[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

[stylin19a]

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

[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.

[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.'

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Since this is only and illustration,

Proof that the replacement of editors with spell-check
has resulted in more typos getting into print.

[TheBigB]

Here's Proof

Prove it.

[js1138]

At that altitude, the "satellite" would maintain a stationary position over the earth, by maintaining an orbital speed of approximately 6000 miles per hour.

Of course this was mere speculation, and by a science fiction writer, of all things. It could not be proved, of course, at least not for a few more years.

This statement reveals a rather deep misunderstanding of the underlying science.