What is a proof?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2014, 10:12 AM
RE: What is a proof?
[Image: islam-peace-poster.jpg]

"If there's a single thing that life teaches us, it's that wishing doesn't make it so." - Lev Grossman
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Nurse's post
24-08-2014, 11:56 AM
RE: What is a proof?
(20-08-2014 02:24 AM)Muslim Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 11:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your understanding of the methods of science appear to be flawed.
this thread is not a debate about my views!
Why do you think it is wrong?

Science
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3][4] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied.

Note the words "About the universe", science is only about observations
Sci-fiction is about imaginations
Hallucination is about non-sense

Are you into drugs Big Grin

Science is NOT only about observations, clearly you have never studies philosophy of science. Yes there are SOME views of science which are limited to observation only call it empirically descriptive science such as Hume or Mach or some of the positivists who deny or limit any metaphysics.
HOWEVER many philosophies of science DO NOT limit science to only description !
Eg science can be used to provide rational explanatory power - far more encompassing than merely descriptive.
Thats how you can tell the difference between a beautiful painting as art and a powerful scientific explanatory theory
EG: See David Deutsch presentation - I recommend this to ALL people on this blog not just muslim. It will only take 18mins.
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_...xplanation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=folTvNDL08A




The examples David Deutsch gives are brilliant and the goal most importantly for this topic is science IS NOT just about DESCRIPTION but also RATIONAL EXPLANATION. This is so important because it will end the some of the nonsense in this thread.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 11:59 AM
RE: What is a proof?
(20-08-2014 01:33 AM)Muslim Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 07:10 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  It is when you set up a system with standards and control groups and independent peer review. Quality control. You plug a claim into the established formula, test it with control groups, take your findings, hand them over to others in your field who have no horse in the race and see if they come up with the same data. If they do, you are onto something, if they don't, then you rethink your claim and set up and data.

Scientific method is not a person, it is a system. When used properly it is a way to filter out personal bias and settle competing claims. Ethical scientists love to be proven wrong and do not look at is bad to be wrong, they look at it as a learning experience.
Science doesn't prove facts, it observes what is happening then gives a level of confidence about generalizing it.
Even if science proves something, it can turn to be not general in the future
(e.g. Newton laws of motions)
that's why logical proofs are much stronger than scientific proofs, but unfortunately we cannot prove everything with just logic.

Do you accept scientific or statistical outcomes as a proof?
In other words; if God is most likely, will you accept him?


Quote:Proof that god claims exists only means humans claim them. Proof that religion exists only proves people like them. They do not have the same universal testing and quality control scientific method does. Religion and god belief simply amounts to "It feels good, other people like it, my false perceptions allow me to swallow it".

Religion and god belief will never hold a candle to the knowledge scientific method has given humanity.
those are assertions, do you have any basis for that?

If God is more likely I would definitely accept Him. I did for 10 years.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: What is a proof?
(20-08-2014 02:27 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-08-2014 01:33 AM)Muslim Wrote:  Science doesn't prove facts, it observes what is happening then gives a level of confidence about generalizing it.
Even if science proves something, it can turn to be not general in the future
(e.g. Newton laws of motions)
that's why logical proofs are much stronger than scientific proofs, but unfortunately we cannot prove everything with just logic.

Thanks for showing that, even after having what the scientific method is explained to you, you ignore that in favor of parroting your ignorant bullshit. But no, how about you keep telling us what your iman tells you science is, instead of listening to what scientist's actually say science is. Facepalm

Also, Newton's Laws of Motion are still entirely accurate within their limits. They break down at the extreme scales of speed and size (requiring relativity and quantum mechanics respectively), but they're so reliable and accurate that we were able to predict to within a second the moment the Voyager space probe left our solar system decades after it was launched from Earth.

(20-08-2014 01:33 AM)Muslim Wrote:  Do you accept scientific or statistical outcomes as a proof?
In other words; if God is most likely, will you accept him?

No, because arguments are not evidence. But if you want a statistical analysis of the probability of a god, Dr. Richard Carrier has already used Baye's Theorem and beat you to the punch. I don't imagine you'll like the statistical probability of god.







(20-08-2014 01:33 AM)Muslim Wrote:  those are assertions, do you have any basis for that?

Disease is caused by pathogens, not demonic possession.

