Persuasion as Proof

@Zetherin,

I would say his truth is likely true. I cannot make claims on ultimate truth. And I would assume that what he proved was truth universally. That was never my point. The truth of anything is irrelevent to my post. The post was that, truth is not automatically accpeted because it is true. If it were, we would not be having this conversation. I am saying that in proving one is persuading. In interpreting/experiencing a proof/assumed truth/argument assumed to have proven a truth, one is being persuaded by it.

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;129999 wrote:

You will need to explain how you are using those expressions in order to answer your question, except to say that a leap of faith is no real grounding at all; it is a confession that one has no grounding.

I would say that we always have "reasons" for our faith. But do our reasons stand on axioms that cannot be proven? Is any intellectual position or world-view adequately grounded? Or is one man's logic another man's leap of faith? I suspect that all of our positions are founded on axioms that cannot be proven, except to the degree that we are persuaded of them.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 03:31 PM ----------

GoshisDead;130001 wrote:

Prove versus persuade (verbs) - exact same.

I'm glad that you can see what I mean here.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 03:32 PM ----------

jgweed;130009 wrote:

Isn't the real question about "truth" and how one can legitimately attain it from Others? Is there a gradation of what (or how) truth is seen in these two sentences---

I am persuaded X is true.
I have proof X is true.

Indeed. Indeed. Is the difference only one of degree, when closely examined?

@Reconstructo,

Goshisdead wrote:

I am saying that in proving one is persuading

And Pyth. persuaded himself?

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;130014 wrote:

That is the point of the discrepancy between a proof (noun) and prove (verb). Proof is proof the person who already believes the proof is involved. One might even argue that it is not necessary for anyone to be involved. When someone attempts to prove, however, two people are involved one of which may not be inclined to believe the proof. This makes the proving's function that of persuasion.

Exactly! We often consider our beliefs proven, and then find that others are not convinced. We list our reasons or proofs, and they are still not convinced. Then, if we take any real risk in examining our own beliefs, we start to suspect some rationalization is it play.

Perhaps it's a rationalization to think that rationality isn't rationalization.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 03:36 PM ----------

Zetherin;130053 wrote:

And Pyth. persuaded himself?

I think we persuade ourselves all the time. Internal dialectic. We wrestle with questions, resolve uncertainties on a regular basis. The self is not a unity but a crash-site, in my opinion.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 03:37 PM ----------

Zetherin;130028 wrote:

And the truth persuades reasonable people.

Isn't this a leap of faith, an axiom?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo wrote:

I think we persuade ourselves all the time. Internal dialectic. We wrestle with questions, resolve uncertainties on a regular basis. The self is not a unity but a crash-site, in my opinion.

Maybe that is true.

Quote:

Isn't this a leap of faith, an axiom?

First, it is not a leap of faith, because that would imply I have no evidence to support my belief. Even if I'm wrong, it would not mean I had faith, as I have good reason for why I believe what I believe.

Second, I am not exactly sure I would call it an axiom. Is there a reason you chose that word?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130066 wrote:

First, it is not a leap of faith, because that would imply I have no evidence to support my belief. Even if I'm wrong, it would not mean I had faith, as I have good reason for why I believe what I believe.

Second, I am not exactly sure I would call it an axiom. Is there a reason you chose that word?

I would say that religious folks consider themselves to have evidence. They may hand you the Bible or allude to subjective experiences. Now for you and me, the Bible isn't evidence. But unless there's a God or a Universal Court of Truth, our own evidence can also be rejected. I think we have inherited some assumptions or axioms from the Enlightenment. For instance, is it proven that reality is singular? Has reason proven it's own existence and validity as a faculty? Or is reason an ideal? A myth like the Holy Ghost, but more immanent and humanistic? I was using "axiom" slightly metaphorically perhaps, but it's close to what I mean.

In short, what's the difference between your good reasons and a suicide bomber's good reasons? Excepting the agreement of yourself and your social group?

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo wrote:

In short, what's the difference between your good reasons and a suicide bomber's good reasons? Excepting the agreement of yourself and your social group?

