Evidence versus Proof

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 07:16 am
@Fido,
Fido;109776 wrote:
I don't want to put words in recons mouth, but much of what is accepted as truth is only truth- because -it is generally accepted as such...Whether because people are polite, or only have other fish to fry, they do not challenge the accepted version of truth....



I agree that some of what is accepted as true is not true at all. It was accepted as true that Earth was flat, and it was not. So what? What is that supposed to imply about truth? What is your point? People often make mistakes.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 07:24 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;109775 wrote:
Let me demand a small bit of honesty from you: If you saw a dog, and you had no concept of a dog, what are you seeing???

The answer, of course, is that I am seeing a dog. But if I hac no concept of a dog, I would not realize that I was seeing a dog. In the 15th century, when people saw whales they were seeing mammals. But since they did not have the concept of mammal, they did not realize they were seeing mammals. Just as if were you to be in the same room as I was, but I did not know who you were, Fido would be in the same room, but I would not know it.

What is puzzling about that?


You are proving my point...The same thing happened with Incas and Aztecs first seeing men on horse back... They could not tell what they were seeing and in such situation the natives could not separate the two, but thought they were seeing some mythiopic form of being.... We see by way of forms... We recognize by way of forms, and we know by way of forms...They are not always correct, and philosophy has the purpose of correcting forms... But the distance between our forms and the objects conceived is only physical...The dog in our mind is the dog in reality...As Schopenhaur said: The world is my idea...No one can say, and also prove whether when seeing a thing if they are seeing the thing, or seeing the thing through the medium of its form... Consider...You not only see what a thing is based upon knowledge of it, but seeing what it is not....The form is like a hologram...If you see a three legged dog you know instantly that it departs from the form, and in no essential fashion...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 07:34 am
@Fido,
Fido;109781 wrote:
You are proving my point...The same thing happened with Incas and Aztecs first seeing men on horse back... They could not tell what they were seeing and in such situation the natives could not separate the two, but thought they were seeing some mythiopic form of being.... We see by way of forms... We recognize by way of forms, and we know by way of forms...They are not always correct, and philosophy has the purpose of correcting forms... But the distance between our forms and the objects conceived is only physical...The dog in our mind is the dog in reality...As Schopenhaur said: The world is my idea...No one can say, and also prove whether when seeing a thing if they are seeing the thing, or seeing the thing through the medium of its form... Consider...You not only see what a thing is based upon knowledge of it, but seeing what it is not....The form is like a hologram...If you see a three legged dog you know instantly that it departs from the form, and in no essential fashion...


What is your point? You implied that I was not seeing a dog if I did not have the concept of a dog. Is that what you are saying now? Or not? Never mind all this stuff about forms. If I haven't the concept of a dog, then I am not seeing that the animal is a dog. But that does not mean that I am not seeing a dog. Never mind forms. Is that right? Schopenhauer was an Idealist, and he was wrong. The world is not my idea (nor is it my will).
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 07:35 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;109778 wrote:
I agree that some of what is accepted as true is not true at all. It was accepted as true that Earth was flat, and it was not. So what? What is that supposed to imply about truth? What is your point? People often make mistakes.


The earth is not flat???I put stuff on it and the stuff does not fall off... Who says it is not flat???

My point was that the truth is only a form, and as a form, it is incorrect as every other form... It was not so long ago that humanity would kill others or enslave them because they did not recognize them as a form of humanity... Today, the religion of a man may deny to him a definition of human...Our societies give us a view to truth, a paradigm, and since our societies are life, and life is the ultimate truth, we go along with our societies...It is like me and the pledge of allegiance...I don't think my society is that society, but there are some places you will be assaulted for not saying it...I pledge allegiance to the society defined, thinking it would be an improvement on reality, and avoid the bloody nose...Truth has a cultural element...WE get our forms from our culture...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 07:39 am
@Fido,
Fido;109784 wrote:
The earth is not flat???I put stuff on it and the stuff does not fall off... Who says it is not flat???

..


Scientists, and the educated people of the world. And, I suppose, even you when you are not philosophizing. What makes you think stuff would fall off if it were round? It is round, and stuff doesn't fall off.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 07:47 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;109783 wrote:
What is your point? You implied that I was not seeing a dog if I did not have the concept of a dog. Is that what you are saying now? Or not? Never mind all this stuff about forms. If I haven't the concept of a dog, then I am not seeing that the animal is a dog. But that does not mean that I am not seeing a dog. Never mind forms. Is that right?


You might be seeing something if you saw a dog without the concept of a dog, but you would not be seeing a dog...And your ability to react to it would be compromised...Forms have filled up our world with distinct objects, but they have also made humanity what it is... What you are is what you know, and what kind of man does not know what a dog is???People are so used to having the knowledge of forms in mind, that they cannot imagine a world without them...What you say is not uncommon, even if false...People do not consider how they know what they know, so universal knowledge escapes them...If it was your lot to have to identify some presently unknown beast, you would be forced to define it by comparison, what it is like, what it appears to be, what it is not like... Well; this is exactly the fashion in which all our forms are arrived at...For us it is a given...For some one like Aristotle, the task was nearer the beginning, though hardly at a start...What can any of us add to knowledge???
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 07:50 am
@Fido,
Fido;109787 wrote:
You might be seeing something if you saw a dog without the concept of a dog, but you would not be seeing a dog...


You have just contradicted yourself. How could it be that I was both seeing a dog, and not seeing a dog? That is what you have just written in one sentence (not even two).
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 08:00 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;109786 wrote:
Scientists, and the educated people of the world. And, I suppose, even you when you are not philosophizing. What makes you think stuff would fall off if it were round? It is round, and stuff doesn't fall off.


Well, it is flat around here, and that is the world I deal with...As a practical matter it is flat, even if, as a fact, it is spherical... In relation to man the mountains are high... To a map maker they are insignificant to the general flatness of the earth...We need to know in what sense reality departs from the world of appearance, and what the practical significance of that difference is....

Scientist need a degree of understanding that transends the obvious because they deal in abstractions which must be more exacting to support conclusions...For the rest of us, our level of truth need not be more exact than the conclusions we would draw from truth....

---------- Post added 12-10-2009 at 09:11 AM ----------

kennethamy;109789 wrote:
You have just contradicted yourself. How could it be that I was both seeing a dog, and not seeing a dog? That is what you have just written in one sentence (not even two).


Forms are the difference between something, and a specific thing...Hamlet was challenged by spectral evidence such as no one today would accept..Was that change accomplished without an understanding of 'Real' things???.The level of our personal knowledge grows as we move from the general, (something), to the specific, (dog)...A form represent a judgement... Each one is a class... We define a dog, and in the process define what a dog is not...

No one can form a concept out of an isolated phenomena...What ever it is or was has to be like one other thing minimum to be identified... The form represents a class, and the class defines the individual...To know a dog you must have a concept of dogs...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 08:18 am
@Fido,
Fido;109792 wrote:
Well, it is flat around here, and that is the world I deal with...As a practical matter it is flat, even if, as a fact, it is spherical... In relation to man the mountains are high... To a map maker they are insignificant to the general flatness of the earth...We need to know in what sense reality departs from the world of appearance, and what the practical significance of that difference is....

Scientist need a degree of understanding that transends the obvious because they deal in abstractions which must be more exacting to support conclusions...For the rest of us, our level of truth need not be more exact than the conclusions we would draw from truth....

---------- Post added 12-10-2009 at 09:11 AM ----------

B

Forms are the difference between something, and a specific thing...Hamlet was challenged by spectral evidence such as no one today would accept..Was that change accomplished without an understanding of 'Real' things???.The level of our personal knowledge grows as we move from the general, (something), to the specific, (dog)...A form represent a judgement... Each one is a class... We define a dog, and in the process define what a dog is not...

No one can form a concept out of an isolated phenomena...What ever it is or was has to be like one other thing minimum to be identified... The form represents a class, and the class defines the individual...To know a dog you must have a concept of dogs...


But you contradicted yourself. You stated that you were both seeing a dog, and not seeing a dog. How can that possibly be? I don't know what "knowing a dog" means except that you are acquainted with the dog. But if you happen to mean that in order to be able to see a dog, you must know it is a dog, that is clearly false. What is true is that in order to see that something is a dog, you have to know it is a dog.

As a practical matter, things don't fall off Earth. But that doesn't mean that as a practical matter Earth is flat, since in fact (as I pointed out before) things don't fall of the Earth even if it is round. Proof: Earth is round and things do not fall off it. (You have, I suppose, heard of gravity). By the way, even if it weren't for gravity, things need not fall off a round object. I can carefully place a coin on a ball, and it needn't fall off.
 
ACB
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 09:53 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;109750 wrote:
Well, I've been saying that truth is based on persuasion in the broad sense of rhetoric rather than in the narrower sense logic. I don't think humans operate by logic. They are emotional mythological status-seeking beings. <-- opinion.

