Thread: The Need for Proof

Originally Posted by 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?

-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.

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Hijo de la Luna

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.

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.”

My motivation in writing this thread is mainly to help everyone explore their relationship to proof.

My relationship to proof used to be that of dependency if I couldn't prove it I couldn't trust myself. If I couldn't trust myself then my experiences were not valid hence my contribution to this amuzement park of reality we call life would be null and void.

For me to release my dependency on proof means to me that my experiences need no explanations or proof only awareness. It also means to me that whether or not I could prove them they had a profound effect & or meaning on my life. So for me proof is in the pudding he he he

By the way guys I think your signatures are awesome

Originally Posted by 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.”

Yes you are right. I was thinking of evidence.

But is there ever really proof of evidence?

Actually, I think people try too hard to separate the notions of evidence and proof, as if the two were completely different concepts. They are not. Proof, itself, is simply evidence that is so strong that it has not (at the time that it is labeled as "proof") had any feasible* counter. That's it. It's not a 'concrete absolution'. Why not? Because, when speaking from a subjective perspective (as the entire human race does, at all times) there is really no way of knowing what is cosmically "absolute."

Like Xaqaria said, even those things touted to be "proven" are merely assertions based on the probability of any certain outcome, due to a consistency of that outcome having happened, previously, given the same variables.

What someone says is "proof" is only "proof" until there is evidence of its fallibility. "Proof" is never "OMFG YOU CAN'T ARGUE CUZ I HAZ THA PROOFZ!!", and anyone who drives himself crazy, trying to convince himself that it is, is destined to live a lifetime of ignorance, confusion and disappointment.

"Proof" is only evidence that so readily stands up against any conventional argument, that it's most reasonable to default to the idea of it being true. Does that mean that you should close your mind off to any and all declarations to the contrary? Absolutely not. Every instance of opposition should be balanced (though it is only human nature to close yourself off to the idea, and I charge that there is not a single one of us, here, that hasn't done that, at some point or another). How well established is the "proven" theory? How well established is the counter argument? If the argument sounds too wild to be true, why is that? How much do you actually know about the argument that you are dismissing? Are you only dismissing it because you are so confident in something having been "proven" that you - even though you have never done extensive testing on the subject, yourself - write the argument off as ridiculous (a priori assumption)? Or are you accepting of the fact that even the 'proven' has room for fallibility, and willing to challenge conventional 'wisdom' in the pursuit of truth?

Honestly, I feel that, if everyone understood this concept, debates would be a lot more civil and we - as a species - would advance a lot faster than we already do.

Originally Posted by UM

But is there ever really proof of evidence?

Absolutely. We see it all the time. Ironically, it is just called "evidence."

If people were in court for an adultery case, and the defendant says they were not with [X] at [Y] time, then the plaintiff offers a picture of the defendant's car (with the correct tag number) at [X]'s house, with a time stamp matching the accusation, that is Proof of Evidence.

Now, if someone else comes up with a picture of the defendant at a bar on the other side of town, with a time stamp that is around the same as the other, then that evidence is called into question, and must be weighed against the surrounding variables. Neither, in itself, is proof that the crime was committed, but both sides are showing that they, indeed, have proof of evidence to their side of the case.



[* "Feasibility", itself, is a subjective term. "Proof" is no more concrete than feasibility.]

...asked another way what what is our relationship to our proofs? Are we limited by it? Can we live w/o it and live healthy meaningful lives?

Originally Posted by Hijo de la Luna

...asked another way what what is our relationship to our proofs? Are we limited by it? Can we live w/o it and live healthy meaningful lives?

Some can (and do).
Some can't (and don't).

Unfortunately, there are many people who feel an overwhelming sense of inadequacy, if they feel their level of intellect is questionable. They feel that what they know just has to be "right". They have to be "in the loop." They have to be "educated." Their biases must be "truth" and all opposition must be "notably inferior."

So, yes. Can some of us live perfectly healthy (and intelligent) lives, knowing that everything we believe may not be the true nature of the universe? Sure. After all: (How does the old saying go?) "The more you know, the more you realize you know nothing."

But, can we all?

Nope.

I think we all can but maybe not all at once. I do think that we are collectively conscious and as such there will always be the unconscious, barely/subconscious, & conscious aspects of humanity. As is one so is the masses.

