Your debate is merely a tautology disguised through synonym. You may as well have stated "Effectiveness consists merely of that which is capable."
It's meant to highlight the misconception that there is such a thing as irrefutable proof.
People generally speak of proof IMO in too absolute of a sense, as if once something has been proven that it somehow becomes irrefutable.
What's weird is that there's already consensus here in this debate that proof in the absolute sense is unachievable. Check out the opposing arguments. YOU agree with me that "proof" and "what is convincing" are synonymous. So perhaps you could help explain this to Zombee .
What do you think of her responses to this debate? Why do you think she disagrees with us that "proof" and "what is convincing" are synonymous?
Why would someone resist admitting that the lead statement of this debate is true?
Because you come across as way too confident in yourself. Its just a touch annoying. Makes us wish to dispute you. That and no one really seems to care that much about the debate overall or on your side other than yourself and the one above you on this side of the argument.
Although I dont directly mean to speak for everyone, I feel compelled to say We, by the way. If you dont share my opinion, then fine. I apologize. But Im keeping we(laughs).
Also, I personally feel as though when you say Proof consists of what is convincing, that seems Far too broad of an inclusion. Thats to say, under your terms, in a court case, a man is accused of rape. Because the woman who is supposedly the victim declares him to be the perpetrator and the state proves that the man was there that night because his fingerprints were there and his shoes were recently covered in oil but the defense has no evidence whatsoever, The man is "Proven" to be a rapist by the court. Is this what you refer to? For that seems, again, FAR too broad an inclusion for some sort of Proof.
Lastly, look at your title. Right off the bat, you either take one side or the other based off of your interpretation of prrof. I personally Think Zombee is more right than you are. But hey, thats me.
Because you come across as way too confident in yourself. Its just a touch annoying. Makes us wish to dispute you..
I was trying to provoke a dispute.
Thats to say, under your terms, in a court case, a man is accused of rape. Because the woman who is supposedly the victim declares him to be the perpetrator and the state proves that the man was there that night because his fingerprints were there and his shoes were recently covered in oil but the defense has no evidence whatsoever, The man is "Proven" to be a rapist by the court. Is this what you refer to? For that seems, again, FAR too broad an inclusion for some sort of Proof.
The point is that the accused can be proven guilty despite the truth of the matter.
I personally Think Zombee is more right than you are. But hey, thats me.
I invited her to offer her perspective at this debate because I think she makes convincing arguments.
Thank you for introducing a very interesting subject.
I want you to know that I do not argue or debate from a certain side or angle, I enjoy mutual conversations with an open mind, and I appreciate the knowledge and mental breakthroughs that can be gained. Now, on with your statement:
May I suggest that the difference between "proof" and something that is "convincing", is that proof has to be irrefutable and always true, whereas a "convincing" argument may well be refutable and false.
Furthermore, a "convincing" idea is heavily dependant on the subject that is "convinced" and the degree of how convincing it is will vary from subject to subject.
Having said that, I would like to pose the following question to you:
Is your fingerprint "proof" that your finger touched the subject where your fingerprint was found?
Please note that I have not added any more variables or dependant storylines to this question. This not a question of whether your were in the room where someone was killed, or whether you willingly touched the subject or not. Just the question.
The certainty of proof is always 100% regardless of what you are after.
So, back to our question, regardless of what you are using this proof for (court case etc.), is your fingerprint proof that your finger touched the subject?
Is this fact refutable? Is it possible that this truth will ever be false?
The certainty of proof is always 100% regardless of what you are after.
I would want to leave room for doubt on most things actually. That's a philosophical inclination of mine. Regarding serious matters however, I would agree that it's better not to be full of doubt.
So, back to our question, regardless of what you are using this proof for (court case etc.), is your fingerprint proof that your finger touched the subject?
In the interest of plainly answering your question:
Yes a fingerprint on an object is GENERALLY regarded as reliable proof that someone touched an object.
