What is a proof?

[ManMachine]

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?

My own take on the questions...

What are the types of proofs? - For me a proof is the level of reason an individual can apply to an idea so that it satisfies their need to question it further.

How to prove a statements? - Achieve the level of reason required by an individual.

How to disprove a statements? - Get an individual to question the issue further.

What is impossible? Travelling faster than the speed of bad news.

What are the basic premises that all agree on? - Everything you know is wrong.

MM

[Muslim Scholar]

What are the types of proofs? - For me a proof is the level of reason an individual can apply to an idea so that it satisfies their need to question it further.

How to prove a statements? - Achieve the level of reason required by an individual.

this is persuasion not proving

How to disprove a statements? - Get an individual to question the issue further.

A proof is a chain of logical consequences from premises to a conclusion
It can be refuted by proving that a premises is false
or statement X doesn't lead to statement X+1

A statement can be disproved by a contradiction inside it

What is impossible? Travelling faster than the speed of bad news.

Logical Paradoxes are impossible (even for God)

What are the basic premises that all agree on?

None, that is why it is very difficult to prove God
but wait, each person accept what we defines (Axioms)
for example exist and not exist are mutually exclusive because we defined it like that
It is impossible for something to be existing and not existing at the same time
We can all agree on that

[ManMachine]

What are the types of proofs? - For me a proof is the level of reason an individual can apply to an idea so that it satisfies their need to question it further.

How to prove a statements? - Achieve the level of reason required by an individual.

this is persuasion not proving

How to disprove a statements? - Get an individual to question the issue further.

A proof is a chain of logical consequences from premises to a conclusion
It can be refuted by proving that a premises is false
or statement X doesn't lead to statement X+1

A statement can be disproved by a contradiction inside it

What is impossible? Travelling faster than the speed of bad news.

Logical Paradoxes are impossible (even for God)

What are the basic premises that all agree on?

None, that is why it is very difficult to prove God
but wait, each person accept what we defines (Axioms)
for example exist and not exist are mutually exclusive because we defined it like that
It is impossible for something to be existing and not existing at the same time
We can all agree on that

Don't misunderstand me, I have a moderate fondness for formal logic, but as Wittgenstein said, logic is only a framework upon which we hang facts about our world.

It's difficult to see how logic is useful when debating with someone who claims their personal proof of their god is based on their 'feeling' a presence. In the realms of the metaphysical, logic is next to useless.
But we cannot deny a feeling nor can we deny that the individual who felt so moved accepts this as 'proof' of god's existance. This may not be acceptable proof for many atheists but it is still enough for the majority of the population of the planet to base a belief on.

But what about atheists? The level of 'proof' required is different for different people. Most of the atheists I know are happy to accept empirical evidence as proof, I disagree. Empirical evidence is historical, it can only tell us what has been observed in the past, we can extrapolate on this and predict it will remain the same in the future but there is no actual 'evidence' of this, there is, in my opinion, no proof. It is only the weight of current opinion that holds this 'proof' up. People are persuaded by popular opinion to accept something as a proof.

So, there are two examples of where persuasion is proof, to be more accurate, proof enough for those who need it.

Proof is not a concrete concept. It's fairly pointless trying to make it one.

My comment about bad news is a reference to Douglas Adams. It's a little flippant, ignore it.

The problem with axioms is they are fundamentally assumptive. There is nothing wrong with this but neither should we forget it. Axiomatic reasoning can lead us badly astray if we loose sight of the original assumptions (see my point above).

As an interesting aside, Quantum Physics is very comfortable with the idea that sub atomic particles can exist and not exist at the same time. I have no problem with the concept.


MM

[Angrboda]

How to disprove a statements? - Get an individual to question the issue further.

A proof is a chain of logical consequences from premises to a conclusion
It can be refuted by proving that a premises is false
or statement X doesn't lead to statement X+1

A statement can be disproved by a contradiction inside it

No, this is the definition of a syllogism. Proof is a much broader concept.

And I suggest you look up the name Stephen Toulmin, as absorbing and embracing his ideas would likely be helpful to you in your rhetorical goals.

[Muslim Scholar]

Proof is not a concrete concept. It's fairly pointless trying to make it one.

It can

My comment about bad news is a reference to Douglas Adams. It's a little flippant, ignore it.

The problem with axioms is they are fundamentally assumptive. There is nothing wrong with this but neither should we forget it. Axiomatic reasoning can lead us badly astray if we loose sight of the original assumptions (see my point above).

Axioms are not facts, they are assumptions as you said, then the proof itself should show the conclusion using these axioms.

For example I'll say that God=G
the the proof will show that G equals or not equal to ZERO

---

A proof is a chain of logical consequences from premises to a conclusion
It can be refuted by proving that a premises is false
or statement X doesn't lead to statement X+1

A statement can be disproved by a contradiction inside it

No, this is the definition of a syllogism. Proof is a much broader concept.

And I suggest you look up the name Stephen Toulmin, as absorbing and embracing his ideas would likely be helpful to you in your rhetorical goals.

I did not say it is a proof
I just said it can be refuted using Syllogism

[ManMachine]

Proof is not a concrete concept. It's fairly pointless trying to make it one.

It can

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. I don't understand what your saying.

My comment about bad news is a reference to Douglas Adams. It's a little flippant, ignore it.

The problem with axioms is they are fundamentally assumptive. There is nothing wrong with this but neither should we forget it. Axiomatic reasoning can lead us badly astray if we loose sight of the original assumptions (see my point above).

Axioms are not facts, they are assumptions as you said, then the proof itself should show the conclusion using these axioms.

For example I'll say that God=G
the the proof will show that G equals or not equal to ZERO
/quote]

OK, if we say God = G

The proof may well show it is or is not equal to ZERO but this still leads us back to the assumption. This says nothing about either G or ZERO only our methodology.


MM

[Angrboda]

A proof is a chain of logical consequences from premises to a conclusion
It can be refuted by proving that a premises is false
or statement X doesn't lead to statement X+1

A statement can be disproved by a contradiction inside it

No, this is the definition of a syllogism. Proof is a much broader concept.

I did not say it is a proof
I just said it can be refuted using Syllogism

And now you're just a garden variety liar. Didn't Allah teach you any morals?

[jstrodel]

The burden of proof required to create certainty is contextually known or presupposed. The burden of proof is different in a court room versus a science lab, versus in mathematics, versus in a relationship with people.

There is no single epistemological standard of proof, proof standards are created to establish different types of authorities, legitimate or illegitimate.

[Mystic]

Here is what I don't find a proof.

So and so heard from so and so who heard from so and so whom heard from so and so that so and so said....

And then so and so and so and so say so and so are trustworthy and so and so are not therefore this report of so and so is authentic but so and so is not.

That's not proof and is nothing but a delusion of knowledge.

[Categories+Sheaves]

How did this thread get onto page 8 without anybody providing judicious linkage?