philosophy of greater depth than a historical overview.

empiricism is a logical contradiction, but because we are not taught even rudimentary logic, few people know this and therefore demand an explanation for things that is rational in the light of empiricism.

.

even here, among us who know better, we conflate what is rational with what is empirically verifiable. immaterial thinngs are as “natural” as material things. it is only that worship of the false idea of empiricism that leads us to question their existence.

i read piers anthony a lot as a child and i see to remember that he thought of intution as a another form of reason by which we arrive at the correct conclusion without being aware of the steps that we actually took to achieve it.

that said revelation need not be thrown away, but then for the mere existence of G-d reason alone is sufficient.

it all boils down to the lack of decent education.

The empiricism of the Enlightenment has left a very huge mark on our society. Not that that is a bad thing, within limits. But when everything has to be proven true through the use of reason and when everything else that is not proven true through reason is discarded as false, there is a great problem.

It is somewhat strange because the idea that not everything can be proven true is taken as a given in geometry.

 

[Image_of_God]

NowAgnostic is right. It is not possible for every true statement, or for every fact to be proven. This is why in our (USA) legal system, the requirement put upon the prosecuting attorney is not to prove, absolutely, that the defendant committed the crime in question, but only to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think this standard can and should be applied to any philosophy or religious belief system: Is the proposition which is being put forward as a Truth reasonable given the evidence?

I grew up with Protestant Fundamentalist beliefs, and I turned my back on religion by the time I was 15 years old. During the following 15 years, however, I came to the conclusion that some kind of god must exist given the evidence from quantum physics that the universe (the world of matter) is not stable, and I eventually decided that this god must be the God of the Jews because He is the only god among those worshipped by man who is described as having the attributes necessary to sustain the existence of the universe.

I do not think that faith, reason, and science are separate. Socrates is supposed to have said something to the effect that if we who are mere mortals can recognize immorality in the gods, then the source of morality must be something higher than the gods. I would add to this that if we can be logical, then a god who is not logical is not fit for us to worship. I see in the God of the Jews a God who is perfectly logical, perfectly reasonable, and so He is the one whom I have chosen to worship.

Michelle

The universe isn’t stable? I didn’t know this. I have found God through the order exhibited by the universe.

 

[Image_of_God]

Total agnosticism is obviously self-refuting. It is absurd to argue that we cannot know that we cannot know anything! We can believe that we cannot know anything but we cannot believe that we cannot believe anything without contradicting ourselves!

So why do you believe you cannot know anything? Surely to believe something implies that you have a reason for that belief. If you cannot give a reason for your belief you are being irrational - and your belief is valueless…

At the very least you have to believe in the power of reason. Otherwise there is no point in expressing your ideas. We don’t have to prove we are rational beings. We **know **at least one fact - that we can distinguish between what is true and what is false. We also know that reality is fundamentally rational. And that takes us a very long way…

I think you are very right tonyrey. It is absolutely necessary to make some assumptions because otherwise, there would be infinite regression. We know the assumptions we have made are true in accordance with reason. If this isn’t the case, then one would have a difficult time explaining why well ordered mathematical equations have contributed to flight, lightning rods, televisions, etc. One would have a difficult time arguing that the successful application of many equations and physical laws are all coincidences. We know they are true because there is such a reasonable unity that would be terribly foolish to deny.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The empiricism of the Enlightenment has left a very huge mark on our society. Not that that is a bad thing, within limits. But when everything has to be proven true through the use of reason and when everything else that is not proven true through reason is discarded as false, there is a great problem.

It is somewhat strange because the idea that not everything can be proven true is taken as a given in geometry.

you seem to be saying that proving things through reason is the same thing as proving them empirically. this is, emphatically, not the case. it is only the general misunderstanding of the idea of empiricism that causes this conflation.

it all lies in the acceptance of a logical contradiction, empiricism. the idea that knowledge can only be gained by the senses. the claim which itself, is not knowledge that one can gain empirically. thereby makinng a self refuting, logical contradiction the golden standard of knowledge among those that really dont have any.

now, the cry is often given that empiricism can be verified, and thereby we know its truth. but verification-falsification schemes are based on empiricism as well and are thereby self-refuting because they cannot be empirically verified themselves.

of course this all boils down to nothing but a faulty educational system, so busy pushing the utility of science, they neglect to teach philosophy, or critical thinking skills.

 

[R_Daneel]

You guys are simply killing me… you are too funny by half.

All this nonsense about the “self-contradictory” empiricism and the condescending remarks about it, and you (all of you) rely on it every second of your life. Every time you select something to eat or drink, you rely on empiricism. Every time you watch out for a car before stepping off the sidewalk, you rely on the veracity of your senses, and draw empirical conclusions about it. When you drive a car, you rely on your empirical knowledge. There is no aspect of your life where you do not depend on your empirically accumulated knowledge and make inductive conclusions based upon them.

But what makes you really hilarious is the fact that you never consider the basis of your belief - which is also “dirty” empiricism. You accept “revelation” - which is nothing but someone’s claim, that they “experienced” some aspect of God. You rely on a physical book - the Scriptures - and thus you accept empiricism. When you talk about “miracles”, you talk about the sensory data you perceive. You rely on the Church - which is a collection of physical bodies. Everything you say is dependent on some empirical consideration, either real, or assumed to be real…

Can’t you realize what a joke you are?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You guys are simply killing me… you are too funny by half.

All this nonsense about the “self-contradictory” empiricism

then please explain to me how this statement of empiricism is not violating the law of non-contradiction?

"knowledge can only be gained by the senses"

how exactly is this claim something that can be gained by the senses?

you dont seem to realize that when we point out that it is a logical contradiction, that is a serious formal problem, on the same level as a claim that 2+2=5.

and the condescending remarks about it,

wouldnt you be condescending to an idea that claimed that 2+2=5? and then continued to insist that it was true even when you know from the deductive mathematical logic, that it was not?

and you (all of you) rely on it every second of your life. Every time you select something to eat or drink, you rely on empiricism. Every time you watch out for a car before stepping off the sidewalk, you rely on the veracity of your senses, and draw empirical conclusions about it. When you drive a car, you rely on your empirical knowledge. There is no aspect of your life where you do not depend on your empirically accumulated knowledge and make inductive conclusions based upon them.

we rely on our senses. not on the claim of empiricism we are discussing.

"knowledge can only be gained by the senses"

you seem to be under the impression that we are talking about empiricism as a practice of gathering information from our senses. we are not, we are talking about a particular philosophical claim.

But what makes you really hilarious is the fact that you never consider the basis of your belief - which is also “dirty” empiricism. You accept “revelation” - which is nothing but someone’s claim, that they “experienced” some aspect of God. You rely on a physical book - the Scriptures - and thus you accept empiricism. When you talk about “miracles”, you talk about the sensory data you perceive. You rely on the Church - which is a collection of physical bodies. Everything you say is dependent on some empirical consideration, either real, or assumed to be real…

no one is talking about empirical basis’ for knowledge. rather we are talking about a specific claim

"knowledge can only be gained by the senses"

Can’t you realize what a joke you are?

2+2=5.

 

[Image_of_God]

you seem to be saying that proving things through reason is the same thing as proving them empirically. this is, emphatically, not the case. it is only the general misunderstanding of the idea of empiricism that causes this conflation.

My mistake. But rationalism (the philosophy that everything must be proven rationally) is also a problem. It also suffers from contradiction.

it all lies in the acceptance of a logical contradiction, empiricism. the idea that knowledge can only be gained by the senses. the claim which itself, is not knowledge that one can gain empirically. thereby makinng a self refuting, logical contradiction the golden standard of knowledge among those that really dont have any.

now, the cry is often given that empiricism can be verified, and thereby we know its truth. but verification-falsification schemes are based on empiricism as well and are thereby self-refuting because they cannot be empirically verified themselves.

of course this all boils down to nothing but a faulty educational system, so busy pushing the utility of science, they neglect to teach philosophy, or critical thinking skills.

Exactly.

 

[Image_of_God]

You guys are simply killing me… you are too funny by half.

All this nonsense about the “self-contradictory” empiricism and the condescending remarks about it, and you (all of you) rely on it every second of your life. Every time you select something to eat or drink, you rely on empiricism. Every time you watch out for a car before stepping off the sidewalk, you rely on the veracity of your senses, and draw empirical conclusions about it. When you drive a car, you rely on your empirical knowledge. There is no aspect of your life where you do not depend on your empirically accumulated knowledge and make inductive conclusions based upon them.

You’ve misunderstood. No one has opposed the proving of things empirically. The only thing that has been opposed is empiricism, the idea that things can *only *be true if proven empirically or as warpspeedpetey said that “knowledge can be gained only by the senses”.

But what makes you really hilarious is the fact that you never consider the basis of your belief - which is also “dirty” empiricism. You accept “revelation” - which is nothing but someone’s claim, that they “experienced” some aspect of God. You rely on a physical book - the Scriptures - and thus you accept empiricism. When you talk about “miracles”, you talk about the sensory data you perceive. You rely on the Church - which is a collection of physical bodies. Everything you say is dependent on some empirical consideration, either real, or assumed to be real…

No one has claimed that the proving of things empirically was “dirty”. All that has been claimed is that empiricism is self-contradictory. Revelation, might be someone else’s claim (that of the Most High God), but empiricism is also someone else’s claim and one that is easily refuted by reason. Revelation, on the other hand, has not been proven false, nor can it be for it does not base its claims on sensory experiences and has been vindicated by many miracles.

Can’t you realize what a joke you are?

If I am a joke in good reason, then I do not mind. For what a joy it is to be a fool for Christ, if that foolishness is truly good reason.

 

[R_Daneel]

You’ve misunderstood. No one has opposed the proving of things empirically. The only thing that has been opposed is empiricism, the idea that things can *only *be true if proven empirically or as warpspeedpetey said that “knowledge can be gained only by the senses”.

No, my friend, I did not misunderstand anything. It is you and WSP who misunderstand the requirements and the meaning of empiricism. You set up a strawman in the form of “knowledge can be gained only by the senses” - which is **NOT **what empiricism says, and then happily burn it into the ground. Well, good riddance. That is not what empiricism says. It is quite sad that such an obvious point has to be told over and over again. No matter how many times I, and many others have pointed it out, someone will come back with the same BS, and present it a “glorious argument” against empiricism.

What would you say if someone claimed that logic is self-contradictory, because the laws of logic cannot be proven logically? You would ridicule such a dumb claim. And so do I when I point out that empiricism is not supposed to be proven empirically, just like logic is not supposed to be proven logically. I hope you see the parallel, but my hopes are not high. However, maybe you will surprise me. It would be a pleasant surprise.

Materialists and empiricists gladly agree that abstract type of knowledge is not verified, proven, substantiated by sensory observation. So there you go. If you wish to take a poke at empiricism, be my guest, but at the very least **understand **what empiricism IS. Building strawmen can be fun, but it does not raise your credibility in a discussion. You only revealed your ignorance with the claim that “empiricism is the idea that things can *only *be true if proven empirically”. Obviously you are not a mathematician, otherwise you would not have said something so patently false.

No one has claimed that the proving of things empirically was “dirty”. All that has been claimed is that empiricism is self-contradictory. Revelation, might be someone else’s claim (that of the Most High God), but empiricism is also someone else’s claim and one that is easily refuted by reason. Revelation, on the other hand, has not been proven false, nor can it be for it does not base its claims on sensory experiences and has been vindicated by many miracles.

Revelation is only some other human’s claim - in which he claims that he experienced God in some fashion or another. The so-called “miracles” are also just human claims - that something actually happened according to their senses. But those claims cannot be substantiated, and as a matter of fact, the Catholic Church does not even require you to accept some other person’s claim of revelation. But all those are just human claims of a sensory (name removed by moderator)ut… nothing more. And you accept their claim, and sometimes their claim of some supporting data. All that is a kind of “sensory knowledge”.

If I am a joke in good reason, then I do not mind. For what a joy it is to be a fool for Christ, if that foolishness is truly good reason.

That is your business. But stick to it, and understand that all the revelations, miracles etc… are human claims of some sensory observation of a real or imagined event.

Remember: “Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu”. All our thoughts and ideas start with observation - though they do not end there. We create new ideas, new abstractions. People have seen horses, have seen antlers and horns, so they combine the two and come up with an imaginary animal: a unicorn. If someone claims to have seen a unicorn, you would be within your rights to demand actual, physical evidence (evidence and proof are NOT the same!) for such a claim. When such an evidence is not forthcoming, it is rational and reasonable to reject the claim (Hic Rhodos, his salta!). Mind you, it is not a “proof” that the claimant was wrong, he may have seen the result of a genetic experiment, and may have actually seen a bona-fide unicorn. But as long as the evidence is lacking, it is rational and reasonable to reject the claim.

The other incorrect (but frequently claimed) assertion is: “absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence”. It is an evidence of absence and a very strong evidence it is. The correct form would be: “absence of proof is not a proof of absence”. But then again I (and many others) have pointed that one out before - and I am willing to bet dollars to cents, that it will come back again.

 

[tonyrey]

“Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu”. All our thoughts and ideas start with observation - though they do not end there.

You are perfectly correct but not in the sense you mean!
Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in intellectu. All our thoughts and ideas start with observation of what is in our minds. We infer the existence of physical objects from our perceptions… unless of course you have privileged access to them that everyone else lacks…

 

[tonyrey]

“Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu”. All our thoughts and ideas start with observation - though they do not end there.

You are perfectly correct but not in the sense you mean!
Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in intellectu. All our thoughts and ideas start with** observation of what is in our minds**. We infer the existence of physical objects from our perceptions… unless, of course, you have privileged access to them that everyone else lacks… How did you acquire this unique form of knowledge?

 

[R_Daneel]

You are perfectly correct but not in the sense you mean!
Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in intellectu. All our thoughts and ideas start with** observation of what is in our minds**. We infer the existence of physical objects from our perceptions… unless, of course, you have privileged access to them that everyone else lacks… How did you acquire this unique form of knowledge?

Typical nonsense: the cart in front of the horse. How do you “observe” what is in your mind? Which sense do you use? You are directly aware of what your thoughts are, you do not **observe **your thoughts. We observe the external reality via our senses, and interpret those signals - either correctly, or incorrectly. If you consistently misinterpret the signals, you will die - and there goes your mind. We do not “infer” the existence of lake in a desert, we misinterpret the objective signals we perceive.

 

[tonyrey]

How do you “observe” what is in your mind? Which sense do you use? You are directly aware of what your thoughts are, you do not **observe **your thoughts. We observe the external reality via our senses, and interpret those signals - either correctly, or incorrectly. If you consistently misinterpret the signals, you will die - and there goes your mind.

1. We have direct knowledge of our thoughts, feelings and perceptions by** introspection.**
2. We do not have **direct knowledge of physical objects because we interpret **our perceptions, i.e. the “signals” we receive from our senses.
3. We do not **know **what happens to our mind when we die because we have no experience of death.
4. Our sole certainty is the fact that we are thinking, feeling, perceiving and making decisions.
5. The success of science shows that it is highly probable that physical objects exist but **our direct knowledge of ourselves **is the basis of all our knowledge.