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.

Argument has no relation to persuasion? Really?

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

Your comments suggest that you think that at least some arguments are not used to persuade but rather to "establish the conclusion of the argument".

If the conclusion of an argument is established doesn't that make it a persuasive argument?

It makes it an argument that should persuade. It depends on the audience whether it will persuade. "Persuasive" might mean, "does persuade". And it might mean, "should persuade". Of course, some arguments that should persuade, don't persuade, and some that shouldn't persuade, do persuade.

Yeah, that all goes without saying. The same goes for anything that can be called persuasive whether it includes a logical proof or not.

Well, I am glad I said it, because the distinction should be made. Otherwise we confuse persuasion with proof, as some on this forum do. Indeed, they not only confuse them, they actually advocate their confusion. (Along with a number of other confusions).

What distinction did you make?

Between persuasion and proof. Glance at the title of this thread.

But what was your disagreement with the comments that I have made?

Which comments? I suppose those comments in which you tended to assimilate persuasion with proof. As the OP does.

Where did I do that?

For one instance, Anyway, this analogy recognizes that proof is on the same continuum as other forms of persuasion. Proof is not a kind of persuasion as you suggest. You also suggested that proof has no purpose but persuasion (something like, what good is proof unless it persuades). None of this is right, since it assimilates proof to persuasion.

For one instance, Anyway, this analogy recognizes that proof is on the same continuum as other forms of persuasion. Proof is not a kind of persuasion as you suggest. You also suggested that proof has no purpose but persuasion (something like, what good is proof unless it persuades). None of this is right, since it assimilates proof to persuasion.

Of course, some arguments that should persuade, don't persuade, and some that shouldn't persuade, do persuade.

I wish we had all been graced with perfect logic so we could prove every word we said to other people, but since you are the only one who was, we shall all bow down to your words.

We all get that persuasion and proof are different by definition, but it's the same kind of scenario between certainty and knowledge, knowledge is assumed just as proof is assumed, no matter if you can make a logical proof for your formalization.

Yes, I'm shining a light on this animal known as "proof" and trying to see whether there's really any difference between it and that less respectable animal "persuasion."

Of course I know the standard supposed differences between the two, but I wonder if "proof" is just ideal of "perfect" persuasion. Geometrical proofs are perhaps that most persuasive statements after tautologies. But do we see them as proofs only because we find them utterly persuasive? What if half of the population didn't find Euclid's "proofs" persuasive? Can someone prove to me that proof is functionally different than persuasion without persuading me?

---------- Post added 02-20-2010 at 04:04 PM ----------


Who do all these "shoulds" belong to? Are you speaking from some universal moral standpoint or just stating your opinion?

If we find an argument persuasive, we generally think it should persuade. If we do not, we think the argument should not persuade.

You seem to be speaking as if for humanity. I wonder how you plan on proving these "shoulds."

But some people do not want to be, or just cannot be, persuaded by rational argument.

When we find an argument persuasive, we call it "rational." When we do not, we call it "irrational." Does not this forum persuade/prove this?

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are saying. Otherwise I would reply. Who assumes knowledge, and who assumes proof? And what is my formulization, and what does it mean to make a logical proof of a formulization? Baffled, I am afraid.

---------- Post added 02-20-2010 at 05:45 PM ----------



Should persuade if you were rational. But some people do not want to be, or just cannot be, persuaded by rational argument. They may not understand it, or they may be committed to the opposite conclusion. As Dr. Samuel Johnson remarked to an invincibly ignorant man: "Sir, I can give you an argument, but I cannot give you understanding".

Ahmadinejad of Iran may not be persuaded by any proof that a Holocaust occurred. Does that mean there is no proof that there was a Holocaust?

People have wrote books about the Holocaust.

People have written books about God.

People have testified their experiences in the Holocaust.

People have testified to have had relationships with God.

There's "proof" that God exists.

I have pictures of a dragon. I have personal relations with a dragon. I have written books about a dragon.

However, the dragon's story is WAY less persuasive than the God Story. And ESPECIALLY less persuasive than the argument that there was a holocaust. Proof is whatever's persuasive, unless you're a materialist.

So, despite all the evidence, you think that Ahmadinejad is correct to believe there is no proof that there was a Holocaust, since he is not persuaded that there was one?

You have a funny way of making things sound completely absurd. Do you call yourself rational? I think your "rationality" lies more in your persuasion. All the short posts you do that are blunt and try to undermine someone's sentence. It's persuasive for your argument. See what I mean?

Do you think I'm right in believing that there's no god? All this "proof" is right in my face...