I would also say that that which is will never last and that which is will revert to its opposite on a higher or lower plane for there is one constant and that constant is change.

I also agree that we can live intelligent healthy lives w/o proof and with it. My journey has shown me that self trust or self reliance has been of the greatest value because THERE IS a ghost in the machine.

BTW, your avatar is awesome Oneironaut

Originally Posted by Hijo de la Luna

I think we all can but maybe not all at once. I do think that we are collectively conscious and as such there will always be the unconscious, barely/subconscious, & conscious aspects of humanity. As is one so is the masses.

I would also say that that which is will never last and that which is will revert to its opposite on a higher or lower plane for there is one constant and that constant is change.

I also agree that we can live intelligent healthy lives w/o proof and with it. My journey has shown me that self trust or self reliance has been of the greatest value because THERE IS a ghost in the machine.

BTW, your avatar is awesome Oneironaut

I'm very open to the idea of collective consciousness, but it doesn't necessarily shape my world view, because I've not seen enough evidence for me to take it on faith. However, I understand where you're coming from.

Originally Posted by Hijo de la Luna

I think we all can but maybe not all at once.

This, I do agree with, especially. It was pretty much what I meant. I believe that, as humans, we all have the capacity to live without feeling things have been proven to the point of infallibility, but I don't believe that there will ever be a situation to where that paradigm is global.

Whether there is a ghost in the machine, the Akashic Records exist, or there is an Implicate Order to the universe, I don't know. But if there is, then so many people are either willfully or blindly just incapable of accessing it (as evidence by there being multiple paradigms about any given thing, around the world). The dangerous thing about self-trust and self-reliance is that we are prone to lying to ourselves (consciously, or unconsciously). One must forever be willing to challenge the self. Take in different points of view. Don't just rely on yourself. Rely on others. But condition the self to be as honest as possible, in the assessment of outside influences.

We have to realize that we are all prone to bias. We are all susceptible to influence - be it 'right' or 'wrong.' In the end, though, we all do have to make a choice, as to what we believe, but it is always better to make an educated guess, than a conditioned response.

And thanks!

Like Xaqaria said, even those things touted to be "proven" are merely assertions based on the probability of any certain outcome, due to a consistency of that outcome having happened, previously, given the same variables.

Whilst I think you and most others in this thread have the right idea, I'd point out that some things can be proved; mathematical truths, for example.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Absolutely. We see it all the time. Ironically, it is just called "evidence."

If people were in court for an adultery case, and the defendant says they were not with [X] at [Y] time, then the plaintiff offers a picture of the defendant's car (with the correct tag number) at [X]'s house, with a time stamp matching the accusation, that is Proof of Evidence.

Now, if someone else comes up with a picture of the defendant at a bar on the other side of town, with a time stamp that is around the same as the other, then that evidence is called into question, and must be weighed against the surrounding variables. Neither, in itself, is proof that the crime was committed, but both sides are showing that they, indeed, have proof of evidence to their side of the case.

That's not just evidence of evidence?

I'm just playing around by mixing the words, really. I actually agree with you.

Xei, is actually a very good point

Originally Posted by Hijo de la Luna

Xei, is actually a very good point

He is, isn't he.

I always thought he was, since I first met him.

Originally Posted by Xei

Whilst I think you and most others in this thread have the right idea, I'd point out that some things can be proved; mathematical truths, for example.

But how do you prove that 1+1=2?
You just know it is, you can't really prove it.

But how do you prove that 1+1=2?
You just know it is, you can't really prove it.

1 + 1 = 2 is a tautology. 1 + 1 is the definition of 2, so it does not require proof; it is not the case that we 'just know it'. It's effectively shorthand, because writing (or saying) (1 + 1) instead of 2 would be tedious.

Mathematical statements which require proof are things like 'the gradient of y = x^2 at x = 3 is 6'.

Originally Posted by Xei

Whilst I think you and most others in this thread have the right idea, I'd point out that some things can be proved; mathematical truths, for example.

You're absolutely right. Actually, this came to light, when I was talking about this with someone else, outside of DV.

The "proof" that I'm talking about is not the concrete proof that is equivalent to, say:

Person 1: "Prove that you have a pen in your hand."

Person 2: *holds up pen* "Done."

I kind of realized that there is more than one way to declare something as being proven. I knew what Hijo meant, when he was talking about "proof" and I kind of adhered to that context, but yes, I agree that there are some things that can be proven, to an extent.

Unless something is verified, first hand, unequivocally, then it is near impossible to consider it "proven", even if "all signs point to yes." It's that flimsy, theoretical version of "proof" that I believe we're talking about. I admit that it was an oversight for me to not make this distinction, earlier.

people look for proof in the supernatural but people who harden their hearts and minds to those things will likely be kept from ever experiencing them. so they try to disprove them using their science which sadly cannot measure the supernatural.

This is a great segway for my next question. See holding up an pen in the air to prove it exist only works if the person watching the person agree's that in fact that it is a pen in his or her hand. For a being whose awareness is different than the pen holder. The example of is the glass half empty or full is a great one & another is that of a person that is confined due to their psychological awareness that we might call schizophrenia says that he is talking to a dead president. The Dr. says oh he's not there. The patient says I don't know what you're on but he's standing right beside you.

There's no way to prove anything here. THere is only experience. Who is right? Who is really crazy? Who knows! Does it really matter? What does really matter? The answer to this question lies in another question. Who is happy?

Isn't proof about I need this so that other's will accept my world view. Isn't proof saying I need you to agree with me to be happy? Isn't it saying I don't trust myself and so I need something more to be acceptable?

I say put happines instead of proof in the pudding and eat up. I say be happy and when other's can relate great and, then keep going. If some thing proof if any exist shows up then great! I just think that the whole point is to be happy and to give that prudence over proof.

So this is why I try and cultivate a self reliance so that I will be happy & mad or happy and sane; if there is a difference

Originally Posted by Hijo de la Luna

This is a great segway for my next question. See holding up an pen in the air to prove it exist only works if the person watching the person agree's that in fact that it is a pen in his or her hand. For a being whose awareness is different than the pen holder. The example of is the glass half empty or full is a great one & another is that of a person that is confined due to their psychological awareness that we might call schizophrenia says that he is talking to a dead president. The Dr. says oh he's not there. The patient says I don't know what you're on but he's standing right beside you.

There's no way to prove anything here. THere is only experience. Who is right? Who is really crazy? Who knows! Does it really matter? What does really matter? The answer to this question lies in another question. Who is happy?

Isn't proof about I need this so that other's will accept my world view. Isn't proof saying I need you to agree with me to be happy? Isn't it saying I don't trust myself and so I need something more to be acceptable?

I say put happines instead of proof in the pudding and eat up. I say be happy and when other's can relate great and, then keep going. If some thing proof if any exist shows up then great! I just think that the whole point is to be happy and to give that prudence over proof.

So this is why I try and cultivate a self reliance so that I will be happy & mad or happy and sane; if there is a difference

Now, see, this is where we start to drift into disagreement.

Personally, I've never been one to agree with the "ignorance is bliss" philosophy. I enjoy learning things. I enjoy taking in the different perspectives of the world, and I enjoy causing people to question their own biases, just as I always welcome healthy debate against my own. I think naivete(sp?) and ignorance can be dangerous, even life-threatening traits. It's not that I'm on some self-righteous crusade to "stamp out the world's ignorance", as many self-described "intellectuals" seem to do. It's simply that I respect knowledge and intellect. Knowing things does make me happy. Learning (things that I'm interested in) can be a joy, in itself.

Of course, there are few situations where I'd probably rather be ignorant and happy, than know the concrete truth about something, but this is on a case-by-case basis. I never, ever give any other person flack for simply being ignorant (unless they are arrogant and ignorant - then I rip into them), because if they are happy with what they know and what they don't, then I don't feel it's my place to judge them, and I actually find it kind of refreshing.

That being said, though, I think that choosing to be willfully ignorant, as a life-long philosophy, could prove to bring about more problems than happiness, given that person's relationship with the rest of society.

But to answer one of your other questions: Proof is about more than "I need you to agree with my world view, to be happy," per se. That is a perversion of the concept of proof, but it is one that many people are guilty of, whether they know it or not. You really can't put "proof", itself, all into that category, though. Proof has many other uses, aside from just confirming one's world view, or feelings about any specific thing. It is also the building block of things like technology, medicine, etc. The components inside the computer you are using have been proven to make your computer do the things that it does. Without such proof, we would never have such a thing as "invention."

Imagine if the wheel was never "proven" to make transportation of objects easier than sliding it on a flat base? Where would we be now?