Does this translate to: "A fingerprint on an object Unquestionably and in all conceivable cases proves the object was touched" ? Any time I read the term irrefutable my mind inserts the word yet
I would want to leave room for doubt on most things actually. That's a philosophical inclination of mine.
And in my books that is something to be proud of.
Yes a fingerprint on an object is GENERALLY regarded as reliable proof that someone touched an object.
Yes, but I didn't ask you what the general attitude towards this proof is.
The "general regard" for a proof includes people who do not possess the required scientific knowledge to understand the irrefutable certainty of the proof. It also includes people who have other reasons to not accept the proof as irrefutable.
So that's why I asked YOU.
And in doing so I am assuming that you possess the required knowledge and that your mind does not have an agenda in this matter. Therefore, I think we should fore-go a biological discussion on fingerprints.
So, forgetting about the general regard, is the fingerprint merely "convincing" or is it "proof"?
I could refute the concept of equality itself. I have never observed two identical things (in the real world) that couldn't be demonstrated to have difference.
I could refute the concept of equality itself. I have never observed two identical things (in the real world) that couldn't be demonstrated to have difference.
Are you refering to the possible differences between the imprint on the object and the actual fingerprint?
Sorry about that. That post was supposed to be for another debate. My stance is that fingerprint evidence CAN be faked. I don't think it's wise to think of any evidence as absolutely irrefutable. We should always keep in mind that no one is immune to being deluded, fooled tricked or gravely mistaken.
I thought of a way to logically approach proving the statement. It would however require the opponent to concede that "ideas require perceiving minds to exist."
Proof is evidence. But if the evidence is not convincing enough, it isn't considered better than it was. Like Parapsychology is quite accomplished but it isn't legal yet. Lie detectors aren't evidences. Also, a man's statement who has a criminal record isn't a proof. Proof has to have the power to release a fair judgement. Sometimes fair... Sometimes not.
I think it would be more accurate to state "What one considers proof consists merely of what they find convincing." The important distinction is that one person finding something convincing does not necessitate that all people will find it convincing, because of this "proof" is relative.
When people ask for proof of a claim, they are actually asking for supporting evidence, because claims do not have proof, only evidence. Colloquially, the two terms are interchangeable, but this does not mean they are truly the same thing.
Proofs consist of 'a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.' A mathematical proof is formed via deductive reasoning rather than examining empirical evidence or weighing possibilities, and it is always completely unfalsifiable. Someone with a stronger mathematical background would be able to explain it better.
Evidence consists of data that supports a statement. Evidence will never amount to a proof, but different pieces of evidence may accumulate into a whole that is convincing. The amount of evidence a person needs in order to be convinced of a claim depends on how skeptical they are. Some people are not open-minded at all to the possibility of a claim, thus, however they may profess to want to see evidence, no amount of evidence will ever convince them.
Evidence is just evidence until it becomes convincing, then it's called proof.
No. Evidence is always evidence. It may be part of a repertoire of evidence that is convincing, or not.
I remain a skeptic of absolutist claims like that. They're involved in all sorts of excessive trust related problems.
I understand why you are skeptical and I don't want to confuse things by overstepping my understanding of mathematics, but I think what really matters is that science makes a clear distinction between evidence and proofs.
I think that statement is evidence that you agree with the debate title/statement
No, because evidence =/= proof. Ever. Even if every piece of available evidence seamlessly supports a particular theory, it can never honestly be said that that theory has been proven.
science makes a clear distinction between evidence and proofs.
I'd like to read a clear explanation of that distinction.
No, because evidence =/= proof. Ever. Even if every piece of available evidence seamlessly supports a particular theory, it can never honestly be said that that theory has been proven.
I agree with that.....ironically I don't see how this (valid IMO) statement of yours refutes mine. As I understand it both our perspectives are based on what I see as a philosophically agnostic outlook.
