Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

L&FP, 47: The challenge of “proof” in a world of radical doubt and hyperskepticism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

“Prove it . . .” is a familiar challenge, one, often strengthened to “unless you prove it I can disregard what you claim.” However, ever since Epictetus, c. 100 AD, it has met its match:

Epictetus c 50 – 135 AD

DISCOURSES
CHAPTER XXV

How is logic necessary?

When someone in [Epictetus’] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. Cf J. C. Wright]

Lesson one, there are unproven antecedents of proof, including the first principles of right reason, here especially laws of logic. In this case, if one tries to prove, one is already using them and if one tries to object one cannot but use them, so we sensibly accept them as self-evident, pervasive first principles.

As there are always those who need it, pardon a diagram that abstracts from a bright red ball A on a table, to help us recognise the first cluster of such principles:

Okay, okay, here is my actual example of a ball on the table:

And, here is one in the sky, for good measure, Betelgeuse, as it dimmed in 2019 . . . identity with change:

In for a penny, in for a pound. Let me suggest a partial but useful list of such principles of logic and wider right reason . . . and yes, this chart marks a stage in my understanding of Cicero’s point:

This is already a big hint on our limitations in reasoning. We may now bring to bear in effect the Agrippa trilemma, to see how chains of proof and wider warrant confront us with a triple challenge, leading to having to — usually, implicitly — accept finitely remote first plausibles:

A summary of why we end up with foundations for our worldviews, whether or not we would phrase the matter that way}

We are already duly humbled.

It gets “worse.”

For, “proof” itself is a slippery concept. The very model is of course Euclidean Geometry, with its complex system of theorems — derived from, uh, ah, um, first claims, i.e. axioms. Which, in this case, were subjected to a huge debate and now Mathematical systems are often viewed as logic-game worlds constructed from frameworks of axioms we find interesting and/or useful.

Then, came Godel, and SEP is helpful:

Gödel’s two incompleteness theorems are among the most important results in modern logic, and have deep implications for various issues. They concern the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories. The first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F. According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent (assuming it is indeed consistent). These results have had a great impact on the philosophy of mathematics and logic . . .

Proof, in the sense, accessibility from some reasonable, finite cluster of axioms, for systems of reasonable complexity, is thus different from truth. Truth, accurate description of states of affairs. (And BTW, practical axiomatisations typically are built to be compatible with recognised facts, some of which may be self-evident like || + ||| –> |||||.)

Already, we are in trouble. It gets deeper once we come to Science. As in, follow the Science, Science has proved etc. Next to me is a gift [thanks Aunt X], “Proving Einstein right.” Only, science is incapable of such strong-sense proof. We may empirically support theories as explanations through empirical evidence, but at most we can say our theories are plausible and may prove — test out — to be at least partly true but are subject to the limits of inductive thinking. That is, we face the pessimistic induction, that our explanations that seemed ever so plausible have historically consistently been sharply limited or outright wrong often enough to give us pause.

We already saw a weaker sense of to prove, to test with some rigor. Bullet proof, means, tested and found credibly resistant to certain specified standard projectiles.

So, by extension scientific proofs can be reinterpreted to mean that science is a case of weak-sense knowledge: tested, warranted, credibly . . . or plausibly, or even possibly . . . true [so, reliable] belief.

It gets worse, welcome to . . . tada . . . RHETORICAL proof. Pisteis, as in:

Richard Nordquist

Updated July 30, 2019

In classical rhetoric, pistis can mean proof, belief, or state of mind.

Pisteis (in the sense of means of persuasion) are classified by Aristotle into two categories: artless proofs ( pisteis atechnoi), that is, those that are not provided by the speaker but are pre-existing, and artistic proofs ( pisteis entechnoi), that is, those that are created by the speaker.”
A Companion to Greek Rhetoric, 2010

Etymology: From the Greek, “faith”

Yes, pisteis comes from pistis, for faith, confident (and hopefully well supported) trust. Which brings up Aristotle’s three main appeals of “artistic” proof, pathos, ethos, logos. Roughly, force of emotions, force of credibility [to bring trust], force of facts and logic. Our emotions have a cognitive aspect and so we can asses the quality of judgements and expectations. Authorities, experts or even witnesses carry credibility to varying degrees but are no better than underlying facts, assumptions, reasoning. So, in the end it is to facts logic and associated assumptions that we must go. And, lo, behold, the result: reasonable, responsible faith.

