Proof

The Autonomist ^ | March 2003 | Reginald Firehammer

[Hank Kerchief]

Here's Proof

[Support Free Republic]

PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Hank Kerchief]

PHILOSOPHY PING

(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)

[maro]

I guess the war really is all but over, since people are starting to post non-war threads. I don't know what the point of this article is. People do use "proof" in many ways, and in the weakest senses no one would deny that some things can be proved. That having been said, no one has been able to disprove Hume's point, that induction cannot be proved to be valid, but must be assumed. And it's induction that underpins all the glories of science. On the other hand, deductive proofs are all around us, but only in the realm of mathematics. In math, unlike physics, a proposition once proved almost always stays proved.

[Fzob]

bump for later

[Hank Kerchief]

I guess the war really is all but over, since people are starting to post non-war threads. I don't know what the point of this article is.

It was posted to the Philosophy threads, it only shows up here because everything is collected here once.

On the philosophy threads, the question of proof has been an issue. Since you brought up the war, I guess we have proved a few things there, wouldn't you say?

That having been said, no one has been able to disprove Hume's point, that induction cannot be proved to be valid, but must be assumed.

Hume is a classic example of logical fallacy masquerading as philosophy. If you understand the fallacy of the stolen concept, Hume's supposed philosophy is "conceptual grand theft". If you remove the "assumed" concepts from Hume's philosophy, he proved nothing at all. Hume has been utterly demolished.

(Hume's ultimate point is that you cannot know anything for certain. If that's true, how could you ever know it?)

Hank

[Feiny]

All this time I thought the proof was in the pudding!

[Hank Kerchief]

All this time I thought the proof was in the pudding!

Well, don't change your opinion now, because you are absolutely right!

Hank

[maro]

Oh. A Randista. Hence the absurdity of the article. Sorry, Hume has not been disproved. He nowhere relies on induction to mount his skeptical attack on induction.

[Lurker]

A = A.

Regards,

L

[stylin19a]

So, does the dictionary definition of proof, prove that proof is proven ?

[Hank Kerchief]

So, does the dictionary definition of proof, prove that proof is proven ?

See posts 7 & 8 and look up pudding. That should prove it.

Hank

[Zon]

As I started reading the article I realized that since around Aristotle's time that people have been living with an arrow of time that is predominantly backwards. Looking outside of oneself for confirmation. As if to stick a toe out to test the waters. Never going too far forward lest they not be able to return to solid ground of past proof.

It's the hesitancy caused by seeking external authority as a means of confirmation rather than self. The author made reference to "multiculturalism," "political correctness", "diversity" -- those are but a few that mostly highlight the backward arrow of time on a collective theme. From one individual to the next each person can have any number of self-limiting anchors to hold them back.

Perhaps a way to analogize the huge gulf -- or disconnect -- that I'm trying to explain that exists yet shouldn't exist is to simply say despite modern day intelligentsia that continues to seemingly succeed at undermining the concept of proof, that all discoveries turned into technologies and hence turned into benefits for people and society have occurred because proof has been verifiable. Analogous to the gulf or disconnect between forward arrow of time and self authority/confirmation versus backward arrow of time and external authority/self-limitation. I say self-limitation because that's what is is whether or not the person acknowledges they have a choice. Almost everyone is oblivious to such choice despite having frequently experienced it before the were six years old. Whereas, to say "external authority/confirmation" is self-defeating because to confirm external authority is at best secondary and an unnecessary filter/hindrance to achieving self-fulfillment/realization.

With a predominant forward arrow of time in mind and practice, the toe reaches out to test the water and proceeds to pull the rest forward. Only retreating back when ones own lack of self confirmation causes the person to lose equilibrium. And then only retreating as little as necessary to reground and regroup self.

As a side note, which I'm not sure where this analogy fits into the above: Interestingly, pain on skin contact can't be know whether it is hot or cold unless the eyes, nose or ears (usually the eyes) inform/prove to the person that it is a flame or ice cube.

[general_re]

Sorry, Hume has not been disproved.

Indeed. And not for lack of trying - the lack of a proof of the validity of induction has been, shall we say, a source of discomfort for philosophers ever since.

He nowhere relies on induction to mount his skeptical attack on induction.

Quite so. The pocket synopsis is that inductive reasoning is not much more than an elaborate form of petitio principii.

So, we settle for inductive proofs of the inductive principle. Oh, well - life is like that sometimes ;)

[tpaine]

From the article:

Can You Prove there is Proof?

No, no one can prove it to anyone who would ask that question.

When someone asks this kind of question, what they really mean is, "can you convince me there is proof." That kind of proof does not exist.
__________________________________


Wrong. - That kind of proof does exist:

I think, which is proof I exist.

"Can You Prove there is Proof", that if you think, - you exist?

Easily.. If I destroy ~your~ ability to think, - you cannot prove me wrong.

Which proves that when some silly ass asks this kind of question, you CAN convince them -- 'that kind of proof does exist.'

[ImaGraftedBranch]

This article is proof that philosophers have too much time on their hands, yet STILL fail to advance the human race in any meaningful way.

[Vion]

I think it is true that we cannot know anything for certain, EXCEPT this very statement. Here's why:
We directly detect our environment using only our five senses. To think that we can "prove" something 100% requires us to make the arrogant assumption that our senses are working perfectly. We have to assume that our senses give us a 100% accurate description of reality.
So far, all we can say is: "ACCORDING TO OUR SENSES, this particular statement is true." We cannot make a conclusive statement about reality unless we assume that our senses give us a PERFECT picture of reality.

[Darksheare]

"We cannot make a conclusive statement about reality unless we assume that our senses give us a PERFECT picture of reality."

Hmm.. so your senses are fooling you if you -think- you are falling when you step out of a twelfth floor window?
I'd say that is pretty real, and proves two things, gravity exists and is real, and that your sense are pretty accurate about it.

[Semper911]

I think it is true that we cannot know anything for certain

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-Benjamin Franklin

[Vion]

This really isn't difficult to follow.
How do you KNOW your senses are working perfectly? How do you KNOW it is giving you a perfect reflection of reality? The answer is: you don't.
You can't take "true reality" and "what we PERCEIVE as reality," put them next to each other, and compare them to see if they are the same. The point is, you can't CONFIRM that "perception of reality" = "true reality."