I understand if you don't feel like making a defense of your beliefs here, you certainly aren't required to, but so far the topic has evolved a bit beyond the OP's intentions... and it is a forum for discussion after all.Irontooth, I'm with you here, but Dustin Ashe has said that he doesn't subscribe to the Kalam belief. Unless we're expecting Dustin to stand in for every theist who does subscribe to that "argument"?
That's fine. I imagine the easiest way to distance himself from something he's not interested in is not bother responding.
I dunno... universes crashing into each other kinda strikes me as equally nonsensical.A lot of physics seems nonsensical, but that makes sense.
We evolved to be hunter-gatherer or even agriculturalists. You don't need to understand how quantum particles work or what they mean to galaxies to track a deer or avoid a tiger. Lots of physics goes against our intuition as it were.
You've never seen me discuss time travel in depth :P
I actually devised rules for a time travel version of chess. We gave it a go. It ended up a draw because players managed to paradox themselves out of existence.
Of course, I wouldn't survive long in a hunter-gatherer society...
|
Have you ever pulled out into traffic? You look, don't see anything, conclude there is no car about to hit me and then pull out. You in fact risk your life on a daily basis on the logic that you can prove a negative.
Just noticed this, and I do feel a need to correct this.
What you described, Wolf, is not "proving a negative by looking and not finding", it's proof by contradiction. Goes like this: "If there is a car that might hit me, I would see it. Since I don't see a car, there is no car there".
This is a purely mathematical process, it just happens to be trivial. What WrongJohnSilver said was that it's impossible to prove a negative with the statement "I didn't find any". In your traffic example, you used the hidden (yet crucial) assumption, "if there's a car there, I would have been able to see it".
In short, I believe you confused the real world use of the term "seeing" with the logical idea of "being able to find an example of". Which is why WrongJohnSilver is correct that, because God was defined such that seeing Him is impossible (unlike a car on traffic, which you assumed you'd be able to see to contradict that it's there if you don't see it), "I don't see God" isn't a proof that God doesn't exist. It's just a very good reason to think so.
Just noticed this, and I do feel a need to correct this.Have you ever pulled out into traffic? You look, don't see anything, conclude there is no car about to hit me and then pull out. You in fact risk your life on a daily basis on the logic that you can prove a negative.
A pity that your correction is itself incorrect.
What you described, Wolf, is not "proving a negative", it's proof by contradiction.
Which is a very common method of proving a negative. Proof by case analysis is another common technique.
In your traffic example, you used the hidden (yet crucial) assumption, "if there's a car there, I would have been able to see it".
In short, I believe you confused the real world use of the term "seeing" with the logical idea of "being able to find an example of".
Nope. What he did is the quite legitimate exercise of analyzing objects by means of their properties. "God" as a concept does not exist in a vacuum -- otherwise I could trivially prove that God exists by defining my coffee cup as God and then producing it. You'd fail to accept that precisely because what "God" means is not simply "my coffee cup." In the case of cars, one of their accepted properties is that they're physical objects and visible.
So what kind of properties can you assign to God that both a) capture what theologians mean by "God" and also b) are not provably impossible/incoherent? It's fairly easy for me to show that Zeus (as described by Homer) doesn't exist simply by climbing Mt. Olympus -- or simply showing the satellite photos of his nonexistent palace there. I can in theory prove that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist by draining the lake -- Nessie is defined as a monster living in that lake, so you can't simply handwave that "maybe Nessie lives in the Caspian Sea."
The traditional Christian God has three attributes: omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. It's trivial to prove that no such God exists, in the same way that no five-sided square does; the properties are incoherent.
If you think you have a different definition of God, it may not be incoherent. But you're also not describing the Christian God.
|
|
1) Your correction of my correction is correct, but mostly because I initially got confused and posted an earlier version of my post that I later edited - my edit is that what BigNorseWolf did is not "proving a negative by looking and not finding". Which is correct by me. He was using a hidden assumption that cars are visible, or, another interpretation, he was using the word "looking" in the wrong context, using the literal meaning of "using your eyes" instead of the logical meaning of "searching for an example".
2) I was not talking about the christian God (had that been my meaning, you would be absolutely correct). I was talking about the general concept of an omnipotent force or entity. Which has so far neither been proved nor disproved. As I mentioned in a previous post though, every *specific* God has been disproved.
Your correction of my correction is correct, but mostly because I initially got confused and posted an earlier version of my post that I later edited - my edit is that what BigNorseWolf did is not "proving a negative by looking and not finding". Which is correct by me
It is not.
Since it IS possible to prove a negative by looking and not finding when you can reasonably expect to find, then it is quite possible to prove a negative. How well the analogy holds up is a separate matter.
2) I was not talking about the christian God (had that been my meaning, you would be absolutely correct). I was talking about the general concept of an omnipotent force or entity. Which has so far neither been proved nor disproved. As I mentioned in a previous post though, every *specific* God has been disproved.
Omnipotence and omniscience violate the laws of the universe as we understand them. If a criminal was accused of a crime but it was shown that they were in a police station 100 miles away being finger printed at the time we don't say "oh well maybe the laws of physics are wrong and he can be in two places at the same time" or "maybe he's a time traveler" we say he's been proved innocent.
You don't forever close the door on hearing further evidence, but likewise you don't not reach the best available conclusion you can with the evidence that you have. We don't just say that certain claims for cold fusion were wrong, we say they're horsefeathers.
|
|
1) Again, notice the very crucial ingredient you added to your sentence - "when you can reasonably expect to find". This transforms your proof from one of looking to one of contradiction. And, once more, you confuse the context of the word "looking".Try to understand the template of your proof. You wish to show that there isn't a car on the road. If your only claims are:
A) I see no care
B) Therefore, there is no car on the road
then your proof is logically incorrect. However, this proof WILL be correct:
A) I see no car on the road
B) Had there been a car, I would have seen it
C) Since I see no car, there is no car on the road
Now this time, you get an actual true statement. Notice that this proof is templated as a proof by contradiction. You show the negation by showing that the existence contradicts an established fact. However, what you mistake your proof to be is "showing a negative by looking and not finding".
There are several templates for proof and, if you'll actually pause for a moment to think about it before you replay to my post, you'd notice that yours was by negation.
2) Please show me an experiment that will show us a different result if a god existed. Do that and become probably one of the most famous humans to live so far, by actually giving proof that there is no super-power invisibly ruling the universe. Can't fathom that you'd succeed, since many great (most probably greater than either yours or mine) minds tried their best and failed.
In the likely case that you can't do that, accept that omnipotence and omniscience , when belonging to an entity nobody can actually interact with, don't violate any natural law we know. Surely we have encountered no entity that those words describe, but we can't, as WrongJohnSilver correctly said (and it was, like, his single valid point in this entire discussion), "prove a negative by looking and not finding."
1) Again, notice the very crucial ingredient you added to your sentence - "when you can reasonably expect to find". This transforms your proof from one of looking to one of contradiction. Try to understand the template of your proof.
Its not a change. I expect people to know what a car is. I expect them to know that they're visible, audible, and that they can be observed by looking.
Your complaint is that its not in whatever mathematical/philosophical formulation you prefer to use. It should be abundantly clear at this point that I don't share your preference. I'm not speaking in templates i'm speaking in english (kind of...).
And, once more, you confuse the context of the word "looking".
I do not. The same logic applies. Perhaps not to the same degree but most certainly in kind.
Now this time, you get an actual true statement.
Its the same exact statement. Its the same exact thought process. The differences are irrelevant.
2) Please show me an experiment that will show us a different result if a god existed.
You cannot randomly assert that something is true and then say that the idea is ok because it hasn't been philosophically disproved.
Evidence against the idea includes
Speed of light/travel of information
Anything showing conservation of energy
That consciousness is linked to the physical brain.
Evidence for the idea includes
Nothing.
"prove a negative by looking and not finding."
There is a huge difference between you can't prove A negative by looking and not finding and you cannot prove THAT negative by looking and not finding.
Is Classical Stoicism still a possible contender for a choice?
Is Classical Stoicism still a possible contender for a choice?
Modern psychology holds it as unhealthy and potentially mentally-damaging... so, probably not.
Is Classical Stoicism still a possible contender for a choice?Modern psychology holds it as unhealthy and potentially mentally-damaging... so, probably not.
Really? Wow. I didnt know that. Can you point me to some references or articles about that? I'd like more info. I was always fascinated by Marcus Aurelius' writings and now wonder how sane the last of The Good Emperors really was...
Its funny how the definition of maturity has swung back and forth between the ability to stuff your emotions away and the ability to express and work through those feelings.
Really? Wow. I didnt know that. Can you point me to some references or articles about that? I'd like more info. I was always fascinated by Marcus Aurelius' writings and now wonder how sane the last of The Good Emperors really was...Is Classical Stoicism still a possible contender for a choice?Modern psychology holds it as unhealthy and potentially mentally-damaging... so, probably not.
No, I can't. And I might have been wrong, actually. The main issue with it is that, from the Wikipedia entry, Classical Stoicism resembles a lot of practices I have actually seen regularly advised against by various mental health professionals and students.