Our humbling is now complete. We cannot but live by faith, the issue is, which faith, why. Where, hyperskepticism is now exposed as smuggling a certain unquestioned faith in the back door.

This brings us full circle to common sense principles, that we should heed Locke: roughly, we should accept that it is better to walk by the limited and perhaps flickering candle-light we have, than to demand full light of day and snuff out the candle, leaving us in the dark.

Coming back to a recent diagram, here we are, as credibly embodied, error prone but knowing creatures sharing a common world:

Reason, warrant and truth are not fully captured in the net we call proof. Where, too, proof itself is not as firm as we may naively imagine. Let us therefore seek prudence. END

Comments
WJM, enough has been said on a tangent to an article on strengths and limitations of proof. One is free to construct his or her own worldview but others are also free to find where it has become self-referentially incoherent. If you struggle with basic first facts such as our living bodies, that speaks decisively and not in your favour. And yes, there is a micro structure to such bodies, that does not mean that the sheer macro-fact of our bodies goes poof. KFkairosfocus
August 2, 2021
August
08
Aug
2
02
2021
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
WJM, neither does a turnabout projection. If you cannot acknowledge even the manifest fact that our language reflects the overwhelming acceptance of the first facts of consciousness that we are living bodies, that is itself a statement. KF
I didn't say we weren't living bodies. I said that what we think that means has been show to be erroneous by science. Was the intent of the definition meant to mean what the definition means under your interpretation? My answer is: what difference does that make to the conceptual aspect of this debate? Saying that the intended meaning of the words we use in our debate supports your perspective is entirely irrelevant to the debate. If you were remotely interested in an honest debate, you would not insist that when I say X, I "must" use it the same way you use it, and I must mean what you mean when you use it. In an honest debate, where you are actually trying to understand a different perspective and evaluate and criticize it on its own terms, you would ask me what I mean when I use those terms. You would try to understand what I mean. Just as I tried to do when you attempted to help me understand your use of the term "duty." Yes, language inevitably is constructed from a worldview and it also reinforces that worldview as we use it, because it guides how we think about things in very deep and subtle ways, as well as in more overt ways. Quantum physics evidence challenges some of the basic ways we organize and use language because the evidence shows that much of how we thought about our existence, that our experience was the product of discrete, factual characteristics of things outside of our experience, is in error. Thus, if you insist on using meanings that were built on the old, discredited worldview, there's simply no way to understand the different perspective necessitated by the evidence. You can insist on calling what a photon or electron represents as either a particle or an energetic wave; but that is not what is going on. You can keep insisting that some factual, discrete, in-and-of-itself characteristics and states exist independent of any experience; but that is not what the evidence shows. Is the experience of physicality and embodiment a fact? Certainly, but it cannot mean what you interpret it to mean because that has been disproved by the evidence. Your common sense, "manifest" fact of what embodiment and physicality "mean" has been scientifically disproved. Have you not been reading what BA77 has been posting for many, many months now? So the question is, what does the experiential fact of physicality and embodiment mean in light of this evidence? That's what IRT tries to address, but here you are quibbling about what words "commonly" mean. That's the very thing that the evidence shows is in error, KF. Would you rather we just start inventing new words, a new language based on the IRT perspective?William J Murray
July 30, 2021
July
07
Jul
30
30
2021
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
WJM, neither does a turnabout projection. If you cannot acknowledge even the manifest fact that our language reflects the overwhelming acceptance of the first facts of consciousness that we are living bodies, that is itself a statement. KFkairosfocus
July 30, 2021
July
07
Jul
30
30
2021
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
WJM, your denial does not change the manifest facts in the definition.
Your interpretation does not represent anything manifest in the definition. However, it is clear you are unable to distinguish an interpretation of a fact from the fact itself.
We both know that the consensus, common sense view based on first experience of consciousness is that we are living bodies, which is reflected in day to day language.
Sigh. I never said otherwise. What I have said repeatedly is that the "common sense" interpretation of what that means has been conclusively disproved by science.
There is a debate onward as to whether we are reducible to bodies and constituents, but that is resolved on the challenge of freedom required to reason vs GIGO limited computational substrates.