"Pure mathematics consists entirely of such asseverations as that, if such and such a proposition is true of anything, then such and such another proposition is true of that thing."
"Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis."
I agree with that.....ironically I don't see how this (valid IMO) statement of yours refutes mine. As I understand it both our perspectives are based on what I see as a philosophically agnostic outlook.
I was assuming the context in which you were using 'proof' in this case would have been better filled by the word 'evidence', as it often is. By proof, do you not mean whatever body of evidence one uses to support a claim?
Do you mean then that as long as the paper trail is complete, then it is valid 'proof'? I find this hard to accept. However, a trail of evidences that cover every single possibility of fraud or extenuating circumstances cannot exist, conceptually speaking. Thus I'm for the other team ^_^ whatever convinces wins!!!
I agree entirely with Zombee. The argument against yours, that being essentially what Zombee has put forth, is something that has been around for uite a while. Why do you think that Einstein's THEORY of Relativity has remained with such a name? Because although just about everyone agrees with it, it still cannot be PROVED, only infinitely evidenced further and further. Mathematics and science both cede to this idea, but you, the one who uses them to back up your claim to begin with, do not. Not to be insulting or anything, just trying to break your base.
I don't think there was anything standing out to me about Zombee's posts that I disagree with either. What I don't see is how the points she's brought up are construed to be refuting anything about my statement
The conclusion of a proof must be valid in that it is not merely convincing; it cannot be refuted or adequately replaced by a different conclusion. If it is refuted or replaced, then the conclusion is invalid and it was never actually a proof; it was a faulty equation or a series of illogical statements. This debate prompted me to try to better understand what constitutes a proof, and I think I can provide a simple example.
If A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C.
Logically, there is no way it cannot be true, therefor it is a proof.
It is always possible that the conclusion of a body of evidence, no matter how convincing, may eventually be superseded by new evidence and a different conclusion. Evidence can be interpreted different ways and the same evidence can be used to support different and conflicting conclusions. There are logical ways in which the conclusion drawn from available could be false, therefor evidence is not proof and it never will be.
Unless I misunderstood the debate, the word 'proof' in the title actually refers to 'evidence', correct? The data a person uses to support their case? In that case, the statement 'evidence merely consists of what is convincing' is incorrect in that the act of being convincing is not a defining characteristic of evidence. Evidence can be convincing or not depending on what it is and what conclusion is supports.
If the statement was indeed intended to be 'proof' as in 'a proof' then it is also incorrect because proofs are more than convincing, as I said earlier, they are irrefutable. If it is refutable, it is not a proof.
This debate prompted me to try to better understand what constitutes a proof.
Thats cool.
Your responses seem well thought out. But my feeling is that your strong tendency to be contrarian is preventing you from noticing that the statement I started this debate with posits not a single thing out of line with your explained understanding. I find this very strange.
It happens often enough that contentious conversations occur even though there is no substantial underlying disagreement. For an opponent to interject with NO NO NO then proceed to explain the identical understanding in a different way (with different terms) is common in my experience.
I'll get on with the rest of your post.
If A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C.
Logically, there is no way it cannot be true, therefor it is a proof.
Is that so?Ok so lets say the above logical preposition is about 3 water ponds, labeled A, B, and C
A is 10'X10' and a foot deep
B is 5'X10' and 2' deep
C is 2.5'X10' and 4' deep
Only If we're discussing surface area is your logical statement valid. To describe something as greater than requires that we refer to something measurable and agreed upon standard.
evidence is not proof and it never will be.
Evidence is called proof once it is thought of as conclusive. In other words if it's convincing. If we're talking about proof, we are inescapably talking about evidence and whether or not it's REGARDED as conclusive.
proofs are more than convincing, as I said earlier, they are irrefutable. If it is refutable, it is not a proof.
Your responses seem well thought out. But my feeling is that your strong tendency to be contrarian is preventing you from noticing that the statement I started this debate with posits not a single thing out of line with your explained understanding. I find this very strange.
