Posts: 508
Threads: 17
Joined: February 25, 2013
Reputation:
3
What is a proof?
March 2, 2013 at 2:05 am
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?
Posts: 5170
Threads: 364
Joined: September 25, 2012
Reputation:
61
RE: What is a proof?
March 2, 2013 at 2:09 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism
proof doesnt exist, only constant reevaluation and reobservation.
Posts: 508
Threads: 17
Joined: February 25, 2013
Reputation:
3
RE: What is a proof?
March 2, 2013 at 2:20 am
(March 2, 2013 at 2:09 am)The Germans are coming Wrote: 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)
Posts: 473
Threads: 31
Joined: February 2, 2013
Reputation:
7
RE: What is a proof?
March 2, 2013 at 2:23 am
(March 2, 2013 at 2:20 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: (March 2, 2013 at 2:09 am)The Germans are coming Wrote: 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.
Posts: 508
Threads: 17
Joined: February 25, 2013
Reputation:
3
RE: What is a proof?
March 2, 2013 at 2:28 am
(This post was last modified: March 2, 2013 at 2:29 am by Muslim Scholar.)
(March 2, 2013 at 2:23 am)justin Wrote: (March 2, 2013 at 2:20 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: 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)
Posts: 5170
Threads: 364
Joined: September 25, 2012
Reputation:
61
RE: What is a proof?
March 2, 2013 at 2:34 am
deductive proof isnt usefull
I use rational critizism because it is.
Posts: 473
Threads: 31
Joined: February 2, 2013
Reputation:
7
RE: What is a proof?
March 2, 2013 at 2:42 am
(This post was last modified: March 2, 2013 at 2:49 am by justin.)
(March 2, 2013 at 2:28 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: (March 2, 2013 at 2:23 am)justin Wrote: 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.
(March 2, 2013 at 2:34 am)The Germans are coming Wrote: 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.
Posts: 508
Threads: 17
Joined: February 25, 2013
Reputation:
3
RE: What is a proof?
March 2, 2013 at 3:05 am
(This post was last modified: March 2, 2013 at 3:06 am by Muslim Scholar.)
(March 2, 2013 at 2:42 am)justin Wrote: 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
Quote: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.
Posts: 473
Threads: 31
Joined: February 2, 2013
Reputation:
7
RE: What is a proof?
March 2, 2013 at 3:13 am
(March 2, 2013 at 3:05 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: (March 2, 2013 at 2:42 am)justin Wrote: 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
Quote: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.
Posts: 508
Threads: 17
Joined: February 25, 2013
Reputation:
3
RE: What is a proof?
March 2, 2013 at 3:29 am
(March 2, 2013 at 3:13 am)justin Wrote: Second you have it ass backwards I didn't
Quote: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
Quote: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
|