Evidence versus Proof

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 07:41 pm
@fast,
If you are happy with vague tautologies, fine.

What do you think of the correspondence theory of truth?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 07:52 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;109974 wrote:
If you are happy with vague tautologies, fine.

What do you think of the correspondence theory of truth?



The Semantic Definition of truth is an expression of the correspondence theory of truth, and it seems true to me. If you think that X is true is equivalent to X, that's fine with me, since you too subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth. And what "exists" means is irrelevant to whether X exists is true is equivalent to X exists. Since, as I have pointed out, F(x) is true, is equivalent to F(x). Whatever "F" means.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 07:55 pm
@fast,
No, I don't accept the correspondence theory of truth. Often enough I implicitly live by it, but as a thinking man it's just one more conception of the usage of this noise/mark "truth."
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 08:00 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;109978 wrote:
No, I don't accept the correspondence theory of truth. Often enough I implicitly live by it, but as a thinking man it's just one more conception of the usage of this noise/mark "truth."


Then why did you say that the correspondence theory of truth is a tautology? A tautology is a truth.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 09:02 pm
@fast,
I didn't say that at all. Quote me on it. I'm getting bored with all this. Good luck on your future endeavors. Smile
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 09:16 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;109899 wrote:
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.

Forms are a version of the truth... Once you have it you can try to prove it....
 
Locke phil
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 09:21 pm
@fast,
Evidence is more or less an educated guess. It answers the question, but it isn't proven. Evidence could be correct, but it is certainly not proof.

Proof has the same information as an educated guess, but it is proven.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 09:36 pm
@fast,
For most, I think "proof" is equivalent to sufficient evidence. But how much evidence is sufficient? That's the tough part.

Some people would say that a true statement is one that corresponds to reality, but reality is often exactly what is being debated. Most of us agree on non-theoretical truths. Theoretical (abstract?) truths are something more difficult. Especially considering that the vocabulary of much theory is dead metaphor.

We can trace our abstractions back to things. Derrida addresses this in Margins, the White Mythology chapter. Highly recommended.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 09:39 pm
@Locke phil,
Locke;110016 wrote:
Evidence is more or less an educated guess. It answers the question, but it isn't proven. Evidence could be correct, but it is certainly not proof.

Proof has the same information as an educated guess, but it is proven.

You can prove some one guilty of murder easier than a philosophical hypothesis...The first requires only numbers...What if proof is a state of mind where you no longer feel you need to question....
 
Locke phil
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 09:43 pm
@fast,
That could be it, because if you think of it, proof is practically the same thing as truth. And most truth is only what we make it out to be. We can never get to an exact answer, we can only get to a point where we are only 99.9999999999999999999% correct. That is why no matter how valid something is, there can still be questions about it.

Probably should have went in to more detail with my last post.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 09:46 pm
@Fido,
Fido;110023 wrote:
You can prove some one guilty of murder easier than a philosophical hypothesis...The first requires only numbers...What if proof is a state of mind where you no longer feel you need to question....



A state of mind. Yes indeed. That pretty much gets my point. Proof is a Yes in relation to Evidence.




Nietzsche /

"That which causes philosophers to be regarded half- distrustfully and half-mockingly, is not the oft-repeated discovery how innocent they are--how often and easily they make mistakes and lose their way, in short, how childish and childlike they are,--but that there is not enough honest dealing with them, whereas they all raise a loud and virtuous outcry when the problem of truthfulness is even hinted at in the remotest manner. They all pose as though their real opinions had been discovered and attained through the self-evolving of a cold, pure, divinely indifferent dialectic (in contrast to all sorts of mystics, who, fairer and foolisher, talk of "inspiration"), whereas, in fact, a prejudiced proposition, idea, or "suggestion," which is generally their heart's desire abstracted and refined, is defended by them with arguments sought out after the event. They are all advocates who do not wish to be regarded as such, generally astute defenders, also, of their prejudices, which they dub "truths,"-- and VERY far from having the conscience which bravely admits this to itself, very far from having the good taste of the courage which goes so far as to let this be understood, perhaps to warn friend or foe, or in cheerful confidence and self-ridicule. "
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 25 Dec, 2009 04:37 am
@fast,
Evidence is something persuasive. Proof is someone persuaded. That's the short version, and it's ready for the Wisea** Bible.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 25 Dec, 2009 08:05 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;114175 wrote:
Evidence is something persuasive. Proof is someone persuaded. That's the short version, and it's ready for the Wisea** Bible.


