The Need for Proof

[Hijo de la Luna]

Do we need proof? What does it mean to need proof? What would happen if we didn't need proof? Can we really prove anything?

[Bonsay]

Do we need proof? What does it mean to need proof? What would happen if we didn't need proof? Can we really prove anything? -Yes -To require a thing to have a foundation in reality we all live in. -We would all be surprised when things wouldn't turn out in reality the way we wanted them to. -It seems that we can.

[dajo]

Yes. We need proof. Wouldn't this belong to philosophy, rather than science & mathematics? Because in that context, it could be an interesting question, in the context of science it is irrelevant, since proof is pretty clearly defined and neccessary.

[Hijo de la Luna]

Very little if anything is ever proven. Disease is based on the germ theory in allopathic medicine but is certainly not the only one. Electricity is the theory by which electrons are thought to move from one atom to another. I personally accept the electricity theory mainly because it is reliable. Also there is quantum theory and then there is atomic theory. so we can see that in one anothers perception they have similarities however they are theories reliable ones at that. You're right it might belong in philosophy. I thought it might fit here because this could be said to be psychology and in that field it is connected to science via medicine. I dont know how to move a thread but I would not be opposed to having it moved there.

[Xaqaria]

http://www.holycross.edu/departments...Meth&Philo.pdf

[dajo]

Very little if anything is ever proven. Disease is based on the germ theory in allopathic medicine but is certainly not the only one. Electricity is the theory by which electrons are thought to move from one atom to another. I personally accept the electricity theory mainly because it is reliable. Also there is quantum theory and then there is atomic theory. so we can see that in one anothers perception they have similarities however they are theories reliable ones at that. Of course you can always argue that the very concept of existence has not been proven and therefore we base any observations on assumptions. We don't have a theory at the time that links all scientistic fields into one, but people are working on it. But that doesn't say that proof is impossible. You can make observations of a repeatable experiment and come to a conclusion, like 'the apple falls off a tree' - even though you might not get the entire picture (newton vs einstein), the apple still does fall off a tree. Basically you can make true or false assumptions inside a model, without knowing the whole picture. Also, in order for a theory to be generally accepted, there needs to be a tremendous amount of proof, direct and/or indirect. I do think that I know where you're going, though, and I essentially agree with you - I believe it is important to remind ourselves that we don't know all that much and to keep an open mind, especially when it comes to science. You're right it might belong in philosophy. I thought it might fit here because this could be said to be psychology and in that field it is connected to science via medicine. Philosophy doesn't neccessarily have to be non-scientific. It can pose a question relating to scientific fields, such as 'can we ever prove anything?', therefore being directly linked to any of the science (not only psychology), but it still remains a philosophical question the same. Also it uses logic.

[Xaqaria]

Dajo, you are confusing proof and evidence. In science, evidence is gathered and our ability to predict future outcomes gets better, but nothing is ever proved. Science does not reach conclusions like, “the apple falls off the tree” or “apples fall”, only “the apple fell in all observed trials.”

[Jesus of Suburbia]

Very little if anything is ever proven. Disease is based on the germ theory in allopathic medicine but is certainly not the only one. Electricity is the theory by which electrons are thought to move from one atom to another. I personally accept the electricity theory mainly because it is reliable. Also there is quantum theory and then there is atomic theory. so we can see that in one anothers perception they have similarities however they are theories reliable ones at that. You're right it might belong in philosophy. I thought it might fit here because this could be said to be psychology and in that field it is connected to science via medicine. I dont know how to move a thread but I would not be opposed to having it moved there. Go crawl in a hole and die. I have proof that if I jump off a cliff, I'll fall. I have proof that if I get germs in my system that my body cannot fight, I'll get sick. I have proof that electrons moving in a circuit can cause electricity. Just look at a fucking battery. I honestly, sincerely, hope you either stop trying to think about things and making up a theory that seems to be deep but is really a piece of motherfucking bullshit, or die. Does the idea that there might be knowledge frighten you? Does the idea that one afternoon on Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you (and give you fucking proof on things) frighten you? Does the idea that we might have proof of things so blow your idealist noodle that you'd rather stand in the fog of your inability to Google? Isn't it enough to just accept the fact that things can be proven and that we are not just mindless sheep programmed to require something that doesn't exist to believe something?? Stop trying to be a deep thinker before you hurt yourself.

[dajo]

I have proof that if I jump off a cliff, I'll fall. Well, where is your proof then? Don't forget to hit 'play'.