Return to CreateDebate.comphilosophy • Join this debate community

Philosophy


Debate Info

24
23
right wrong
Debate Score:47
Arguments:41
Total Votes:48
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 right (23)
 
 wrong (18)

Debate Creator

atypican(4874) pic



Proof consists merely of what is convincing

Anyone know who has made this point before?

right

Side Score: 24
VS.

wrong

Side Score: 23
2 points

Your debate is merely a tautology disguised through synonym.

You may as well have stated "Effectiveness consists merely of that which is capable."

Side: Right
atypican(4874) Disputed
1 point

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?

Side: right
TheDude(165) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: wrong
1 point

No one wants to touch this one.......

No one wants to admit that the statement is truthful. No one can muster a challenging response.

This is serving to prove that my thinking is rather correct on the matter. :)

Side: Right
Argento(512) Disputed
3 points

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.

Side: wrong
atypican(4874) Disputed
1 point

Thank you for introducing a very interesting subject.

Your welcome. Some people like Aveskde read the title and think to themselves "Congratulations! you've stated the obvious"

The statement at the top is obviously not so obvious to everyone.

Is your fingerprint "proof" that your finger touched the subject where your fingerprint was found?

It depends on the level of certainty I was after.

Side: Right
1 point

Can I be credited with introducing this maxim? Or will someone put me in my place and tell me who has beat me to the punch?

Side: Right
1 point

Oh I found Friedrich Nietzsche said essentially the same thing with

“There are no facts, only interpretations.”

Side: Right
1 point

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."

Side: Right
1 point

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.

Side: Right
1 point

Proof consists merely of what is convincing

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.

Side: right
3 points

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.

Side: wrong
atypican(4874) Disputed
1 point

When people ask for proof of a claim, they are actually asking for supporting evidence, because claims do not have proof, only evidence.

I agree.

Would you agree with:

Evidence is just evidence until it becomes convincing, then it's called proof.

it is always completely unfalsifiable.

I remain a skeptic of absolutist claims like that. They're involved in all sorts of excessive trust related problems.

Evidence will never amount to a proof, but different pieces of evidence may accumulate into a whole that is convincing.

I think that statement is evidence that you agree with the debate title/statement

Side: Right
zombee(1024) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: wrong
artifact1122(8) Disputed
1 point

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!!!

Side: right
2 points

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.

Side: wrong
atypican(4874) Disputed
1 point

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

Side: Right
zombee(1024) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: wrong
1 point

I disagree. There are facts and then there are opinions .

Side: wrong
0 points

Proof is the physical, verbal, or numerical evidence of an occurence, seperate from belief or opinion and logical fallacies, that validates said occurence.

Side: wrong
atypican(4874) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: Right