What is a proof?

[Muslim Scholar]

This is not a debate, this thread is more educational
Give your thoughts, links, references and your beliefs

What are the types of proofs?
How to prove a statements?
How to disprove a statements?
What is impossible?

What are the basic premises that all agree on?

[Something completely different]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism

proof doesnt exist, only constant reevaluation and reobservation.

[Muslim Scholar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism

proof doesnt exist, only constant reevaluation and reobservation.

Then what do you call this?

Deductive Proof

A deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false. Thus, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises and inferences. In this way, it is supposed to be a definitive proof of the truth of the claim (conclusion). Here is a classic example:

All men are mortal. (premise)
Socrates was a man. (premise)
Socrates was mortal. (conclusion)

[justin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism

proof doesnt exist, only constant reevaluation and reobservation.

Then what do you call this?

Deductive Proof

A deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false. Thus, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises and inferences. In this way, it is supposed to be a definitive proof of the truth of the claim (conclusion). Here is a classic example:

All men are mortal. (premise)
Socrates was a man. (premise)
Socrates was mortal. (conclusion)

That's deductive logic. Not deductive proof.

[Muslim Scholar]

Then what do you call this?

Deductive Proof

A deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false. Thus, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises and inferences. In this way, it is supposed to be a definitive proof of the truth of the claim (conclusion). Here is a classic example:

All men are mortal. (premise)
Socrates was a man. (premise)
Socrates was mortal. (conclusion)

That's deductive logic. Not deductive proof.

It is a deductive proof using deductive logic
The concept is deductive logic
the specific example is a proof (of the conclusion)

[Something completely different]

deductive proof isnt usefull


I use rational critizism because it is.

[justin]

That's deductive logic. Not deductive proof.

It is a deductive proof using deductive logic
The concept is deductive logic
the specific example is a proof (of the conclusion)

No the proof or lack proof is needed before you can claim the premise to be true or false. The premises would be true because we can use evidence to give insight on truth whether true or false. Those statements become proof for a claim once back up with evidence. Deductive logic is not technically used for proof but for right reasoning. So proof must be established before hand of logic hence to why i made previous statement.

---

deductive proof isnt usefull


I use rational critizism because it is.

Rational criticism would be the same as deductive proof technically. Deduce would mean to reduce or breakdown and criticism would doubt the doubt able which would be used to break it down to it's truth (or lack of). Rationalizing would be just using logical thought which logical thought demands (in deductive) proof of premises.

[Muslim Scholar]

No the proof or lack proof is needed before you can claim the premise to be true or false. The premises would be true because we can use evidence to give insight on truth whether true or false. Those statements become proof for a claim once back up with evidence. Deductive logic is not technically used for proof but for right reasoning. So proof must be established before hand of logic hence to why i made previous statement.

I don't understand what are you saying here!
Do you mean a proof to prove the premises? this is outside the context of the proof itself
Because it may be just an Axiom
For example: Premises 1: A circle has one radius
I don't have to prove that because we defined a circle like that

Rational criticism would be the same as deductive proof technically. Deduce would mean to reduce or breakdown and criticism would doubt the doubt able which would be used to break it down to it's truth (or lack of). Rationalizing would be just using logical thought which logical thought demands (in deductive) proof of premises.

I think here you mean Inductive reason

Like
Socrates was Greek. (premise)
Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)

in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is improbable that the conclusion would be false. Thus, the conclusion follows probably from the premises and inferences.

[justin]

No the proof or lack proof is needed before you can claim the premise to be true or false. The premises would be true because we cn use evidence to give insight on truth whether true or false. Those statements become proof for a claim once back up with evidence. Deductive logic is not technically used for proof but for right reasoning. So proof must be established before hand of logic hence to why i made previous statement.

I don't understand what are you saying here!
Do you mean a proof to prove the premises? this is outside the context of the proof itself
Because it may be just an Axiom
For example: Premises 1: A circle has one radius
I don't have to prove that because we defined a circle like that

Rational criticism would be the same as deductive proof technically. Deduce would mean to reduce or breakdown and criticism would doubt the doubt able which would be used to break it down to it's truth (or lack of). Rationalizing would be just using logical thought which logical thought demands (in deductive) proof of premises.

I think here you mean Inductive reason

Like
Socrates was Greek. (premise)
Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)

in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is improbable that the conclusion would be false. Thus, the conclusion follows probably from the premises and inferences.

First then the definition would be the supporting evidence to back up you're statement.

Second you have it ass backwards

Inductive logic: weak entailment, less dependable, conclusion not guaranteed (don't confuse this to not to lead to right reasoning)

Deductive logic: strong entailment, guaranteed conclusion, most dependable.

This is philosophy 101 stuff man.

[Muslim Scholar]

Second you have it ass backwards

I didn't

Inductive logic: weak entailment, less dependable, conclusion not guaranteed (don't confuse this to not to lead to right reasoning)

It is not weak, it is less affirmative than deductive logic, but it can bring new information

Deductive logic: strong entailment, guaranteed conclusion, most dependable.

yes, but it is actually not bringing any new information, it is just formulating existing facts (Premises)

My point is: even if the proof is using Inductive logic (and you don't have something better)
It should be considered as a proof