What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2013, 07:44 AM
RE: What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
(25-07-2013 04:41 AM)I and I Wrote:  Chas, Cljr, and revenentx. Are the proof police, and like most people that are so voracious for proof will deny that they operate on faith. People that demand proof of every inch of every sentence of every paragraph means that proof for them is a goal post on wheels and this demand for proof is a game to enforce already held ideas, and not out of a genuine curiosity of whether or not proof can prove something.

Example:
1. I posted several mainstream news reports of John McCain visiting rebel groups in Syria and these news reports reported that some of these leaders were known terrorists.

2. John McCain releases statements that he indeed meet with those leaders, but claims he never knew that they were terrorists.

3. The same news sources also state that the rebel leaders/ terrorists and McCain discussed logistics of support and funding in the future.

4. This was right before Obama comes out in public admitting that the U.S. is and will continue fund and arm "rebels".


None of the sources and none of the claims in the news sources were challenged or denied by cljr, yet STILL HE SAID THAT WASN'T ENOUGH EVIDENCE.

And if you ever ask someone like I asked Cljr and others before what exactly is enough evidence to change some one and you don't get an answer then you are dealing with a bullshitter that isn't concerned with evidence and operates on faith.

Sounds like you don't like this cljr guy, whoever that might be.


(also: 'how much evidence' is a question that's impossible to answer, given that one cannot quantify 'evidence')

(also: citation needed)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2013, 08:13 AM
RE: What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
(23-07-2013 03:14 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  That leads to the question, what is "proof"?

[Image: 970011_554967777900387_305203759_n.jpg]

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2013, 08:18 AM
RE: What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
(25-07-2013 07:44 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(25-07-2013 04:41 AM)I and I Wrote:  Chas, Cljr, and revenentx. Are the proof police, and like most people that are so voracious for proof will deny that they operate on faith. People that demand proof of every inch of every sentence of every paragraph means that proof for them is a goal post on wheels and this demand for proof is a game to enforce already held ideas, and not out of a genuine curiosity of whether or not proof can prove something.

Example:
1. I posted several mainstream news reports of John McCain visiting rebel groups in Syria and these news reports reported that some of these leaders were known terrorists.

2. John McCain releases statements that he indeed meet with those leaders, but claims he never knew that they were terrorists.

3. The same news sources also state that the rebel leaders/ terrorists and McCain discussed logistics of support and funding in the future.

4. This was right before Obama comes out in public admitting that the U.S. is and will continue fund and arm "rebels".


None of the sources and none of the claims in the news sources were challenged or denied by cljr, yet STILL HE SAID THAT WASN'T ENOUGH EVIDENCE.

And if you ever ask someone like I asked Cljr and others before what exactly is enough evidence to change some one and you don't get an answer then you are dealing with a bullshitter that isn't concerned with evidence and operates on faith.

Sounds like you don't like this cljr guy, whoever that might be.


(also: 'how much evidence' is a question that's impossible to answer, given that one cannot quantify 'evidence')

(also: citation needed)

That Cljr guy is a real dick - it is self-evident. Yes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2013, 08:19 AM
RE: What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
Or..

[Image: 25qvdcn.jpg]

(Fucking Chas interrupting my editing. Angry )

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2013, 09:31 AM
RE: What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
(25-07-2013 04:41 AM)I and I Wrote:  People that demand proof of every inch of every sentence of every paragraph means that proof for them is a goal post on wheels and this demand for proof is a game to enforce already held ideas, and not out of a genuine curiosity of whether or not proof can prove something.

they mean to kill evidence ever existence so they can pretend what they want, when they achieved to live well of constant inventions n lies

evidence is everywhere about anything and everything, evidence is simply any objective thing

what is objective is present and what is present is positive and what is positive is related to everything existence as one in absolute terms of objective positive fact ends
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2013, 01:41 PM
RE: What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
(25-07-2013 01:06 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Whatever the case, I think it IS evidence, no matter how weak. Worthy of serious consideration? Maybe not. Evidence? Methinks yes.

Whatever your (not Stevil per se) verdict, it is, for the purposes of this thread unimportant to define what the minimum is when considering what is evidence. The real question is, when, if ever, does something go from being evidence to being absolute proof.
I've had a good think about this and I'm now ready to unleash my inner nihilist.

We can never be 100% confident that something is evidence.
So technically we don’t have evidence, but only potential evidence.

This is similar to us not being able to be 100% of truth. We can't be 100% sure of anything.
On the one hand we have evidence (potential), on the other we have a theory.
If the theory and evidence conflict then we must do at least one of two things.
Either discard/modify the theory or discard/modify the evidence.
For example,
We have the epistles of Paul, telling us about Jesus being the one and only god.
Someone might consider this to be evidence of god.
Then we have the Hindu theory of the many Indian gods. This theory conflicts with the evidence above, thus are we to discard the theory or discard the evidence?
In my opinion this is an easy one, because the epistles of Paul are not evidence but merely a collection of stories.
In the scientific world one could consider the theory that objects of mass attract each other.
You could point to the evidence that when you let an object go it falls towards the Earth.
But then one day you let go a helium filled balloon and it travels away from the Earth even though it has mass. So either the theory or the evidence is faulty. In this case the evidence must be altered. One must consider that the air also has mass and is more massive, more dense than Helium. So we now have consistent theory and evidence.
But then Einstein points out that photons which are massless also travel towards the Earth, that they accelerate at the same rate that mass objects accelerate towards the Earth. Thus the theory is finally proven wrong, massive objects are not attracted to each other but instead they warp SpaceTime. Einstein’s theory is consistent with the evidence and replaces the old theory.
Getting back to the Pauline Epistles, they conflict with Indian scripture. Thus both cannot be valid evidence. One could be evidence, the other could be evidence, maybe neither is evidence, but both cannot be true so both cannot be considered as evidence, only potential evidence.
But again, in my opinion, neither are evidence, they both are more akin to theory/hypothesis rather than evidence. There is nothing to suggest that they are more than imaginative stories.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2013, 01:49 PM
RE: What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
HoC, for a smart guy, you sure do suck at reading (less the Gwynies ref.)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2013, 05:50 PM
RE: What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
(25-07-2013 01:49 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  HoC, for a smart guy, you sure do suck at reading (less the Gwynies ref.)

Give me something to read, I'll read it. What's to read here?

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2013, 04:05 AM
RE: What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
(25-07-2013 05:50 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(25-07-2013 01:49 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  HoC, for a smart guy, you sure do suck at reading (less the Gwynies ref.)

Give me something to read, I'll read it. What's to read here?

^What an asshole. Big Grin

I was gonna give you a less assholy reply, until I read what you said about mathematics. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2013, 07:22 AM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2013 07:34 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
(24-07-2013 07:30 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Dammit Hafnof, this is the philosophy section!

My response covers the basic philosophy of science :-)

I'd cover the mathematical approach but HOC beat me to it I think. Oh, what the heck:
1. Come up with some rules
2. Follow those roles to their natural conclusions ;-)
Mathematicians have defined specific useful rules that have far reaching implications. How do we chose the most useful rules? We put them to use and see what sticks.

As for Descartes, I follow him as far as concluding that I exist (if only as a function or a property of something else). I can't follow a line of reasoning that concludes from there that minds are necessarily body-independent. I think in general that when philosophers deal with materialism or dualism they are dealing with questions that they are not equipped to answer. Resolving these issues requires an understanding of the universe we actually found ourselves in.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: