Proof is in the Eye of the Beholder

[James_S_Saint]

There are logical proofs, mathematical proofs, pathological proofs, empirical proofs, and varied combinations. Each kind of proof assumes that a reader is skilled at the proof type such that they will be affected by the proof into persuasion.

A logic proof assumes that the reader is skilled enough in logic to see the validity being presented. The mathematical proof assumes that the reader is skilled at math. The pathological proof assumes that the reader is emotionally persuaded. The empirical proof assumes that the reader is skilled at analytical observation.

But when a proof is given and the reader declares that it is invalid, how does the reader or the poster know whether the perceived invalidity is due to actual invalidity or merely that the reader is not skilled enough in that type of proof? When the reader rebuts the proof, the reader is presuming that he is indeed skilled at the type of proof being presented, just as-the poster presumes that he was skilled enough to present such a proof type.

Or in addition, perhaps the poster and the reader are skilled in the proof type, but either the poster is not skilled at expressing himself in writing, or the reader is simply not very skilled at comprehending what he reads.

How is one to determine wherein the difficulty lies?

In any of the cases of rebuttal, if the responder merely proclaims that the proof is invalid and doesn’t attempt to point to the exact detail of fallacy, he is merely being confrontational rather than constructive. Thus not giving detail in a rebuttal is clearly not helpful whether the proof is valid or not.

But even if detail is given and the original poster proclaims that the responder is wrong, what then?

Perhaps the proof poster had made an assertion and a responder proclaims, “that is subjective” then the poster replies, “no it isn’t”. Who is really at fault? Or perhaps the poster has given what he thought was a seriously moving story, but he sees a responder say, “Well, that’s just silly”?

In a political arena, any rebuttal is an attempt to persuade other readers regardless of actual truth value and a varied means of persuasion is likely to be used. This leads to a very complex situation of multiple types of proofs being simultaneously debated because the effort is not to resolve, but to bring down the opponent.

How does the poster or the responder really know who was less skilled at the art of persuasion especially if multiple modes of proof were provided?

 

[centurionguard]

Aristotle, one of the greatest philosophers, was intrigued by the debates of the Sophists. Studying their methods he compiled a complex set of “errors of logic,” which the Sophists used to confound and take advantage of others. Aristotle reduced the discussions to fundamental statements, which he called “categorical propositions” such as “The table is brown” or “The sky is clear.” Combining these seemingly simple declarations, the Sophists would create a “syllogism” or argument, e.g.
“All people who try to deceive others by uttering what they know to be false are liars.”“Any person could be such a person,” “Therefore they would be a liar.”

“Mathematically, one can think of set theory to determine whether such syllogisms must be true, may be true, may not be true, or must be false. If B is a subset of A and C is also a subset of A, does it follow that B=C? Of course not, because there is nothing to state that the two subsets B and C must be identical subsets. The Sophists (and even scientist of today) use such tricks to prove that "black is white.

"Logical proofs, mathematical proofs, pathological proofs, empirical proofs, and varied combinations strictly speaking in relation to our astronomical and earthly domain are reliant on theoretical suppositions that embrace a perceived assumption or concession made for the sake of argument based upon abstract principles.
It’s obvious that a theory is NEVER a fact, but instead is an attempt to explain one or more facts.

 

[James_S_Saint]

It’s obvious that a theory is NEVER a fact, but instead is an attempt to explain one or more facts.

Is that a fact?

Aristotle is one of my favorite philosophers and I admire his accomplishments toward harmonizing the insanity into more sanity. I wish I could have even 1/10 of his abilities.

But perhaps you have misunderstood what I was proposing in this thread. I am guessing at that because you write about logical and mathematical proof methods and effects.

The issue I was trying to address (and pls forgive for any misunderstanding), is that no matter which method is used in presentation, the inherent presumption is that a reader would naturally have the skill to follow the proposed proof, no matter which proof method was being presented.

But in addition, each reader tends to presume that they have the required skills as well. Although if language is used in such a way as to stump the reader due to his lack of education on that language, the reader often realizes that he is out of his depth. But unfortunately using such a tactic to try to limit responses leads to merely isolating the proposal from some who could have constructively contributed if they happened to have know the language or symbolism being used.

It seems to me to be an untenable situation to try to propose in a philosophical environment, a proof of anything regardless of its accuracy unless it is just so simple minded that no one really questions it. But that limits thought to only the most simple minded commonly accepted. How do you progress from there?

I can be on a math forum trying to discuss a math issue and basically be kicked out because the larger population on that forum actually understands very little about math. But then one has to ask if perhaps I am the one who misunderstands the math. Fortunately for me, I could go elsewhere and find out if I was right, but as far as that forum, the other posters can only presume what amounts to a popular vote which is the very essence of politics rather than truth.

On most forums politics rules. Politics is pathos. Logic is very limited and often misleading due to the lack of understanding of the readers. But of course, politics is even more misleading.

Aristotle addressed the issue of persuasion, but then he didn’t have single nested threaded forums and a large common mass to deal with.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The public forum’s strength is its weakness. It is terribly democratic, and it considers knowledge to be handmaiden of opinion. This is ignorance.

The Academy’s strength is its weakness. It is terribly hierarchical, which allows for profound depth of inquiry, but mistakes flattery for intelligence. Even correct proofs are rejected in the classroom, if they make a vain professor admit his error.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The public forum’s strength is its weakness. It is terribly democratic, and it considers knowledge to be handmaiden of opinion. This is ignorance.

The Academy’s strength is its weakness. It is terribly hierarchical, which allows for profound depth of inquiry, but mistakes flattery for intelligence. Even correct proofs are rejected in the classroom, if they make a vain professor admit his error.

Yeah, I couldn’t agree more.

I can figure out how to fix it. I just can’t figure out how I can fix it.