Nope. The challenge I present is before that, and presents a different interpretation as per current evidence that resides above the level you want to begin at. Until you understand that perspective, your insistence that it does not provide for rational thought is necessarily made out of ignorance.
What you are trying to do is to demand a default that does not belong to you,
I'm showing where the default necessarily exists, and that it is above your particular interpretation. You don't get your interpretation by default, KF.
you need to show that we can be in massive error on our common view of embodiment,
The evidence has done that for me.
without fatally undermining credibility of mind.
Mind is all we have to work with; how can can that possibly be undermined? It is your interpretation that has been shown non-credible, not mind itself.
I have cause to doubt that that can be done.
Well, you best figure out how it can be done, because your interpretation has been disproved by science.
Truly viable worldviews have to account for facts of embodiment
Yes, the facts, not your particular interpretation of those facts.
and of rational, responsible freedom. Thus a major debate. KF
Rational, responsible freedom obviously cannot depend on an interpretation that has been disproved. It is not rational to simply ignore 100 years of conclusive, experimental evidence because it contradicts your worldview. That's what materialists do.William J Murray
July 30, 2021
July
07
Jul
30
30
2021
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
WJM, your denial does not change the manifest facts in the definition. We both know that the consensus, common sense view based on first experience of consciousness is that we are living bodies, which is reflected in day to day language. There is a debate onward as to whether we are reducible to bodies and constituents, but that is resolved on the challenge of freedom required to reason vs GIGO limited computational substrates. What you are trying to do is to demand a default that does not belong to you, you need to show that we can be in massive error on our common view of embodiment, without fatally undermining credibility of mind. I have cause to doubt that that can be done. Truly viable worldviews have to account for facts of embodiment and of rational, responsible freedom. Thus a major debate. KFkairosfocus
July 30, 2021
July
07
Jul
30
30
2021
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
If anyone has been reading the massive, cumulative drops of experimental evidence BA77 has been offering, it is crystal clear that the common sense interpretation of our physical experience is not what is going on. What the evidence conclusively shows is that individual consciousness is interacting with abstract potential, which is a form of abstract information. We are not interacting with "matter" or even "energy." Abstract information only exists in mind. We are having mental experience of abstract mental information in the form of potential, and this interaction produces our experience of being embodied beings in, as a certain category of experience, a common physical world. Some form of idealism has been experimentally proved, inasumuch as science "proves" anything. Materialism has been disproved. The evidence does not support dualism. The rational conclusion from the evidence is that idealism best frames the nature of existence and experience.William J Murray
July 30, 2021
July
07
Jul
30
30
2021
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
But, I get it, KF. You don't realize you are arguing from an O/E worldview; you've mistaken it for what is necessary for any rational discussion of any O/E worldview. All rational discussions of O/E worldviews and existential questions do not depend on "common sense" interpretations of "common experiences." In fact, many depend on uncommon interpretations of uncommon experiences. Yet, they are still entirely rational discussions.William J Murray
July 30, 2021
July
07
Jul
30
30
2021
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
KF said:
Such simply summarises that to embody [v] or embodiment [n] addresses the common sense first fact of consciousness recognition regarding our existence.
No, it does not. It says no such thing. You are applying your particular O/E to the definition and claiming it means what you mean when you say "embodiment" from your O/E perspective. You don't get your O/E interpretation of that definition for free, KF.
Yes, we can debate what it means to have bodies made up from molecules, thence atoms, particles, fields etc. Yes, interaction of macro-level, solid bodies is through London forces of intermolecular attraction/repulsion. That does not mean that bodies that are solid . . . including our own somewhat squishy ones that contain a lot of liquid and significant gases . . . tend to retain their shape and volume, up to elastic deformation. It does not mean that we have to explain mind, freedom, reason on GIGO limited computational substrates. And more.
But we have to cordon off 100 years of conclusive quantum physics experiments that demonstrate those things do not exist in the way your O/E requires them to exist because then your O/E would fail.
And no, your accusatory strawman caricature fails. I am not here advocating any particular worldview,
I charitably accept (and have said so before) that you do not believe you are advocating a worldview, but you are doing that all the same, as shown explicitly by what follows directly in your comment:
I am speaking to in-common good sense first facts ,