Based upon the fact that you later show again that you do not understand the difference between evidence and proof, and that evidence never will be proof, I disagree. Call this contrarian if you want, but this is not a distinction I invented; it is a universally accepted tenet of science that unless something is irrefutable, it cannot be said to have proof, only evidence. To summarize again what I think is wrong with your statement:
If you meant 'evidence' in your debate, I disagree with the statement that 'evidence mere consists of what is convincing' because the act of being convincing is not a defining characteristic of evidence.
If you did mean proof, I disagree with the statement that 'proofs merely consist of what is convincing' because proofs are irrefutable.
Is that so?Ok so lets say the above logical preposition is about 3 water ponds, labeled A, B, and C
A is 10'X10' and a foot deep
B is 5'X5' and 2' deep
C is 2.5'X2.5' and 4' deep
Only If we're discussing surface area is your logical statement valid. To describe something as greater than requires that we refer to something measurable and agreed upon standard.
Pond A is larger in both volume and surface area.
Even if that were not so, the if in the proof is not to be ignored. If we resolve the statement and replace the variables with real numbers, no matter what feature they measure, and we have a statement in which A is not greater than B, or B is not greater than C, then the statement no longer posits than A is greater than C. So, the proof still holds because it posited that A is greater than C only if certain conditions are met.
Furthermore, even if you do show that my statement is false, it doesn't really mean anything except that I gave a poor example that wasn't actually a proof. Proofs would still exist. I gave you a link earlier that provided a collection of them. You can try to debunk those, if you want.
Evidence is called proof once it is thought of as conclusive. In other words if it's convincing. If we're talking about proof, we are inescapably talking about evidence and whether or not it's REGARDED as conclusive.
Evidence is not proof. Evidence will never be proof. If evidence is convincing, then it is just that and nothing more: convincing evidence.
you later show again that you do not understand the difference between evidence and proof,
I favor a different way of explaining my understanding of the words than you do.. A body of evidence is called proof only when it convinces.
being convincing is not a defining characteristic of evidence.
That's false on it's face. Sure, it's not the evidence that does the actual convincing, but the individual interpretation of evidence. If it isn't thought to support or refute a claim then it's not regarded as evidence.
proofs are irrefutable
Don't you think irrefutable is the same thing as yet to be refuted?
I am still checking out your fine links. I 'll muster a response in a bit...
I favor a different way of explaining my understanding of the words than you do.. A body of evidence is called proof only when it convinces.
You can define the words however you like as long as you recognize that this is not actually what proof and evidence really are, and that the scientific community has come to a general consensus on this. As an example, there is all the evidence in the world for evolution but the enormous monetary prizes offered for the 'proof of evolution' go unclaimed. Why? Because the premise is fallacious; evolution has not been proven and never will be.
That's false on it's face. Sure, it's not the evidence that does the actual convincing, but the individual interpretation of evidence. If it isn't thought to support or refute a claim then it's not regarded as evidence.
Evidence is evidence, convincing or not. The evidence for ghosts consists of personal anecdotes, and just because one is not convinced by the anecdotes does not make them nonexistent. It makes them feeble evidence.
Don't you think irrefutable is the same thing as yet to be refuted?
Not necessarily.
To use evolution again; proponents of evolution will tell you what could happen that would refute their theory. A monkey could give birth to a human baby, or aliens could zip down to earth and do some genetic modifications, or a new high-order species could spontaneously form from dirt. This is why evidence is not irrefutable, just yet to be refuted; it is conceivable that new knowledge could come to light that would invalidate current evidence.
There is no way for numbers to suddenly scramble themselves around or begin unpredictably representing random and varying quantities, ie: the integer 2 sometimes represents 3 and other times represents 17, 4 becomes larger in quantity than 4000, etc. A right angle will always be 90 degrees. Length will never influence the angle of a line. Triangles will always have three sides. So on, and so on. This is why proofs are irrefutable; it is inconcievable that new knowledge could come to light that would invalidate a proof.
