Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sanctus
...there are only mathematical proofs, as math is the closest I can imagine we can come to objectiveness (and it isn't objective, at the very basis there are axioms which you can accept or not).
|
That's what I was thinking. When faced with defining "proof," I can't think of anything that fits the common perception: Irrefutable truth. Sure, one can say "I have proof of such and such," but it's really only evidence.
Evidence can lie, though. If, for example, I flip a coin 100 times and it's always heads, is that proof that the coin only has a heads side? No, it's just chance. Repeatablility only builds a preponderance of evidence, not proof.
Often we say things like "show me," but that's debateable. Take any UFO abductee and they'd claim they saw litle green men. The BELIEVE they saw little green men. That's proof to most people- I saw it, it happened. I don't think our senses are especially good providers of proof, based on that logic. Like Descartes, who started from the premise that nothing he sensed could be trusted as real.
So I'm thinking proof is a mathamatical thing that is rarely achieved. So I was more looking for a practical definition... In science, we often call a preponderance of evidence (repeatability), as "proof," or rather a good basis for a theory. So where do you draw the line? I don't think the whole Creationism thing will go away because of this problem- they claim scientists don't have proof. And I don't think we do.
But we have a dearth of evidence, overwhelming in fact. But it's not proof. Does the proof concept get thrown around to much in science and scientific debates?
