The Burden of Proof
- Thread starter Azure_Knight
- Start date
S
Shai Gar
What true definition of proof? How do we define proof?
If we take this definition from Dictionary.com,
"1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."
then, proof establishes the validity or truth of something. Truth only exists relative to humans because as S. Kierkegaard says "Truth is subjective".
Truth is a human defined phenomenon. In the world independent of humans there is no truth and no falsehood, only indifferent objects bouncing around each other.
Therefore, proof is also subjective, and, like everything else, relative to humanity. Even if you adhere to pure logic or math, you are talking about completely abstract concepts that have no meaning, so the only thing you can absolutely prove is nothing. If you try to prove a meaningful concept, you have to do so relative to humanity.
S
Shai Gar
"evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true"
That means anything could be true. A lot of people believe in magic sky daddy just because it's in a book. It's not proof.
That means anything could be true. A lot of people believe in magic sky daddy just because it's in a book. It's not proof.
Yes, but that doesn't necessitate that proof is something that can't be challenged. I think the more appropriate question here would be: "What is Truth?"
Truth is something that operates flawlessly in accordance to a defined framework of rules and principles, such as mathematics. How that particular framework tests against the grander scheme of things is another story all together. Perhaps the only truth is a matter of perspective, hence the tip-top into the possibility of complete objectivity, omniscience.
The proof I'm offering in this particular argument is my demonstration in logic. My logic can be faulty, however; so should someone come along to try and disprove what I've posited, it doesn't nullify my proof. My proof still exists, but it can be contradicted with other evidence.
Last edited:
Math and Logic is given a false sense of importance here.
Because, that quite literally boils down to whether stating something or proving something using words, is less valuable then numbers and mathematical logic.
Tentatively, math IS important. But formal logic and numbers does not have a special importance. Just because a 'truth' is formalized, does not make it MORE true... We 'can' knowingly put more trust into it, and sometimes you will be wrong!
Math is however a wide field and some sub-fields may or may not apply here. But since I argue for it, I'm narrowing it down to truth within our universe. Excluding metaphysical debate, as that always leads to problems.
There is not such thing as an absolute truth, or a complete truth.
You always have a narrowing, you talk about something, period.
You dont talk of something as true or false add infinitum.
It is both absurd, and not required to include or argue against everything from here to the end of the universe, add infinitum -- quite the contrary!
You need relevance 'about' something.
Sometimes that is implicit and assumed, but you can still give *all* your premises if you so will. And lots of things will just be 'assumed' truths.
Something I find more interesting tho, and which relate to this is:
"The most intense experience of mathematical beauty for most mathematicians comes from actively engaging in mathematics. It is very difficult to enjoy or appreciate mathematics in a purely passive way
Because, that quite literally boils down to whether stating something or proving something using words, is less valuable then numbers and mathematical logic.
Tentatively, math IS important. But formal logic and numbers does not have a special importance. Just because a 'truth' is formalized, does not make it MORE true... We 'can' knowingly put more trust into it, and sometimes you will be wrong!
Math is however a wide field and some sub-fields may or may not apply here. But since I argue for it, I'm narrowing it down to truth within our universe. Excluding metaphysical debate, as that always leads to problems.
There is not such thing as an absolute truth, or a complete truth.
You always have a narrowing, you talk about something, period.
You dont talk of something as true or false add infinitum.
It is both absurd, and not required to include or argue against everything from here to the end of the universe, add infinitum -- quite the contrary!
You need relevance 'about' something.
Sometimes that is implicit and assumed, but you can still give *all* your premises if you so will. And lots of things will just be 'assumed' truths.
Something I find more interesting tho, and which relate to this is:
"The most intense experience of mathematical beauty for most mathematicians comes from actively engaging in mathematics. It is very difficult to enjoy or appreciate mathematics in a purely passive way