Edit: I probably should have waited for a new post or an addendum to the old one. Sorry, I got ahead of myself.
You can define the words however you like as long as you recognize that this is not actually what proof and evidence really are, and that the scientific community has come to a general consensus on this.
I am glad I have your permission to challenge what I think is indeed a consensus, albeit not one general to "the scientific community" as I understand it. Just the gawkers outside.
It's good advice (even for scientists) to realize they might be wrong. Their measurements and calculations based on them may be unreliable.
just because one is not convinced by the anecdotes does not make them nonexistent
Who would think such a silly thing anyway?
It makes them feeble evidence.
Maybe were getting somewhere. Evidence must have a whom to be evident to no?
There is no way for numbers to suddenly scramble themselves around or begin unpredictably representing random and varying quantities, ie: the integer 2 sometimes represents 3 and other times represents 17, 4 becomes larger in quantity than 4000, etc.
Numbers are used for measurements. Measurements are based on more or less arbitrarily established standards. Imaginary numbers may not "suddenly scramble themselves" but in cases where we don't know all the appropriate factors to take into account, they may as well.
A right angle will always be 90 degrees.
Then no angle is really a right angle, it's always at least slightly off. If we haven't perfect precision instruments we can't show otherwise.
Length will never influence the angle of a line
A line is imaginary. Supposed
Triangles will always have three sides.
Show me something with only 3 sides. Again imaginary.
This is why proofs are irrefutable; it is inconceivable that new knowledge could come to light that would invalidate a proof.
That sums up the style of thinking I argue against pretty good.
I probably should have waited for a new post or an addendum to the old one. Sorry, I got ahead of myself.
Its cool. Sometime you get crappy answer from me cause tired or rushed.
Youre Argument against the ABC Argument is only ascertains to the set of Surface area values. ONLY. If you were to incorporate the volume of them as well, then potentially C>B>A. Thats why its hard to use theory to prove the idea of proof. You have to more or less use Scientific method to realize the existence and effectiveness of Scientific Method. Its tough.
Evidence is not proof and never will be.
You make the statement in your argument that enough evidence that is considered conclusive is proof. Yes, but that is a human-developed system, not science. In the Real World, Absolute Proof in true definition cannot be achieved. I make the same argument somewhere below near the bottom of this argument.
I could refute the concept of equality itself as I have never observed two identical things (in the real world) that couldn't be demonstrated to have difference.
So basically, we agree. In theoretical terms, something can be absolute and proven, but not in the real world. Your question itself is somewhat based off of the interpretation of a words definition in a real world application. As such, when the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is subtracted, Absolutes may only exist in theoretical planes and therefore prrof as well. A real world application of Proof is non-existant.
I could refute the concept of equality itself as I have never observed two identical things (in the real world) that couldn't be demonstrated to have difference.
Exactly. Proof Must be exactly what it strives to do. Prove. Otherwise its just quite a bit of evidence infinitely alluring to a conclusion of correctness. However, Proof only truly exists in exact values and can never be achieved in a real world situation, only evidenced. What we call proof in the real world allures to an absolute value, which is impossible to achieve in the real world. Only The Mathematical systems that you, Atypican, allow for absolutes, like the argument that Zombee put forth about A>B>C, A>C. Even then, the theory postulated could be destroyed by the supersition of a new, more encompassing argument that would, again, be accepted as Good enough, but its all theory. Not Proof. Infinitely evidenced Theory.
Proof is the physical, verbal, or numerical evidence of an occurence, seperate from belief or opinion and logical fallacies, that validates said occurence.
Well there's our disagreement. You think that proof exists independently of the opinion of the entity to which X has been sufficiently proven. The perceived does not exist without the perceiver.