Your worldview begins with "in-common good sense" and what those "facts" represent in that worldview (if you're talking about something other than existential necessities and unavoidables.)
and principles that are necessary to get reason going on its own two feet
Nobody is disagreeing with the fundamental principles of logic; they are agreed here as inescapable.
hence the challenge of avoiding hyperskeptical positions that are self-referentially absurd by opening the door to self-referential, Plato’s Cave style grand delusion cascades.
You don't get to define a competing O/E perspective as "hyperskeptical" or leading to "grand delusion" when you do not even understand the perspective you are making those claims about.
Hence, that we must not saw off the branch on which we all sit.
The only branch that can be logically said that we all necessarily sit on is the branch of existential necessities and unavoidables, and nobody is attempting to saw that branch; that branch has been recognized. You don't get to claim "common sense" from "common experience" as the branch upon which we all sit, because many people are also sitting on a branch of "uncommon" experience. You are making your case based on some experiences and the way "most" people think about those experiences; my case is about all possible experiences regardless of how anyone thinks about them. Everyone is necessarily sitting on the branch I point to in my case; only some people are sitting on the branches you use in your argument, which necessarily excludes anyone else sitting on any substantively different experiential branch.
That comes BEFORE real debates or arguments can begin. Including, what I am addressing in the OP above, proofs and their limitations.
What comes before real debates or arguments is recognition of existential necessities and unavoidables. You wish to confine the parameters of the argument to "common sense" interpretations of "common experience" which you just project out onto the world as if you have it's permission to use collectively in your argument. You've fixed your conclusion into your premises. You police the use of words and insert your own interpretations of definitions as "the" definition, using definitional fiat to wave away a concept you do not want to even consider. Again, KF, the actual evidence has disproved your O/E.William J Murray
July 30, 2021
July
07
Jul
30
30
2021
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
WJM, let's roll the tape:
embody (?m?b?d?) vb (tr) , -bodies, -bodying or -bodied 1. to give a tangible, bodily, or concrete form to (an abstract concept) [–> inclusive OR (and/or), not exclusive (either or) . . . it is a fallacy to force the exclusive when the inclusive is reasonable] 2. to be an example of or express (an idea, principle, etc), esp in action: his gentleness embodies a Christian ideal. [–> here, a living person with a living body manifests principles lived out in our common world] 3. (often foll by in) to collect or unite in a comprehensive whole, system, etc; comprise; include: all the different essays were embodied in one long article. 4. (Theology) to invest (a spiritual entity) with a body or with bodily form; render incarnate [–> in living flesh appearing] em?bodiment n Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
Such simply summarises that to embody [v] or embodiment [n] addresses the common sense first fact of consciousness recognition regarding our existence. As such, it is the normal, straightforward meaning and one who seeks to overturn such faces the burden of warrant to impose a reinterpretation. Which, runs into the saw off the branch problem as if conscious mindedness cannot be trusted to tell us the truth on first facts, it cannot be trusted. Yes, we can debate what it means to have bodies made up from molecules, thence atoms, particles, fields etc. Yes, interaction of macro-level, solid bodies is through London forces of intermolecular attraction/repulsion. That does not mean that bodies that are solid . . . including our own somewhat squishy ones that contain a lot of liquid and significant gases . . . tend to retain their shape and volume, up to elastic deformation. It does not mean that we have to explain mind, freedom, reason on GIGO limited computational substrates. And more. And no, your accusatory strawman caricature fails. I am not here advocating any particular worldview, I am speaking to in-common good sense first facts and principles that are necessary to get reason going on its own two feet, hence the challenge of avoiding hyperskeptical positions that are self-referentially absurd by opening the door to self-referential, Plato's Cave style grand delusion cascades. Hence, that we must not saw off the branch on which we all sit. That comes BEFORE real debates or arguments can begin. Including, what I am addressing in the OP above, proofs and their limitations. KFkairosfocus
July 30, 2021
July
07
Jul
30
30
2021
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
WJM, suffice to note how you tried to skip over the independent witness of a high quality dictionary. KF