At best you mean that good evidence is something that should be persuasive, and that correct proof is something that should persuade. What you actually write is clearly false, for some evidence is not persuasive, and some proof does not persuade.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 02:02 am
@fast,
It's a wisecrack full of meaning. What do we use evidence for? To persuade. When is something "proven"? As soon as the target is persuaded. It must be looked at in human terms. Criminal trials, lover's quarrels, selling vacuum cleaners, publishing philosophy books...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 02:12 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;114354 wrote:
It's a wisecrack full of meaning. What do we use evidence for? To persuade. When is something "proven"? As soon as the target is persuaded. It must be looked at in human terms. Criminal trials, lover's quarrels, selling vacuum cleaners, publishing philosophy books...


But none of that is true. We don't use evidence primarily to persuade, but to prove. And, persuasion is not a criterion of proving. It is a criterion of "proving to" someone. People can (alas!) be persuaded with rotten arguments, and often cannot be persuade with sound arguments.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 02:15 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;114360 wrote:
But none of that is true. We don't use evidence primarily to persuade, but to prove. And, persuasion is not a criterion of proving. It is a criterion of "proving to" someone. People can (alas!) be persuaded with rotten arguments, and often cannot be persuade with sound arguments.


I know what you mean, but look at it from the inside. From the perspective of a salesman or a lawyer. His purpose is to prove by means of evidence. What's good evidence for him? Whatever persuades.. What is proof? Proof is when a person buys a vacuum cleaner or a not guilty verdict is returned.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 02:43 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;114364 wrote:
I know what you mean, but look at it from the inside. From the perspective of a salesman or a lawyer. His purpose is to prove by means of evidence. What's good evidence for him? Whatever persuades.. What is proof? Proof is when a person buys a vacuum cleaner or a not guilty verdict is returned.


Why should I look at it from the point of view of the Sophist who "tries to make the worse the better"? That is rhetoric, not logic. It is eristic, not dialectic.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 06:46 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;114360 wrote:
But none of that is true. We don't use evidence primarily to persuade, but to prove. And, persuasion is not a criterion of proving. It is a criterion of "proving to" someone. People can (alas!) be persuaded with rotten arguments, and often cannot be persuade with sound arguments.

You make better progress if you run with the wind... Tell people what they want to believe and surprise, surprise; people believe...The arguments of the right, if you believe their mouth pieces, are not so sound, and in fact many of them appeal to the most base qualities of the criminal in man: The desire to live off others and to justify their suffering...They do not so much change their minds as justify their accepted prejudices...

Sometimes, if you would change the mind you must change the man, and show him the human being within himself, and appeal to the better angels of his nature...If you can believe Dylan on the Apostle Mark; before you can heal the sick you must first forgive them...If it is essential, then all people, in order to change minds, and change people, will risk being changed by those people, and meet others on the play ground of ideas as equals...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 04:08 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;114378 wrote:
Why should I look at it from the point of view of the Sophist who "tries to make the worse the better"? That is rhetoric, not logic. It is eristic, not dialectic.


It's a cruel world out there. My ideas are tools for living. If they are useful for conversation, that's good too.

Call it "existential," if you like. Do I have a more academic curiosity here and there? Yes. But for the most part, in my view, philosophy is tnt to be used against exploiters. Philosophy is a weapon. The sophists were in business. What did Plato live on? Family wealth?
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 05:00 pm
@fast,
If it is a serious question, then the answer is that Plato lived on his dreams the same as everyone else...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/22/2020 at 03:41:21