On the Necessity of Proving Things

  • Thread starter Thread starter Image_of_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We never witness historical events. We just believe what the textbooks tell us. And the people who write the textbooks base their facts off of documents assumed to be written by people who witness a particular historical event. How do we know that the person who wrote the document wasn’t lying? Well, the fact is, we don’t know for sure. There’s no way to prove that the person who wrote the document wasn’t lying. However, we believe the person to be true because of reason and intuition—because of “faith” essentially. Because of reason and intuition, we arrive at the idea that the person who wrote the document probably had nothing to gain from lying. He was probably telling the truth.
Err, no. hinckleytimes.net/news-in-hinckley/local-news/hinckley-news/2010/02/26/true-location-of-the-battle-of-bosworth-is-revealed-105367-25919874/
But if we were to follow scientific realist or empiricist ideology, then that document wouldn’t really prove anything. Why? Because we would have to experience the event with our senses in order for it to be true. In fact, that’s the *only *way it can be true. If we don’t see that event with our own eyes, if we don’t hear it with our own ears, then according to empiricist ideology, it cannot be true. And of course, we won’t be able to experience past events, because they’ve already happened, so therefore, according to empiricism, it cannot be true. But according to reason, something that has occurred in the past is always true, even if its existence has passed.
I recall science textbooks. If we were truly honest, then we would acknowledge that most people have never seen an atom. So why should they believe what scientists have said: that atoms exist and that everything is made up of them? Most people will never see one, so therefore, at least to those people, the existence of an atom is based on pure faith in testimony of scientists. Imagine if Albert Einstein tried to prove again all the mathematical theorems of the Greeks and Egyptians, the Laws of Kepler, the findings of Galileo and Newton, just so he could confirm their existence empirically (which is what empiricism/scientific realism basically demands). He wouldn’t have had much time to come up with the General Relativity Theory, would he?
This is wrong on so many levels. You clearly have no understanding of the scientific method. Have you ever read a scientific paper? LOL They don’t read ‘i carried out an experiment. I’m not going to detail it, but believe me what i say about it IS TRUE!’ hahah 😃
How is this at all different from the Bible? The Bible tells us about a God we have never seen. How do we know that the Apostles were telling truth? We didn’t see the miracles of Jesus. We weren’t there to empirically test them. Yet, we know them to be true because of reason, intuition, and most especially faith.
Just because you have never seen, heard, smelt, tasted or felt something does not mean it is not true.
Because you are fundamentally incorrect in your assessment of historical and scientific evidence.
 
not in the least.

is there a reason i havent already refuted in another post, to think otherwise?
I can’t believe we are talking about this. :crying:

Ok bill makes two claims.
  1. He claims he drank a cup of coffee with his breakfast.
  2. He claims he has magic super powers and just flew to the moon.
He may be lying about both, does that mean they are both equally as likely to of happened? ****OF COURSE NOT!!!

So yeah the moon landing may be the biggest conspiracy in the history of the human race, and 1000000s of people may be in on it just to trick me. I may be seeing things when i look through my telescope and see the ISS and the shuttle with my OWN eyes. I may be crazy and just imagine i am talking to people over my cell phone (satellites). MAYBE. However NOT very likely.

And yeah maybe there is a magic invisible man in the sky…

And maybe bill didn’t drink coffee, and maybe he did fly to the moon! Maybe, but NOT very likely.

If claim 1 has 99.99999999999999999999999% chance of being correct and claim 2 has 0.000000000000000000000000001% change of being correct. Just because there is a 0.00000000000000000000000001% change of claim 1 being wrong, does not mean claim two is as valid as claim one! And does not show double standard when someone rejects claim 2 and accepts claim one!
 
and if you have some evidence proving some historical event wrong then provide. the fact that people do somestimes lie, isnt justification to beleive that everyone does.
This is wrong on so many levels. You clearly have no understanding of the scientific method. Have you ever read a scientific paper? LOL They don’t read ‘i carried out an experiment. I’m not going to detail it, but believe me what i say about it IS TRUE!’ hahah 😃
actually that is exactly what they are saying to the general public. most people arent capable of recreating experiments themselves.
Because you are fundamentally incorrect in your assessment of historical and scientific evidence.
what is fundamentally incorrect?
 