That never happened. Your interpretation of the definition is not THE only allowable interpretation of the definition that falls within the meaning of a word. Under IRT, our physical bodies are the physical yet non-material representations of our idea of self. 1. To give a bodily form to; incarnate. 2. To represent in bodily or material form There is no perspective that more deserves the term "embodiment," and lives up to the definition of "embodiment," than what it means under IRT. That's exactly what "embodiment" means. When you try to protect yourself from the ideas of others by attempted definitional fiat, you're not debating in good faith. When you insist on refusing correction and continue misrepresenting the other side of the argument, you are not arguing in good faith. But then, to be fair, you've never actually been arguing or debating. You've always been proselytizing your ontology and epistemology.William J Murray
July 30, 2021
July
07
Jul
30
30
2021
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT
WJM, suffice to note how you tried to skip over the independent witness of a high quality dictionary. KFkairosfocus
July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
WJM, it still remains that you are arbitrarily redefining language. ... Go get your own word.
You do not own how words and their meanings are used and in what context they are applicable in expressing concepts. You do not get to chain all people into your particular ontology/epistemology by the fiat of being the "word" police. Your concept of what "embodiment" means extends well beyond what the actual definitions stated. I use "embodiment" according to the very definitions you listed. Just because most people interpret those definitions according to your general ontological perspective doesn't mean I am disallowed to use those same words under my ontology as long as the definitions still apply. The problem here, KF, is that you insist on your ontological/epistemological system being the framework within which we have a discussion about my ontological/epistemological system so that your perspective automatically wins the day by conceptual/structural and terminological fiat. "Go get your own word." Really? Really?William J Murray
July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
FINDINGS: Proof is a term too often used more for rhetorical impact than for humble acknowledgement of the achievements and limitations of human reasoning and deduction especially. As such, we must bear Godel in mind, truth and proof are very different, and axiomat5ic systems for complicated areas face incompleteness and/or possible incoherence. Even mathematics is not an absolutely certain discipline. Science cannot prove beyond such and such has so far passed certain empirical tests and may be taken as so far reliable, when it is at its best. Too often it is not and becomes a lab coat that gives unwarranted credibility to ideology. So, we end up at pisteis, rhetorical proof, where we seek to provide reasonable warrant for beliefs or opinions etc, and must reckon with the issues lurking behind pathos, ethos, logos. We are in the end, faith-driven reasoners, the issue is which faith, which set of first plausibles, why and why in light of comparative difficulties. But to get that far we must first make sure that we do not undermine the basic credibility of responsible reason through sawing off the branch on which we all must sit, the error of hyperskepticism. KFkairosfocus
July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
PS: As a reminder CED:
embody (?m?b?d?) vb (tr) , -bodies, -bodying or -bodied 1. to give a tangible, bodily, or concrete form to (an abstract concept) [--> inclusive OR (and/or), not exclusive (either or) . . . it is a fallacy to force the exclusive when the inclusive is reasonable] 2. to be an example of or express (an idea, principle, etc), esp in action: his gentleness embodies a Christian ideal. [--> here, a living person with a living body manifests principles lived out in our common world] 3. (often foll by in) to collect or unite in a comprehensive whole, system, etc; comprise; include: all the different essays were embodied in one long article. 4. (Theology) to invest (a spiritual entity) with a body or with bodily form; render incarnate [--> in living flesh appearing] em?bodiment n Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
Go get your own word.kairosfocus
July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
WJM, it still remains that you are arbitrarily redefining language. The dictionary has been long since cited on the point as to what embodiment means in normal discourse; which was shaped by the first fact of consciousness sense experience of humanity. Any scheme of thought, however cleverly articulated, that starts with disregarding that as dubious or doubtful or to be denied immediately is self referentially discrediting of intelligent conscious self-awareness, so too of the general capability of mind. It is self-defeating. KFkairosfocus
July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
The logical definition of fact, the creationist definition, applies to all matters of fact. And then when there is a lack of evidence it can be called a guess, or whatever, which would still be a form of fact. It's just a statement of fact, with the evidence part missing. Arguably evolution theory is a guess, because of lacking much evidence. And if the evidence doesn't correspond, like to state that the earth is flat, then that is still a statement of fact, it is just an inaccurate statement of fact. And only the creationist definition of fact is correct, all the other definitions of it are wrong, or secondary. As also only the creationist definition of opinion is correct (in the sense of opinion on beauty).mohammadnursyamsu
July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
KF said:
Go get your own words.
Again, KF, if you understood IRT you'd understand I'm applying the word "embody" according to those same definitions, just not in the same ontological manner. But, I realize you are simply not going to let go of your straw man no matter how many times I correct you. Please note, your own definitions distinguish between "material" and "physical by using "or." The material aspect of embodiment has been scientifically disproved, and I've never said or implied we are not physical embodied. The word "embodied" can mean different things, regardless of your desire to restrict it to your particular ontological perspective.William J Murray
July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
F/N: For many relevant cases, we cannot simply inspect to see the mechanism, process or forces and factors at work. The actual deep past of origins cannot be inspected, we examine traces and try to construct models. The living cell is a complex, observable entity, yes. Where did it come from, how and why should we take the explanation seriously? As you know I highlight observed 4-state, complex, algorithmic stored codes and execution machinery. I point out that codes are language and that algorithms are goal-directed finite, stepwise processes. For cause, we see that such are signs of design and that they have never been seen to come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. Recall, 500 - 1,000 bits as threshold of complex enough. Search challenge to blindly find such functional configurations in a space of possibilities from 0000 . . . 0 to FFFF . . . F, helps illustrate the point. Notwithstanding, many have been led to believe that science has somehow established that only blind forces can be appealed to or it's not science anymore. KFkairosfocus
July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT
PPS: I use a simple example on my logic. If T then A, T being Tom is a cat and A being Tom is an animal. T => A of course, but A does not imply T. Tom could be a hamster or a monkey or a honey badger or a mouse etc. Implication is not equivalence. Just because a theory T has correctly predicted observations and was built to account for an original core, does not mean that it is established as the truth or a fact by such empirical reliability. (Though, empirical reliability so far is another fact, but one that also applies to models that simplify or are pretty contrived and cannot actually be the big-T truth, e.g. ballistics with air resistance, electronics amplifier models, financial or economics models etc.) For 200 years Newtonian dynamics ruled the roost, but then came Relativity and Quantum theory and it now is seen as covering large slow moving bodies. Planetariums often use in effect geocentric models built into their gearing, to project the appearance of the sky from Earth's surface.kairosfocus
July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT
MNY, fact is a fairly standard common language term, especially when it refers to an established credible observation, experience or proper record of same. What has happened is that because of that credibility, some have tried to move things into that category that have no right to be there. That needs to be corrected. KF PS: As a sample, Dictionary definition:
fact (fækt) n 1. an event or thing known to have happened or existed 2. a truth verifiable from experience or observation 3. a piece of information: get me all the facts of this case. 4. (Law) law (often plural) an actual event, happening, etc, as distinguished from its legal consequences. Questions of fact are decided by the jury, questions of law by the court or judge 5. (Philosophy) philosophy a proposition that may be either true or false, as contrasted with an evaluative statement 6. (Law) after the fact criminal law after the commission of the offence: an accessory after the fact. 7. (Law) before the fact criminal law before the commission of the offence 8. as a matter of fact in fact in point of fact in reality or actuality 9. fact of life an inescapable truth, esp an unpleasant one 10. the fact of the matter the truth [C16: from Latin factum something done, from factus made, from facere to make] ?factful adj Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
AmHD adds a note to its definition:
Usage Note: Since the word fact means "a real occurrence, something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed," the phrases true facts and real facts, as in The true facts of the case may never be known, would seem to be redundant. But fact has a long history of use in the sense of "an allegation of fact" or "something that is believed to be true," as in this remark by union leader Albert Shanker: "This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong." This usage has led to the notion of "incorrect facts," which causes qualms among critics who insist that facts must be true. The usages, however, are often helpful in making distinctions or adding emphasis.
One cannot reasonably define every term, there are dictionaries which are readily accessible online. Likewise, of course we here see how rhetorical abuse or simple errors have contributed a complexity that may have to be teased out of a context. Thus we see fact-claim vs actual fact. Where of course grand global evolutionary theory is believed to be a fact on the level of roundness of the earth by many of its adherents. I pointed out, that is a category error.kairosfocus
July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT
A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation, forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it, in the mind. See, that is defining what a fact is. Stating the logic of it, outright. While what you do is, you just assume the concept of fact, without definition, then you go reasoning that it's really just a moral judgement of certainty. You are supposing some scenario where it is not known by what mechanism something is produced. And then you can make guesses about the mechanism, guesses which are wrong. Yeah whatever, so what. Then go and get the direct evidence of what the mechanism is, huh. Case in point for intelligent design theory, study the direct evidence of human beings intelligently designing stuff, so you can use that understanding to search for the intelligent decisionmaking processes by which the organisms were supposedly formed.mohammadnursyamsu
July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
MNY, Science includes experiments and observations that lead to empirical findings of fact. It also includes theories, models etc that in key part explain actual observed facts, which can be said to support them, also predictions which if successful lend further support: F + P. The logic for a theory T is T => (F + P). We cannot directly observe truth of T. To reason at some time (F + P) is observed, so T is -- strictly -- to affirm the consequent, a fallacy. What we do instead is we infer from ability of T to reliably predict and to explain facts in hand, that (F + P) supports T and once reliability is high, we are confident that T is reliable, e.g. we use it in engineering. However, there are any number of simplified or even implausibly constructed models that can be reliable too. Empirical reliability does not imply truth. But such reliability is an observed pattern, i.e. a collective fact. Empirical evidence does not establish scientific theories as true. KFkairosfocus
July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
KF, Doesn't matter that science is not perfect, does not present perfect facts. Still facts are the aim, and if anyone can get closer to perfect facts, then that it is an improvement, and generally the less pefect will then be discarded. You throw out the basic logic of fact, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It is totally outrageous madness. I am the only one I know who supports logic. It is just ridiculous, to see everyone on the internet, give their nonsense excuses, for why they can go ahead and throw out logic.mohammadnursyamsu
July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
MNY, observations and explanatory models in science are different in nature. The degree of warrant for an observation is naturally higher than for explanations such are inferred to support. To imagine that a theory of science is a fact say comparable to the roundness of the earth or orbits of planets around the sun, is a blunder of first magnitude. Notoriously, this is done with body plan level Macroevolution. As was noted earlier. KFkairosfocus
July 27, 2021
July
07
Jul
27
27
2021
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
To prove there is water on mars. There is the model of there being water on mars on the one hand, and then there is the actual mars on the other hand. If water is found on mars, then it is proven that there is water on mars. The proof is then applying the logic of fact, and seeing that it works. The logic of fact is that a fact is obtained by evidence of a creation, forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it in the mind. Having found the water, we can then make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of the water being on mars, forced by the evidence of it. The logic of fact for this issue, checks out, therefore it is proven. So then it is really more about the logic of fact, and proof is just to see if the logic checks out on some issue.mohammadnursyamsu
July 27, 2021
July
07
Jul
27
27
2021
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
All you have to do on that is stop sidetracking. This thread is about the concept proof as opposed to demonstration and its limitations.kairosfocus
July 27, 2021
July
07
Jul
27
27
2021
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
PS: Embodiment is not a dubious notion hostage to idiosyncratic, arbitrary redefinition. Let's try:
em·bod·y (?m-b?d??) tr.v. em·bod·ied, em·bod·y·ing, em·bod·ies 1. To give a bodily form to; incarnate. 2. To represent in bodily or material form: "As John Adams embodied the old style, Andrew Jackson embodied the new" (Richard Hofstadter). 3. To make part of a system or whole; incorporate: laws that embody a people's values. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Where, again:
bod·y (b?d??) n. pl. bod·ies 1. a. The entire material or physical structure of an organism, especially of a human or animal. b. The physical aspect of a person as opposed to the spirit; the flesh. c. A corpse or carcass.
Go get your own words.kairosfocus
July 27, 2021
July
07
Jul
27
27
2021
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
KF said:
Last thread, WJM. KF
Promise? ;)William J Murray
July 27, 2021
July
07
Jul
27
27
2021
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
BTW, holding that our embodiment is not credible or is open to serious question and protracted dispute is a clear case of an absurd breach of common sense. KFkairosfocus
July 27, 2021
July
07
Jul
27
27
2021
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Last thread, WJM. KFkairosfocus
July 27, 2021
July
07
Jul
27
27
2021
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply