Proof

[T0rajir0u]

Re: Proof

Two apples with two apples ALWAYS makes four apples.

This is not the same thing as saying 2 + 2 = 4. Number and quantity are conceptually distinct.

Also, not true in a black hole. If you have two apples in a black hole, and you get two more apples, then you're in a black hole. The apples disintegrate. You have no apples.

SIMILARLY, you can prove that as a result of an invisible force called gravity, dropping those apples off of a table will ALWAYS make them go down.

This is a theory that is heavily supported with experimental evidence. You're missing my point. I didn't say that theory wasn't valid, but support needs to be distinguished from proof.

The real world offers no guarantees. You have no guarantee that any particular scientific statement will always hold true. The fact that it has held true in any given instance of testing it is certainly very strong evidence, but it does not constitute a guarantee that the next test will end up failing.

This doesn't mean that science isn't trustworthy. In a nutshell, it's our "best guess," and we have to go with that because we don't have anything better.



Edit: How did I miss this?

SIMILARLY, you can prove that as a result of an invisible force called gravity, dropping those apples off of a table will ALWAYS make them go down. WHY can we prove this? If we REMOVED gravity, they DON'T fall down. If we make the gravity NEGATIVE, they fall UP. THEREFORE, WE CAN DISCERN THAT GRAVITY IS THE FORCE THAT PULLS THINGS DOWN, THUS, PROOF.

I see where the issue here is. As usual, it's an issue of semantics.

proof  /pruf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proof] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

In this sense, you would be largely correct, although your example is horrible. You don't have the power to physically reverse gravity or set it to zero.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Proof

My stance on the issue.

http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...ad.php?t=30784

[T0rajir0u]

Re: Proof

Fundamentally, solipsism is only a worthwhile philosophy if you decide, for whatever reason, that you don't care about other people.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Proof

Hence the humor of "discuss".

C'mon, man, I expected you of all people to get it. :(

[T0rajir0u]

Re: Proof

That was just in case someone else decided to take you seriously. ;D

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Proof

All right, granted.

[Reach]

Re: Proof

You can only truely 'prove' something by making an assumption at some point. Or, proof can only been taken within the context it was proven in.

Most of you have seen this 'contextual proof' before if you've looked at the 'proof of god' thread that was posted here awhile ago, by mal I think.

So it becomes impossible to universally prove anything.


However, naturally this definition of proof gets us nowhere. The Scientific Method led to the rapid advance of mankind. Such a method is a 'practical proof', meaning it isn't necessarily right but it's as right as it needs to be for our sake.

So I'd agree with most of the things squeek said. If you can prove something within a scientific context, then I take that construction of proof as being something that is true simply because it is a very practical proof.

[Laharl]

Re: Proof

Proof

Existence

[studmuffin51306]

Re: Proof

Proof

Existence

This still doesn't say what is required to exist or what is required for something to be believed to be true.

[spyke252]

Re: Proof

<I>You're mixing Math with Science. In Math, we create the rules. 1+1 will always be 2, unless we alter the rules.</I>

So, I believe Newton "altered the rules" when he proved that .9 repeating = 1?

And I still need a more solid definition of "proof"... The one that states "produce belief in its truth" means that I "proved" that 1 = 2 to my school. For those interested:

//Newtons Proof:
X=.9 repeating
10X = 9.9repeating
9X = 9
X=1

"Layman's" terms (For those who do not understand the concept of defining variables):
1/3 = .3 repeating, correct? Then 2/3 = .6repeating.
3/3 = 1= .9repeating.

//1=2 proof (has flaws, duh, so DONT POST SAYING DUR, ITS WRONG. I KNOW.)
A=B
A^2 = AB
A^2 - B^2 = AB - B^2
(A-B)(A+B) = B(A-B)
A+B = B
2B=B
2=1

Also, what happens when the variables change? If I stand on my head and see an apple drop off a table, then it will appear to go upward. Of course, I (having common sense) know that I am upside-down, but that does not change the results of the experiment. If an apple drops off a table in space, what will happen? If a nuclear missile explodes under the apple as it falls, what will happen? If the apple falls, and no one is around to see it, what will happen?

Case in point- Unless I have some misunderstanding, you cannot have an experiment that always happens the same way, with changing variables. SOME manipulation of variables MUST create a change in the way the results are viewed.

Now, back to the topic-
Speaking of seeing things upside-down, our retina obtains images upside-down (concavity of the eye, as far as I know) and our brain reinterprets images based on what they are supposed to look like. So the definition of proof cannot include seeing without including the brain as well.

Thats all for now, I have to go to a dance soon.

[Laharl]

Re: Proof

This still doesn't say what is required to exist or what is required for something to be believed to be true.

Sure it does.

Existance is the state of being. Basically, if something is, then it exists.

Saying that life doesn't exist is inherently false. Life simply IS. Existance cannot be false.

[studmuffin51306]

Re: Proof

Spyke..... Marry Me.....
Actually, I take that back.

Sure it does.

Existance is the state of being. Basically, if something is, then it exists.

Saying that life doesn't exist is inherently false. Life simply IS. Existance cannot be false.

Who's to say we aren't imagined, just living out what some being's big brain is dreaming up?
THen we only exist like numbers do.

[Squeek]

Re: Proof

//1=2 proof (has flaws, duh, so DONT POST SAYING DUR, ITS WRONG. I KNOW.)

If you know it's wrong (like we all do by now), why post it as proof? It's NOT proof. It's a packet of LIES.

Ok, yes, variables change the outcome. Congratulations, you've stated the obvious!

If an apple falls to the ground off a table and a nuclear explosion happens, you're NOT DUPLICATING THE EXPERIMENT. Thus, it's quite obvious you're going to get different results!

If you duplicate the experiment with little to no variance in the way it was conducted, you will get the same results. This is Science, and this is Proof.

[Doug31]

Re: Proof

My definition of a proof (I don't know an official one, i just made this up) is basically when someone determines something is guaranteed to be true, and that no one can ever change this truth, since it must be completely true, or it hasn't been proven.

[spyke252]

Re: Proof

If you know it's wrong (like we all do by now), why post it as proof? It's NOT proof. It's a packet of LIES.

I said it was a proof because no one I know could figure out the flaw. As such, they figure it is true, though it is not. And according to the definition given earlier, proof is something that people take to be true. (Whether it is true or not.)

Ok, yes, variables change the outcome. Congratulations, you've stated the obvious!

OK, now that we have the "obvious" stated, we can work on the details. What variables change an experiment? What variables do not? What variables can be changed by the experimenter? How do these variables change the experiment?

If an apple falls to the ground off a table and a nuclear explosion happens, you're NOT DUPLICATING THE EXPERIMENT. Thus, it's quite obvious you're going to get different results!

So if you do the experiment at a different time, you technically are not duplicating the experiment? If you use a different member of the same animal species you aren't duplicating the experiment? My example may have been exaggerated, but it still shows a point. Another force acting on the system changes the results. By your logic, it is impossible to ever reproduce an experiment, as there are always too many variables that change.

If you duplicate the experiment with little to no variance in the way it was conducted, you will get the same results. This is Science, and this is Proof.

Though this may be true for more simplistic experiments, complex experiments rely on too many factors, as stated previously. These factors: time, upbringing, genetics, age, weather, experiences, etc. can all contribute to the results of the experiment. And thus, in a complex experiment, relying on these factors, you would never have a solution that is always true, no matter what.

Sure, you can go on about statistics and things like "85% of those horses bred with both parents having blue eyes, have blue eyes" but that isnt proof, its just a statistic. You can't say that you would get a horse which had blue eyes if you did the experiment. In fact, you really cant say anything, other than it has a greater chance of having blue eyes than another color. So unless you define proof as not being absolute, Proof cannot actually refer to anything more complex than "An apple rolls off the table and it goes down, when no other forces act on the system other than gravity."