and if you have some evidence proving some historical event wrong then provide. the fact that people do sometimes lie, isn’t justification to believe that everyone does.
And?
actually that is exactly what they are saying to the general public. most people aren’t capable of recreating experiments themselves.
Irrelevant, members of the pubic being ignorant of science does not change that fact that science is NOT based on testimony.
what is fundamentally incorrect?
His claim that accepting scientific truth is the same as accepting unsupported myth.
 
I can’t believe we are talking about this. :crying:

Ok bill makes two claims.
  1. He claims he drank a cup of coffee with his breakfast.
  2. He claims he has magic super powers and just flew to the moon.
He may be lying about both, does that mean they are both equally as likely to of happened? ****OF COURSE NOT!!!

So yeah the moon landing may be the biggest conspiracy in the history of the human race, and 1000000s of people may be in on it just to trick me. I may be seeing things when i look through my telescope and see the ISS and the shuttle with my OWN eyes. I may be crazy and just imagine i am talking to people over my cell phone (satellites). MAYBE. However NOT very likely.

And yeah maybe there is a magic invisible man in the sky…

And maybe bill didn’t drink coffee, and maybe he did fly to the moon! Maybe, but NOT very likely.

If claim 1 has 99.99999999999999999999999% chance of being correct and claim 2 has 0.000000000000000000000000001% change of being correct. Just because there is a 0.00000000000000000000000001% change of claim 1 being wrong, does not mean claim two is as valid as claim one! And does not show double standard when someone rejects claim 2 and accepts claim one!
1. I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true
2. Therefore, not-P


or, in this case.

1. i cannot imagine how the X Biblical event occured
2. therefore, X Biblical event didnt occur


its a bare logical fallacy.

simply because you do not know the process used to accomplish an event does not mean that it has a 0.000000000000000000000000001%

a caveman might have assigned this probability to lighting being a natural event. yet now we know it was natural and that any assignation of said probability was nothing more than a lack of imagination, as though the cavemans state of knowledge at the time was adequate to make such predictions. as the march of science shows, no theory is safe from further observation. Clarkes laws are entirely right.
1.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.
2.The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
**3.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. **
 
1. I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true
2. Therefore, not-P


or, in this case.

1. i cannot imagine how the X Biblical event occured
2. therefore, X Biblical event didnt occur


its a bare logical fallacy.

simply because you do not know the process used to accomplish an event does not mean that it has a 0.000000000000000000000000001%

a caveman might have assigned this probability to lighting being a natural event. yet now we know it was natural and that any assignation of said probability was nothing more than a lack of imagination, as though the cavemans state of knowledge at the time was adequate to make such predictions. as the march of science shows, no theory is safe from further observation. Clarkes laws are entirely right.
Strawman!

1 (moon landings) FULLY UNDERSTOOD, and backed up with independent, obervable, natural, testable evidence.
2 (god) for which there is no understanding and no testable evidence.

I am not saying i don’t accept it because i can’t understand how it happened. I am saying i don’t accept it because (unlike the moon landings) there is NO WAY TO VERIFY it.
 
what were they to breathe on the way?
Well oxygen of course, how did we know there was no oxygen in space? Did science predict this? Are you really trying to stick up for the position that science cannot make predictions?
 
in other words, there is no reason to reject a claim simply because it might be the result of a conspiracy, or hoax. you need evidence. of such a thing.
Irrelevant, members of the pubic being ignorant of science does not change that fact that science is NOT based on testimony.
the claims of science are based on testimony. to everyone but the people involved in the experiments themselves. which is what we are talking about.

if you didnt witness an event, you must trust testimony of someone else. its just a bare fact.
His claim that accepting scientific truth is the same as accepting unsupported myth.
there is no such thing as “scientific truth”. every theory is subject to just one observation that invalidates the results. you cant get around this. you have no way of knowing that any theory now held as “true” really is, and the historical precedent is that they are not.