The Earth revolves around the Sun, and is not at the center of the Universe.

The Earth is not flat, support upon 4 pillars and covered by a solid firmament to keep out the 'waters above'.

The Universe is billions of years old.

Life was not created, it has evolved over millions upon millions of years.

Intercessory prayer has no noticeable effect in the real world.

Pi is not a round number.



These were just off the top of my head, but I can go on if you really want me to dig you a deeper ditch to lie in. Drinking Beverage

Thanks Evolution - thats a brilliant post and I was going to go down the Baye's Theorem route too.
Personally I accept the methodology of Baye's theorum as a starting point to get confidence in the scientific method. Start off with some pragmatism that science works and is statistically very likely the best method we have for finding truth.

Then: I go down the rationalist explanatory route such as my post on David Deutsch or "Nature's Metaphysics: Laws and Properties by Alexander Bird" i.e a naturalistic metaphysics of scientific ontic realism or essentialism. We can quibble and discuss the details of the naturalistic metaphysics - but at the end of the day the pragmatism justified by methodological naturalism is always in the background justifying the scientific method. As the philosophical, scientific & mathematical explanation gets more abstract things can get tricky - but that is not a limitation which disproves science. (it just means we are being cautious & skeptical of any hypothesis not justified by evidence such as string theory which may not have empirical evidence available - doesn't mean a God pops into existence)

I DO NOT start with assuming naturalistic explanatory metaphysics but conclude with it - that is a very important distinction. It also still leaves room for the supernatural or God belief should it turn up.
i.e whilst I am a philosophical scientific realist, combining both empiricism & rationalism I have a skeptical attitude of fallibism & curiosity - I could be proven wrong.

Muslim, hope you are listening or reading the above VERY carefully. Its has deep insights into a brilliant working philosophy - far better than any Quran.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Baruch's post
24-08-2014, 12:39 PM
RE: What is a proof?
(22-08-2014 06:16 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 04:13 AM)Muslim Wrote:  Absolutely, need to formalize that

Wrong.

There is some suggestion that binary logic can be performed using dendritic trees, but if so then it is just one small aspect of how the brain works.

For example, logic certainly does not adequately describe the function of neurochemicals in the brain, habituation, long term potentiation / depression, Hebbian learning or synaptic drift. These are gradual and continual processes better described using an alternative language to logic such as continuous equations.

Nor is logic useful in describing the higher functions of the brain such as temporal sequence learning, arbitration between exploration / exploitation, pattern matching, competition, memory etc.

Not necessarily true Matilda - logic may describe all the above but we are just limited by the complexity eg there is research now mapping how memory & pattern matching occur using logical methodologies & understanding.
In fact there is no other way other than using logic. However with extremely complex phenomena we sometimes approximate or use statistical averages rather than working out the entire logical sequences - saves time and actually unnecessary in some cases. Eg I dont need to know the quantum effects when designing a ship but do need to know hydraulics & classical physics and this does the Job well. The classical physics may be approximate and not follow some absolute logic - but its just fine for our needs. However just because you dont know all the theoretical logic it does not mean "no logic" exists.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 12:47 PM
RE: What is a proof?
(24-08-2014 07:30 AM)Muslim Wrote:  
(23-08-2014 01:30 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Why do senior Muslim clerics believe that someone should be beheaded who decides that they don't want to be a Muslim after using the intelligence, logic and types of proof given to them by the all merciful, all compassionate Allah?
It is the same like removing a tumor from your brain if it is going to affect vital organs!

As Islam is the true religion
Rejecting God after knowing him, is the biggest crime you can make
so you will be punished by death (Like most countries punish on great treason)
another reason is that you can affect other people, so it is better to eliminate him before bringing more people to hell

Maybe you don't like the answer,
But if you assume that Islam is the right religion, then it makes sense
because the probability of more people going to hell is actually reduced by this killing, which is good


So I rejected God after knowing Him and if I meet you - I guess you might behead me to spare me from Hell ?
...and my crime was using intelligence, logic, evidence & reason.


mmmmmm.....so it is a religion of piece. Pieces of My HEAD & BODY !!!

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 01:28 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2014 04:44 PM by Baruch.)
RE: What is a proof?
Quote:Muslim: because God created laws that govern the universe

Firstly the Kalam consmological arguments fail - the Kalam has been discussed extensively & refuted in other threads. So without the cosmological argument even getting you started you cannot go to "God created the laws that govern the universe"

Secondly: If these "laws" that created the universe are based on logic as you describe it then the laws of logic would be eternal & not created. So God cannot "create" logic - that is incoherent.
See my two posts to Diddo on the Euthyphro dilemma applied to logic - specifically to the law of contradiction & identity.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...sm?page=32
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...sm?page=33

Thirdly: If you accept some type of "logical realism" i.e laws of logic are eternal or necessarily true - then you cannot believe in the Quran which believes in Ex-Nihilo creation (which is illogical & incoherent).
At best you will either end up with some type of theistic Platonism, Spinosism (Pantheism) or an atheism which believes existence is eternal (whatever forms it takes)
NOT all atheists believe in an eternal existence eg some mathematical & logical non-realists will not agree (probably Mathilda based on what I read if logic is just a descriptive representation)

Fourthly: The "laws of governing the universe" are not "imposed" on the universe like some director giving instructions. ("Law" is a metaphor)
If you understood philosophy of science on this topic you would have come across metaphysics within science such as power structuralism, essentialism or ontic realism - I will try and avoid too much jargon.
There is a long history to this topic from Aristotle, to Spinoza and philosophers like Alexander Bird & David Deutsch today. These systems dont "describe" laws which govern the universe by some external agent but essential properties or "powers" intrinsic to the patterns of interaction within reality/universe.
Eg there is no external agent telling H & O to make H2O and "this is the law" but intrinsic properties withing the patterns of space-time which under the right conditions make H2O from O and H. (same with all "laws" of nature)

....and if you so strongly believe in logic then the metaphysics I am describing is extremely powerful precisely because it relies on the laws of identity and contradiction as fundamental axioms. This is why Aristotle is credited for some of the insights I am describing - not because Aristotle has the correct descriptive science - some of it was definitely wrong, but because he developed one of the best logical systems to describe nature & causality. Since Aristotle this has been refined, and there are areas were he had limitations (eg the teleological causation ideas are discredited)

Also - what I am describing is not some speculative hypothesis or dependent on some private revelation - but a brilliant analysis combining the best from empirical science and the rational philosophies for explanatory power, pragmatic success, logical coherence and a well grounded foundationalism.


.......and what does the Quran have ?

Incoherence.(there are contradictions, creation Ex-Nihilo for one)
No Foundation. (well, flimsy foundation as we are supposed to believe whatever Mohammed said)
No Explanatory power.(God did it ! - that's not explanatory power, for real explanatory power see the lecture by David Deutsch)
No Empirical Evidence.(well, extremely limited here say)
No Rational or logical Evidence. (at best weak and speculative)

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Baruch's post
24-08-2014, 01:53 PM
RE: What is a proof?
(19-08-2014 07:01 AM)Muslim Wrote:  This is an educational thread where we read, link and discuss acceptable theories and concepts regarding Logic, Proofs and science

What is intelligence?
What is logic?
What are the types of proofs?
Scientific Vs. Logical proofs

For God? It would be "God" itself, not mere "signs" it was here.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 02:20 PM
RE: What is a proof?
I haven't read the entire post so it may have been said here already.
I've also heard others say this here before.
If god is all he is claimed to be by his followers, then he should know exactly what I would need know to be convinced of his existence.

All this other stuff about the correct interpretations of books, and the correct definitions of words is just misdirection to avoid the FACT that there is no proof of any god ever existing anywhere at any time.

You have a personal relationship with god that can't be explained but you can feel it? Bullshit.
You're just afraid to die like every other person on the planet, you make up fairy tales to make yourself feel better about it.
Because you want something to be true does not make it so. Because everything can't be explained yet does not mean it was god that did it.
These beliefs are childish and forcing them on young children is cruel.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 02:51 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2014 05:36 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What is a proof?
Quote:Muslim: because God created laws that govern the universe

Is a meaningless statement.
Without explanation, it assumes the principles/dimensions of Causality, and spacetime, (among other things), already in place, of necessity. It imputes to what would have to have been, apart from the universe, principles which Muzzy Wuzzy assumes to be operant inside it, and (without explanation) applies them to a situation which is in no way similar.
It's invalid. The premises are unexamined, and assumed, for no legitimate reason.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: