What is proof?

[bumab]

nice post

[fusion]

Proof is evidence that compiles with our set of rules for that subject.
As 8+8=16 only in our number system based on ten. In Hexadecimal code it equals 10.
Proof does not agree with all set's of rules we have made up as seen.
Proof is evidence that agrees with the rules of that subject therefore prooving it.

[TeleMad]

I agree with those who state that the term proof should not be used in science. Scientific evidence does not prove a position as much as support a position.

For example, consider the debate a few hundred years ago concerning whether light was a particle or a wave. When the double slit experiment was performed and wave interference patterns were produced, it "proved" that light was a wave and "proved" that is was not a particle. Well, not really. Back then no one had any idea that something could be both a particle and a wave.

This might also fit: the law of conservation of mass. Very detailed observations "proved" that during a chemical reaction no mass is ever lost or gained: mass is conserved. Or so they thought. After Einstein introduced his mass-energy-equivalence equation E=mc^2, we learned that mass does in fact change during chemical reactions (for example, in an exergonic reaction, mass decreases).

[mother engine]

i think certain evidence can convince certain minds but just try proving that you exist to someone who does not believe you do. i tried to do this once and just ended up learning how subjective 'proof' is.

[the romantic cynic]

Originally Posted by Aquagem

I would just as soon see "proof" expunged from our everyday scientific lexicon. Creationists demand "proof" because they know we will say, "Of course I can't prove every single tiny little trivial point of evolution theory", at which they cry, "SEE? Gotcha! That's why you have to teach Itelligent Design!" "Proof" is a weapon, like a crude club wielded by a barbarian in a laboratory of test tubes and lasers.

While reading about "reason" not long ago, I found a reference to "abductive" reasoning, which in the 19th century enjoyed some popularity along with inductive and deductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning is, approximately, "using the best available evidence to arrive at the best (but always conditional) theory". The article went on to say that this fits scientific reasoning better than the other two in most cases, but that abductive had since been absorbed into inductive reasoning. I figure that happened so we wouldn't have to say, "Science is the process of abduction of truth".

NOTHING in science or any other discipline is PROVEN. (Even a mathematical proof is conditional. What do the three angles of a triangle add up to? The answer and the proof depend on whether you're talking plane or spherical trig. cf. non-Euclidian geometry, the irreducibly statistical propositions of chaos theory, etc.)

While this might sound like postmodernist palaver, it isn't, because there's another dimension to science that creationists try constantly to downplay. Scientific knowledge has solidity, robustness, because, together with scientific theory, it is built as an interlocking WEB of observation, fact, testing, and conceptualization. In that environment, proposed knowledge that doesn't fit with the whole stands out like a sore thumb and demands attention. If its hypothetical structure can be supported with new evidence, the whole web needs to shift, e.g., Einstein's famous prediction that Sun's gravitation would deflect starlight. When it did, we had some shifting to do, and lots of followup to solidify the position of relativity in the scientific world view. This is different from postmodernism because postmodernism implies that things are true only according to the model (concept, theory, paradigm) you're comparing them to, and those conceptual pictures are culturally determined and therefore equal in stature. Creationists love that. It just doesn't happen to be true.

I wish I could find Stephen Jay Gould's half-facetious definition of fact (I'll look around for it and post it here asap) -- something like, "a fact is something so firmly supported that it would irresponsible not to grant it our conditional approval". Much better approach than "proof", which I consider an anachronistic term.

And to respond to creationists, challenge them to construct any kind of an integrated web out of their "theory" that in any way fits the observable world, that is, anything that doesn't come down to, "Cause God did it, and that's REAL science!"

the arguements that you so angrily accuse creationists of using, are the very same ones that evolutionists use, and used to get the teaching of intelligent design kicked out of schools. they demanded proof, and when none was found (because there is no absolute proof of anything) they threw a proverbial tantrum.
there is no proof of either theory, and therefore, they are both faith, this is not to say that there is no evidence for evolution, there is, but evidence should never be confused with proof. adn there is evidence for creationism, as well.
so the choice boils down to this, what do you place you faith in, an accident or GOD.
it's as simple as that

summer

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Aquagem

I would just as soon see "proof" expunged from our everyday scientific lexicon. ...anything that doesn't come down to, "Cause God did it, and that's REAL science!"

Good post. Thanks.

There is an unspoken side-affect to the Creationist stance. Once you say "Cause God did it" then NO subsequent research, analysis or questioning could be tolerated in good conscience. To do so, would be to question God's will, God's plan, or even God itself. If Creationists get the upper hand, it may prove (there's that word again!) extremely difficult to protect ANY area of scientific thought or study at all. I imagine you could research the freezing point of di-methyl-petro-dairy-sulfate, but if you started wondering WHY its freezing point was so low (or high) then the "Cause God did it" would come down on your punkin head like a mallet.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by the romantic cynic

the arguements that you so angrily accuse creationists of using, are the very same ones that evolutionists use, and used to get the teaching of intelligent design kicked out of schools. they demanded proof, and when none was found (because there is no absolute proof of anything) they threw a proverbial tantrum.
there is no proof of either theory, and therefore, they are both faith, this is not to say that there is no evidence for evolution, there is, but evidence should never be confused with proof. adn there is evidence for creationism, as well. so the choice boils down to this, what do you place you faith in, an accident or GOD. it's as simple as that

No, summer, it is not that simple.
Evolution is already "in" the classroom because it has successfully explained the order of the biological realm without resorting to superstition or the supernatural. Science is impossible if you resort to the supernatural. It isn't "science" then. It is religion.
The Theory of Evolution has as much "proof" as the Theory of Gravity. We know "how" gravity works, but we don't know (yet) what "makes" it work. This is no excuse to teach school kids they can jump from the roofs of their houses.
The "proverbial tantrum" you spoke of, in fact, never happened. Not in the schoolrooms where ID was debated, nor in the courtrooms where it was kept out of the schoolroom.
Evolution has massive evidence on its side. ID has NO evidence at all. None. Not the first shadow of a glimmer of a shred of evidence.

One wonders what the Catholic prelates and cardinals of the 16th Century felt when confronted by Galileo's outrageous evidence that the Earth went around the sun. They felt like you feel, summer.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

One wonders what the Catholic prelates and cardinals of the 16th Century felt when confronted by Galileo's outrageous evidence that the Earth went around the sun.

In fairness to the Catholic church, and in no way denying or defending their persecution of Copernecus or Galileo, we should note that the Roman Catholic Church’s current stated position on the current Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate is that the theory of Evolution does not contradict church doctrine, and that ID is not good Science – see Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design.

The Evolution vs. ID debate, and, acrimony between scientists and religionists in general seems at present to be being promoted mostly by a fairly small group of American protestants. Other deeply religious people do not seem to feel that Evolution is a threat to their beliefs.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by CraigD

In fairness to the Catholic church, ...seems at present to be being promoted mostly by a fairly small group of American protestants. Other deeply religious people do not seem to feel that Evolution is a threat to their beliefs.

I not only accept and agree, I also concur.
I have yet to meet any Methodists or Presbyterians or other "mainstream" Christians who have expressed any fondness for ID or any fear of Evolution.

[Pyrotex]

Fusion and TeleMad,
both good posts. You have made me think. ("OUCH! STOP!")
What we have here is a dilemma.
We would like to use the word "proof" (or "prove") to mean the act of assembling a body of evidence and/or constructing a body of logic so convincing that people of sufficient education and rationality must perforce accept the conclusion.
Notice that nowhere in this definition did I use the word "Truth" or pull anything out of my sleeve. The key words are "accept the conclusion".

On the other five-digited extremity, if we tie "proof" to our ability to convince, then we open ourselves up to those folks who think the tactic of "denial of acceptance" is both clever and logically meaningfull. => "If you can't convince me (and you NEVER will, because I will NEVER relent), then you have NOT proved anything! Ta-dahh!"

It may be true that we cannot prove anything to THEM, and it may be true that "proving" something to those already biased in our favor doesn't count for anything, but we can still "prove".

We can amass evidence and logic and allow it to speak for itself. We can take note of the numbers and kinds of thoughtful people who are willing to open their minds to it, to consider it, to mindfully debate it, and to rationally express their opinions of it. And if the (vast) majority of those kinds of people agree with the conclusion that (we say) follows from the evidence and logic, then to that extent, we may say we have "proved" our point. We have convinced.

And what of the nay-sayers? They shall continue to shout that we have proved nothing because we did not (and CANNOT) convince them. We must be fair and allow them the freedom to have their own opinions. (Though, sometimes I think their opinions have them.) We cannot drag them along, kicking and screaming against their will. However, in the Grand Marketplace of Ideas, these concepts do battle on a level far above our petty desires and ambitions. And we must trust that eventually, the evidence and the logic will take the field.