your position is invalidated by the history of scientific progress itself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

Physics
Emission theory of vision – discredited by Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen)
Aristotelian theory of gravity – discredited by Muhammad ibn Musa, al-Biruni, al-Baghdadi and Galileo Galilei
Aristotelian physics – discredited by Alhacen, al-Biruni, Avicenna, Avempace, al-Baghdadi, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton
Luminiferous aether – failed to be detected by the sufficiently sensitive Michelson-Morley experiment, made obsolete by Einstein’s work.
Caloric theory – Lavoisier’s successor to phlogiston, discredited by Rumford’s and Joule’s work
Vis viva – Gottfried Leibniz’s elementary and limited early formulation of the principle of conservation of energy
“Purely electrostatic” theories of the generation of voltage differences.
Emitter theory – another now-obsolete theory of light propagation.
Progression of atomic theory
Plum pudding model of the atom – assuming the protons and electrons were mixed together in a single mass
Rutherford model of the atom with an impenetrable nucleus orbitted by electrons.
Bohr model with quantized orbits
Electron cloud model following the invention of Quantum Mechanics in 1925 and the eventual atomic orbital models derived from the quantum mechanical solution to the hydrogen atom.
All of classical physics, while useful in practice, is in principle superseded by relativistic physics and quantum physics, to which classical physics is often a close approximation.
[edit] Astronomy and cosmology
Ptolemaic system – obsoleted by Ibn al-Shatir and Copernicus
Geocentric universe – obsoleted by Copernicus and Galileo
Copernican system – obsoleted by Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton
Newtonian gravity – superseded by general relativity, to which it is an excellent approximation unless the masses involved are very large or the distances very small. The Perihelion precession of Mercury was the first experimental evidence against Newtonian gravity; it also fails to describe black holes correctly.
Ether theory
Steady State Theory was a model developed by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle of an expanding universe that had no beginning. It was once a competitor of the Big Bang model until the Big Bang was confirmed as the preferred model after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background.
 
I can’t believe we are talking about this. :crying:

Ok bill makes two claims.
  1. He claims he drank a cup of coffee with his breakfast.
  2. He claims he has magic super powers and just flew to the moon.
He may be lying about both, does that mean they are both equally as likely to of happened? ****OF COURSE NOT!!!

So yeah the moon landing may be the biggest conspiracy in the history of the human race, and 1000000s of people may be in on it just to trick me. I may be seeing things when i look through my telescope and see the ISS and the shuttle with my OWN eyes. I may be crazy and just imagine i am talking to people over my cell phone (satellites). MAYBE. However NOT very likely.

And yeah maybe there is a magic invisible man in the sky…

And maybe bill didn’t drink coffee, and maybe he did fly to the moon! Maybe, but NOT very likely.
The question Warpspeedpetey is dealing with is not whether miracles are likely or unlikely–simply because we already know miracles are allegedly unlikely…duh! That’s how a miracle is defined: an apparently very unlikely event. So this isn’t the question. The question is whether the evidence that an alleged miracle did occur is sufficient to counter the evidence that it did not occur–and how this is supposed to be determined.
If claim 1 has 99.99999999999999999999999% chance of being correct and claim 2 has 0.000000000000000000000000001% change of being correct. Just because there is a 0.00000000000000000000000001% change of claim 1 being wrong, does not mean claim two is as valid as claim one! And does not show double standard when someone rejects claim 2 and accepts claim one!
Hahahaha! I love this one. 😃 Let’s just invent our own probability assignments to refute our neighbors argument, shall we?

A: “Your claims are very unlikely.”
B: “How do you know”?
A: "Because they have 0.0000000000000000001% chance of being true.
B: “How do you know that”?
A. "Because they are incredibly inlikely.