There could be any number of differences. We would need to know the specifics. But I hope you do not mean that every reason is equal; it's all relative. That seems to be what you are insinuating. And that of course is false.

Quote:

For instance, is it proven that reality is singular?

What does this mean?

Quote:

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

I know what an axiom is. I am wondering why you used it here, though. I wasn't taking my statement for granted. In fact, I can point out many examples where reasonable philosophers seek truth.

Quote:

Has reason proven it's own existence and validity as a faculty?

Can you please be a little clearer? Make sure you know exactly what you mean, and then ask me again. I don't mean this insultingly. Sometimes people do not know what they mean, but they act as if they do anyhow. If you feel this is the clearest way you can present this thought, then I'll reread it.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130080 wrote:

There could be any number of differences. We would need to know the specifics. But I hope you do not mean that every reason is equal; it's all relative. That seems to be what you are insinuating. And that of course is false.

I'm not saying that all reasons are equal. I have my preferences like anyone. But tell me this. When you say "that of course is false," how does one prove this?

@Reconstructo,

Zeth:
Of course he persuaded himself. he would never had stood up to the proverbial test fo rationality if he had passivly accepted the 'truth' of his proof. Speaking from personal experiential extrapolation in accepting proof of course, he had an internal dialogue/argument in which he presented his interpretation of the truth/proof to himself and accepted it. Again if people passivly accepted truth because it was truth we wouldn't be having this discussion.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130080 wrote:

What does this mean?

I mean we generally assume that there is one truth for the one reality we live in together. Protagoras has not been refuted, only ignored. I think it's arguable, that all subjective experience is real. For practical and social reasons, we have, in this culture, narrowed the notion of the real to "objectively" reality. We talk about the Universe and we talk as if we have a universal method for arriving at this universal truth. Basically we assume that the truth is one, and that there is one reality.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 04:25 PM ----------

GoshisDead;130085 wrote:

Again if people passivly accepted truth because it was truth we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Indeed. Indeed. Indeed. The medium is the message.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 04:27 PM ----------

Zetherin;130080 wrote:

I know what an axiom is. I am wondering why you used it here, though. I wasn't taking my statement for granted. In fact, I can point out many examples where reasonable philosophers seek truth.

Would you say that your current intellectual position is not in anyway dependent on unproven assumptions? Would you be open enough to share these assumptions?

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 04:30 PM ----------

Zetherin;130080 wrote:

Can you please be a little clearer? Make sure you know exactly what you mean, and then ask me again. I don't mean this insultingly. Sometimes people do not know what they mean, but they act as if they do anyhow. If you feel this is the clearest way you can present this thought, then I'll reread it.

How does the "mind" conceive of itself? How would you define "reason"? What method or faculty, if either, do we use to arrive at truth?

If you don't conceive of reason as a faculty or a method, how do you conceive of it? What must the human species be like to be capable of universal truth or proof? Do you think that proof is universal truth? I ask these questions sincerely and with respect. I don't mind a little friendly debate.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130021 wrote:

Proving to, would be persuasion, and what you prove to someone may not be sound. Is that right?

Are different senses of the word "prove" used if we apply a "to" at the end of "prove"? If I say, "I proved X", it is not the same as if I said, "I will prove to Bob, X"?

"Prove to" just means, persuade.
"Prove" is to establish as true.

They are independent of one another.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 05:34 PM ----------

jgweed;130009 wrote:

Isn't the real question about "truth" and how one can legitimately attain it from Others? Is there a gradation of what (or how) truth is seen in these two sentences---

I am persuaded X is true.
I have proof X is true.

Car manufacturers often try to persuade people to buy a car by letting a pretty girl do the persuading on television. And, apparently they think it works, because they are willing to pay to do it. (I hope I need not tell you that a pretty girl telling you how much she likes the car is not a proof that it is the car you should buy).

@Reconstructo,

I suggest that a proposition must be proven for someone. I'm willing to argue that there is no essential difference between considering something proven and being strongly persuaded of it. I think we use the word "proven" for what we are most strongly persuaded of.

What we are not persuaded of is not for "proven." Of course we may persuaded of the possibility of something and not call it proven. Persuasion to the point of doubtlessness is proof. I will currently argue that position.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130157 wrote:

I suggest that a proposition must be proven for someone. I'm willing to argue that there is no essential difference between considering something proven and being strongly persuaded of it. I think we use the word "proven" for what we are most strongly persuaded of.

What we are not persuaded of is not for "proven." Of course we may persuaded of the possibility of something and not call it proven. Persuasion to the point of doubtlessness is proof. I will currently argue that position.

You think that pretty girl who persuaded men to buy a care proved that the brand of car she persuaded them to buy, was the best care they could buy? I have not yet told you, but I have an excellent acre of land in Kentucky which I think has an entire gusher of oil under it.Would yoy consider buying it?

@kennethamy,

Reconstructo;130157 wrote:

I suggest that a proposition must be proven for someone. I'm willing to argue that there is no essential difference between considering something proven and being strongly persuaded of it. I think we use the word "proven" for what we are most strongly persuaded of.

What we are not persuaded of is not for "proven." Of course we may persuaded of the possibility of something and not call it proven. Persuasion to the point of doubtlessness is proof. I will currently argue that position.

kennethamy;130169 wrote:

You think that pretty girl who persuaded men to buy a care proved that the brand of car she persuaded them to buy, was the best care they could buy? I have not yet told you, but I have an excellent acre of land in Kentucky which I think has an entire gusher of oil under it.Would yoy consider buying it?

I just want you to try and connect the dots in your head. You aren't talking to my post but apparently to some fantasy-version of my post.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;129897 wrote:

Is there a difference, really, between persuasion and proof? Is certainty anything more than a feeling in relation to sentences?

Is rationality just the polite name for rationalization? Is "rationalization" what we call the rationality of those we do not agree with?

Is all claim to universal truth ground on a leap of faith?

These are questions, not statements.

Or rather proof as persuasion

In most forms of persuasion the one who is persuaded insofar as s/he is not gullible is always able to recognize some room for doubt or what might be called a margin of error. "Margin of error" is a term from statistics but of course, in most cases of persuasion that margin of error is difficult or impossible to quantify with any exactness.*

In the case of a valid proof the margin of error (of the proof part not the premises) is 0%.

Anyway, this analogy recognizes that proof is on the same continuum as other forms of persuasion but it also gives proof the superior place.

Establishing first principles is a different matter. Is the act of definition a leap of faith? Sometimes, but definition can also be established through agreement and I don't see where faith comes into play in the case of agreement between the persuader and the one to be persuaded. If we both agree that A=B and B implies C, is it a leap of faith to say that A implies C?

* Qualitative judgments that defy quantification have more of a pass/fail or 1/0 recognition of the possibility of error. Derrida's can be applied in these cases but deferring to some difference is too involuntary to be called a leap of faith. However, among those who are unable to live with the ambiguity that consciousness of brings to light, may lead to a leap of faith.

@Deckard,

Deckard;130184 wrote:

Anyway, this analogy recognizes that proof is on the same continuum as other forms of persuasion but it also gives proof the superior place.

.

But proofs need not persuade, and what persuades need not be a proof. So how are they on the same continuum?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;130206 wrote:

But proofs need not persuade, and what persuades need not be a proof. So how are they on the same continuum?

What use has a proof if not to persuade?

@Deckard,

Deckard;130207 wrote:

What use has a proof if not to persuade?

To establish the conclusion of the argument. But that has nothing to do with the point that proof and persuasion are not on a continuum for the reason I gave.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;130212 wrote:

To establish the conclusion of the argument. But that has nothing to do with the point that proof and persuasion are not on a continuum.

Argument has no relation to persuasion? Really?

@Deckard,

Deckard;130213 wrote:

Argument has no relation to persuasion? Really?

Now, you know I did not say that. Everything has some relation with something else, anyway.

Philosophy Forum

Persuasion as Proof

Quick Links

My Account

able2know