I think when people call themselves logical and they aren't saying much more than that they find their current opinions self-persuasive.


We need to consider why some opinions are more persuasive than others. Why do we often believe unpleasant facts, when we would feel happier or prouder if we disbelieved them? If I am told I have failed an exam, why not simply persuade myself I have passed? If someone is diagnosed with a progressive illness, why not simply ignore it? Answer - because they believe that to do so will have even worse consequences. But why should they believe that? Surely it's because of the coherence of mind-independent reality, which unfolds regardless of human wishes, persuasions or rhetoric.

Most of the time, our experience is non-chaotic; it is full of patterns and regularities. A building that is in a particular place one day will usually still be there the next. Sugar does not usually taste sweet at one meal, sour at the next, and bitter at the one after that. Cars do not suddenly fly 100 feet into the air and turn into pink elephants. The sun rises at a predictable time every day, etc, etc. This is what I mean by coherence. But does it follow that we are the ones creating the coherence? No, it does not. If the world were largely chaotic (with just enough regularity to enable us to survive), we would certainly recognise it. We know chaos when we see it, e.g. in nonsense verse or surrealist art; we do not try to impose recognisable forms on it. So the coherence (and thus reality and truth) must, to some degree, be independent of us.

As for logic - well, most of the time we don't consciously use it. But it can be useful in some cases to ensure that we are thinking straight and not contradicting ourselves.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 10:02 am
@ACB,
ACB;109822 wrote:

As for logic - well, most of the time we don't consciously use it. But it can be useful in some cases to ensure that we are thinking straight and not contradicting ourselves.


If we do not consciously use it, that does not mean we do not use it. I means we are just not focused on it. It is like speaking. We do not consciously focus on the rules of grammar when speaking. But that does not mean that we are not using them anyway.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 03:18 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;109713 wrote:
What are things made of? What is a chair minus our concept of it as chair? Is it not the concept that strings the sense-data together? That summons it up in our imagination when it is not present? Have we any access to any sort of meaningful reality without concept? It's a good question.
Every form is a classification, and a definition...As a classification it relates one form to all others...The form is also a form of relationship between people, just as we now relate through language, philosophy, and the internet..
Quote:
And what about the concept of concept itself?

That has changed as far as I can tell, mostly between metaphysical and material...

Bring on the lingustic historicism. How is a concept like concept invented? How is a concept/term like "abstract" invented? I suggest that in the beginning man used tropes, especially metaphors, to create/refer to these concepts.

Concepts are not invented...Every bit of knowledge is a concept... The principal of conservation cannot be taught to children before a certain age, but it is essential to reasoning.... I had to look stupid once trying to puzzle out conservation on one of these forums, though I did not need to be able to consciously express it to use it... Every concept is conserved... We think of conservation as identity, and as we have it from Aristotle, A is A, before after or during a logical operation...Specific gravity uses a certain defined relationship between weight and volume to identify elements...It is because these forms are conserved in relation to each other...Forms as definition would be useless if they were not conserved... No one could write a dictionary... Well, that covers a part of our experience: Physical forms...We can spend our whole lives trying to define life, or justice, or freedom... Apart from being conserved, we would like to conserve these meanings -while others go about defining them as suits them...Our concepts taken together are our culture, they are what we are, what we learn, and what we think with....No one can add anything new to our knowledge without adding to our list of concepts...

Do we not continually debate with words and all too often neglect the study of what words are? I suggest that linguistic philosophy is first philosophy, for philosophy is made of words. And the limits of word are presumably the limits of philosophy.


Words lie... We can define our world with numbers and words... Those who control the language control the thought; but that is no reason for people to give up on language, or for that matter to look at it too closely...We have to expect that those who look for an advantage will cover their actions with a lot of meaningless words, or words used to destroy meaning... It like war... One of the worst examples of a word misused to the point of numbness is tragedy... If an apartment complex is destroyed killing a lot of women and children, invariably some spokesman will say: It was a terrible tragedy, but these things are unavoidable in war... Was it really a tragedy, or is saying it is a tragedy really deny that it is a crime???Our forms are social...It is these moral and social form made from moral forms which are our problem... Just as the behavior of some people sucks meaning out of the relationships, their use of the language to confuse the situation or to deny truth sucks meaning out of the language...It makes in inevitably more difficult to deal with the issues that confront us because we must always be engaged in the definition....Miscommunication is a form of injustice... Nothing could be worse for people or for society than the ongoing process of robbing meaning out of social forms and our language... But theft would be impossible without it...We know theft is bad, but we say profit is good when it is no more than theft... Where is the meaning???If bad happens under a good name it is still bad....
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 03:56 pm
@fast,
Fido is addressing the territory that I think is most relevant as far as evidence and truth goes. As far as our conversation as the relation of subjectivity and the objective world, that too is a rich subject, and they are related. But when I insist that logic is glorified rhetoric I am referring to the way humans have desires in them far stronger than the will-to-truth.