Just for the record, none of this is Kosher: (1) “Claims” are not valid or invalid, they are either true or false. (2) Only deductive arguments are valid or invalid. (3) Our reasons for believing a claim are either justified or unjustified. (4) And your own argument, here, just begs the question.
 
in other words, there is no reason to reject a claim simply because it might be the result of a conspiracy, or hoax. you need evidence. of such a thing.

the claims of science are based on testimony. to everyone but the people involved in the experiments themselves. which is what we are talking about.

if you didnt witness an event, you must trust testimony of someone else. its just a bare fact.

there is no such thing as “scientific truth”. every theory is subject to just one observation that invalidates the results. you cant get around this. you have no way of knowing that any theory now held as “true” really is, and the historical precedent is that they are not.

your position is invalidated by the history of scientific progress itself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

Physics
Emission theory of vision – discredited by Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen)
Aristotelian theory of gravity – discredited by Muhammad ibn Musa, al-Biruni, al-Baghdadi and Galileo Galilei
Aristotelian physics – discredited by Alhacen, al-Biruni, Avicenna, Avempace, al-Baghdadi, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton
Luminiferous aether – failed to be detected by the sufficiently sensitive Michelson-Morley experiment, made obsolete by Einstein’s work.
Caloric theory – Lavoisier’s successor to phlogiston, discredited by Rumford’s and Joule’s work
Vis viva – Gottfried Leibniz’s elementary and limited early formulation of the principle of conservation of energy
“Purely electrostatic” theories of the generation of voltage differences.
Emitter theory – another now-obsolete theory of light propagation.
Progression of atomic theory
Plum pudding model of the atom – assuming the protons and electrons were mixed together in a single mass
Rutherford model of the atom with an impenetrable nucleus orbitted by electrons.
Bohr model with quantized orbits
Electron cloud model following the invention of Quantum Mechanics in 1925 and the eventual atomic orbital models derived from the quantum mechanical solution to the hydrogen atom.
All of classical physics, while useful in practice, is in principle superseded by relativistic physics and quantum physics, to which classical physics is often a close approximation.
[edit] Astronomy and cosmology
Ptolemaic system – obsoleted by Ibn al-Shatir and Copernicus
Geocentric universe – obsoleted by Copernicus and Galileo
Copernican system – obsoleted by Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton
Newtonian gravity – superseded by general relativity, to which it is an excellent approximation unless the masses involved are very large or the distances very small. The Perihelion precession of Mercury was the first experimental evidence against Newtonian gravity; it also fails to describe black holes correctly.
Ether theory
Steady State Theory was a model developed by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle of an expanding universe that had no beginning. It was once a competitor of the Big Bang model until the Big Bang was confirmed as the preferred model after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background.
it seems that what is postulated and accepted today as science or philosophy,as in the past, will be torn down and rejected tomorrow.Since the Big Bang has been rejected it seems we are back to the Steady State as always having been - btw I have a book in my possession postulating the steady state before Bondi,Gold and Hoyle - twinc
 
Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey
  1. I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true
  2. Therefore, not-P
or, in this case.
  1. i cannot imagine how the X Biblical event occured
  2. therefore, X Biblical event didnt occur
its a bare logical fallacy.

simply because you do not know the process used to accomplish an event does not mean that it has a 0.000000000000000000000000001%

a caveman might have assigned this probability to lighting being a natural event. yet now we know it was natural and that any assignation of said probability was nothing more than a lack of imagination, as though the cavemans state of knowledge at the time was adequate to make such predictions. as the march of science shows, no theory is safe from further observation. Clarkes laws are entirely right.
Strawman!
This isn’t a straw man. Warpspeed is absolutely correct. Our probability assignments are direct functions of our ignorance, of what we know and *do not *know. And since there are always an infinite number of possible ways in which an event could have turned out otherwise before we observe it, any empirical probability frequencies derived from past observations used to predict future states of affairs are going to be exceedingly low.
1 (moon landings) FULLY UNDERSTOOD, and backed up with independent, obervable, natural, testable evidence.
2 (god) for which there is no understanding and no testable evidence.

