"Proof" v "Proof"

[◊ Krowb ◊]

((Mods - feel free to move this thread where it most belongs))

 

@WalterP,

 

I noticed in another thread that you feel quite strongly about the proper use of the terms "proves," "proof," and "evidence."

 

Perhaps we should be more gracious and accept there are other commonly used definitions for these terms and not necessarily colloquial.  When people talk about "proof" and "evidence" it is highly likely they are using popular culture versions of these terms as seen on TV in numerous police and courtroom dramas as opposed to terms of art.

 

A mathematical proof is "proof".

Legal proceedings operate with "proof".

Philosophy also engages in logical "proof".

 

Proving something in mathematics is true.

Proving something in legal proceedings is true.

Proving something in logic/philosophy is also true.

 

Evidence is used in the empirical sciences.

Evidence is used in legal proceedings.

 

Most participants on this forum are probably not trained scientists using terms of art, but I'd bet many of them (including the trained scientists) see these terms used regularly on TV and at least approximate their usage in the legal sense.

 

It would be nice in our discussions to have the participants clarify usage of the terms because in this forum the discussions regularly rove across all three meanings.  A differing use of a term defined multiple ways does not make the participant per se wrong.  Though with these words having multiple, dictionary accepted, distinct meanings, it is easy to mess it up and either intentionally or unintentionally cause confusion.

[WalterP]

Thanks for this, Krowb.

 

You see, Joe was claiming that we were asking him to prove what he was saying.

 

But he misunderstood what we meant when we said that the 'burden of proof' was upon him to support his claims.

 

He thought that we meant the same thing as his faulty understanding of the double slit experiment.

 

He believes that this experiment is 'obviously' proof of sin.

 

That's because, like many, many people, he wrongly thinks that science proves things.

 

So, Joe was labouring under a double misunderstanding.

 

A, that science proves things and B, that we were asking him to prove what he was claiming in the same way that the double slit experiment proves sin.

 

He's stuck in his misunderstanding of science, but we made matters worse by confronting him with the burden of proof.

 

Which, in this context, actually means burden of evidence.

 

But Joe didn't understand that.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

3 minutes ago, WalterP said:

But Joe didn't understand that.

 

Joe doesn't understand much.  I don't know if you saw that wonderful exchange between us on the 1st thread.

 

I agree with what you do pointing out participants should use their terms more carefully or be sure to define them.

 

My preference is not discuss in terms of evidence, but reasons.  Reasons are what we're really after.  Why? - is the fundamental question.  Using terms like evidence and proof tends to muddy the waters, both honestly and dishonestly - depending on the party.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

47 minutes ago, Krowb said:

 

Joe doesn't understand much.  I don't know if you saw that wonderful exchange between us on the 1st thread.

 

If you want to understand how to deal with people like Joe and BrotherMario, do a Google search of delusional disorder, and with Mario, add narcissistic personality disorder.   Arguing with them is an exercise in futility.

[WalterP]

20 hours ago, Krowb said:

 

Joe doesn't understand much.  I don't know if you saw that wonderful exchange between us on the 1st thread.

 

I agree with what you do pointing out participants should use their terms more carefully or be sure to define them.

 

My preference is not discuss in terms of evidence, but reasons.  Reasons are what we're really after.  Why? - is the fundamental question.  Using terms like evidence and proof tends to muddy the waters, both honestly and dishonestly - depending on the party.

 

Krowb,

 

If you go down the road of asking Christians for reasons you won't find reason, you'll end up with un-reason.

 

That's because their beliefs are unreasonable.

 

Their beliefs and their desire to believe originate in their emotions, not in their intellects.

 

Some clever Christians can add layers of reasonable-seeming justification onto their beliefs, but when you examine these carefully you find that they are simply trying to intellectually justify what they've emotionally decided must be true.

 

We know this because when Christians visiting this forum have had their justifications exposed as being unreasonable, they usually react in the following ways.

 

1.  They refuse to answer any further questions, don't make any further posts and just leave.

2.  They refuse to accept that their justifications are unreasonable.

3.  They get defensive and start to attack us with ad hominems.

 

So, if you ask Christians for reasons, be prepared to encounter un-reason.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I don't understand the reason why y'all won't accept decoherent waves and shit as proof.  Y'all a bunch of disingenuous sumbiches.