I've never denied that there is a stable enough objective reality out there. Such a denial would be childish. But to examine the relationship between existence as it is lived, subjectively, and this strange objective world where subjects are born and die, and interact through language -- it's fascinating stuff. And so is the question of being, of consciousness itself.

The words humans use to justify their behavior are probably the strongest example of my "thesis" that truth is generated by persuasion. If logic were not persuasive, we wouldn't think much of it. Rhetoric transcends and includes logic. And that is not an attempt at history but rather an interpretative re-description that one can take or leave.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 04:04 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;109894 wrote:
Fido is addressing the territory that I think is most relevant as far as evidence and truth goes. .


But this thread is not about evidence and truth. It is about evidence and proof. We use evidence to try to prove (or discover) the truth. The Sherlock Holmes stories as illustrations.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 04:07 pm
@fast,
But the truth is created in the first place. That's the problem with the correspondence theory of truth. It presumes direct access to "truth" or "reality." Both of which are mediated. If we all agreed about the truth which statements were supposed correspond with, I doubt we would be arguing here and now.

Of course a person can always convince themselves that they are in touch with this reality, and others or not. Sometimes they convince others and start religions.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 04:18 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;109902 wrote:
But the truth is created in the first place. That's the problem with the correspondence theory of truth. It presumes direct access to "truth" or "reality." Both of which are mediated. If we all agreed about the truth which statements were supposed correspond with, I doubt we would be arguing here and now.

Of course a person can always convince themselves that they are in touch with this reality, and others or not. Sometimes they convince others and start religions.


1. If the truth is created, then someone must have created the truth that the planet Neptune exists.
2. But for some one to have created the truth that the planet Neptune exists, he must have created the planet Neptune.
3. But no one created the planet Neptune.

4.Therefore, no one created the truth that the planet Neptune exists. (from 2, and 3, by Modus Tollens)

5.Therefore, no one created the truth, (From 1, and 4. By Modus Tollens).

You see, that is how making a case works.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 06:49 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;109908 wrote:
1. If the truth is created, then someone must have created the truth that the planet Neptune exists.
2. But for some one to have created the truth that the planet Neptune exists, he must have created the planet Neptune.
3. But no one created the planet Neptune.

4.Therefore, no one created the truth that the planet Neptune exists. (from 2, and 3, by Modus Tollens)

5.Therefore, no one created the truth, (From 1, and 4. By Modus Tollens).

You see, that is how making a case works.




Number 2 is where I think you're wrong. For me, a "truth" is a justified belief. (And this is just one way to use such a vague word.) To create a belief or its justification is not to create a planet.

Also you're terms are seriously under-defined in the first place, from my point of view.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 07:02 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;109954 wrote:
Number 2 is where I think you're wrong. For me, a "truth" is a justified belief. (And this is just one way to use such a vague word.) To create a belief or its justification is not to create a planet.

Also you're terms are seriously under-defined in the first place, from my point of view.



How could anyone "create" the truth that X exists unless he created X? For, if there is no X, then there is no truth that X exists. If there is no X, then X exists is not true. X exists is false. X exists is true if and only if X exists. Therefore, if X exists is false, then X exists is true is false.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 07:11 pm
@fast,
What do we mean by "exist"? If you accept the correspondence theory of truth, then how is the reality we judge a statement's truthfulness by determined?

We create our statements as we create our concepts. Statements that help us tend to be repeated, disseminated. Yes, there is a reality outside of us but it is mediated by language and sense-data.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 07:35 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;109959 wrote:
What do we mean by "exist"? .


What has that to do with it? No matter what "exist" means, it remains true that X exists if and only if it is true that X exists. Just as it is true the cat is on the mat if and only if the cat is on the mat. That we are talking about X exists rather than, the cat is on the mat, is irrelevant. X exists, and it is true that X exists are equivalent. And, in general, F(x) is equivalent to, it is true that F(x). The meaning of "exists" is a diversion. A red-herring.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/01/2021 at 11:55:38