I am not saying i don’t accept it because i can’t understand how it happened. I am saying i don’t accept it because (unlike the moon landings) there is NO WAY TO VERIFY it.
There is no way to verify the Big Bang happened either. So by the same token, you should drop your belief that the Big Bang ever happened. The theory is in principle UNVERIFIABLE.
 
NO WAY TO VERIFY it.
thats even better than my point, because its an outright logical contradiction. instead of just a fallacy.

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
you cant verify the moonlanding happened unless you trust the testimony of the people involved, it could all be fake.

yet you still believe that it is real. while denying the Biblical events are on a basis that we have shown to be logical contradictions and fallacies.

this is a double standard of evidence. things you want to be true have one standard, while things you dont want to be true have another standard. all the gyrations away from this double standard are logical fallacies and contradictions.

just using another logical contradiction as a basis for rejection doesnt move the ball.
 
A: “Your claims are very unlikely.”
B: “How do you know”?
A: "Because they have 0.0000000000000000001% chance of being true.
B: “How do you know that”?
A. "Because they are incredibly inlikely.
ok, no matter what side of the arguement we are on, this one is funny. everybody take a moment to smile. 😛
 
it seems that what is postulated and accepted today as science or philosophy,as in the past, will be torn down and rejected tomorrow.
dead right, now if we can only get everyone to agree to this emminently reasonable proposition.
 
Well oxygen of course, how did we know there was no oxygen in space? Did science predict this? Are you really trying to stick up for the position that science cannot make predictions?
not in the least, rather those predictions dont mean anything in the context of the conversation. it doesnt move the ball in regard to the logical contradiction of verification systems.
 
yet you still believe that it is real. while denying the Biblical events are on a basis that we have shown to be logical contradictions and fallacies.

this is a **double standard of evidence. things you want to be true have one standard, while things you dont want to be true have another standard. **all the gyrations away from this double standard are logical fallacies and contradictions.
Quite right! The double standard is shown in the two following scenarios:

A: Miracle X is incredibly unlikely.
B: How do you know; have you observed this?
A: No. But it has a 0.000000001% chance of being true.
B: But how do you know this?
A: Because I’ve never observed miracle X.

(1) All claims need evidence to support.
(2) I do not have evidence for my belief that miracle X did not occur.
(3) Therefore, I do not have support for my belief that miracle X did not occur.

(1) is inconsistent with assigning probabilities for events you do NOT observe above.
 
Quite right! The double standard is shown in the two following scenarios:

A: Miracle X is incredibly unlikely.
B: How do you know; have you observed this?
A: No. But it has a 0.000000001% chance of being true.
B: But how do you know this?
A: Because I’ve never observed miracle X.

(1) All claims need evidence to support.
(2) I do not have evidence for my belief that miracle X did not occur.
(3) Therefore, I do not have support for my belief that miracle X did not occur.

(1) is inconsistent with assigning probabilities for events you do NOT observe above.
i really hate it when non-mathematicians use math. 😛
 
in other words, there is no reason to reject a claim simply because it might be the result of a conspiracy, or hoax. you need evidence. of such a thing.
No, in other words claims stand on there own merits. The fact that there is infinitely small chance that the moon landings did not occur, does not add weight to the unsupported claims of the bible.

Claim A - Supported by empirical evidence
Claim B - NOT SUPPORTED by empirical evidence.

Can you really not see the difference? :eek:
the claims of science are based on testimony. to everyone but the people involved in the experiments themselves. which is what we are talking about.
if you didnt witness an event, you must trust testimony of someone else. its just a bare fact.
NO THEY ARE NOT, honestly go research the methods because this is bordering on the absurd and an utter waste of my time.
there is no such thing as “scientific truth”. every theory is subject to just one observation that invalidates the results. you cant get around this. you have no way of knowing that any theory now held as “true” really is, and the historical precedent is that they are not.
your position is invalidated by the history of scientific progress itself.
Oh semantics, given that you have no understanding of the scientific method (shown by the fact you think science = testimony) i clearly do not need a lecture on science from you.

I’m sure you knew fine well what i meant by “scientific truth”. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top