The problem is that I am not fully versed in the teachings of classical stoicism, am too busy to learn about it right now, and without those specific teachings I cannot track down the relevant papers if I am right.
I do know that a lot of modern psychology focuses on embracing and understanding emotions. But, again, this is experience from the patient side, not the psychologist's side.
I think the criticism of stoicism would arise from the mentality that if you're unhappy with life, it's your own fault. Which can easily be inferred from stoicism, whether it's trying to imply it or not. To reference another current thread, an alcoholic is an alcoholic due to failings in character, in essence. Now, that isn't exactly what stoicism says, but it's close and an easy misinterpretation which if accepted by the alcoholic would preclude them from attempting to improve their situation. When approached too simplistically, there's an underlying "bad things only happen to bad people" in stoicism, but the actual philosophy is a bit more complex than that, but who has time for complexity?
There's actually some strong parallels to Buddhism and modern cognitive behavioral therapy. Our bad thoughts lead to bad actions which lead to bad outcomes, so why not limit the number of bad thoughts we have? This doesn't apply to everything in our lives, bad thoughts don't cause a tsunami, but in the simpler everyday analysis it can be pretty powerful.
|
|
@BigNorseWolf,
Well, if there is something I learned here, it is that you are utterly, completely and perfectly incapable of admitting a mistake. Your proof was by contradiction (this is a fact and not an opinion), and you tried to use it to counter the notion that "not finding an example of" is an incorrect way to prove a negative. You got confused, which is ok, happens to everyone, and quite a lot. Seriously, just try to remember the last time you said, "oops, yeah, I wasn't thinking about that" here on the forum. 'Cause it happens to everyone else (except for Yellowdingo, perhaps).
Secondly, there IS a difference between "proof of" and "very good reason to think that". Again, not an opinion, but a fact. There is nothing to debate here, really. I am every bit as convinced as you are that there is no God, but I'm not going to be calling what I have a proof. A farm boy two thousand years ago could just as easily state: The earth is flat, unmoving and at the center of the universe - and I can prove it! evidence for the idea include:
-I would have felt wind if the earth moved
-I can clearly see the sun and moon and stars moving in the sky, and they keep coming from one direction and setting on the other, so clearly they orbit around the earth
-When I jump I am drawn back to the ground, so clearly I am drawn to the center of the universe, which by extension is down in the earth somewhere
Less extreme examples exist, of course. Just about every scientist who lived a hundred years ago would have laughed in your face if you suggested some of what Quantum Mechanics show is possible, stating just how much evidence there is out there that nothing can simply disappear and reappear spontaneously, that the observer cannot possibly have an impact on the system, and that cats can be alive or dead in the same time. yet they had no actual proof, and all those terribly smart people are, seemingly, wrong.
So a proof (which has to use the regular laws of logic, like it or not) is inherently different from strong evidence that suggests something.
Now my entire point with the correction was to point out those technical things because I find them important. Had you just said, "OK, sure, those points are technically correct but I don't care about such technicalities" that would have been fine - I would have explained that you answered to a technical proposition ("you can't prove a negative by looking and not finding") with a different context, and therefore the reply wasn't very relevant there. But just refusing to admit you made the slightest of errors? what's the point?
|
|
I expect them to know that they're visible, audible, and that they can be observed by looking.
This is not about what could reasonably be expected of people to know, and I'm not saying you should have actually mentioned the fact that cars are visible. Only that your proof is only true if cars are visible, and it uses that fact to contradict the presence of a car. Proof by contradiction.
There is a technique to prove things that is called "proof by example" - you want to prove that something exists, so you show an example of it. This is always used to prove a positive - "There are black birds. Proof: a raven is a bird and is black". Now, what WrongJohnSilver said, correctly, was that you can't use this sort of "proof by no example": "God does not exist. I can't find God, so he isn't there". As this nifty little wikipedia article will tell you, this is NOT a valid proof. So to make your proof about cars valid, you had to relay on another, very crucial idea - that had there been a car, you would have seen it. That transforms your proof to one that, instead of searching for an example and not finding it, searched for a contradiction and found one. The fact that you did not see a car is meaningless on it's own - like trying to prove that a riddle is unsolvable because you couldn't solve it. What asserts us that there is no car is the fact that you would have seen it if it was there.
Proof by contradiction.
You cannot randomly assert that something is true and then say that the idea is ok because it hasn't been philosophically disproved.
I never called the idea that God exists "OK". Trust me, I find it every bit as absurd as you do. It's simply that I seem more capable of admitting my limitations.
Randomly asserting things would only lead to random assertions. That tells us nothing, however, about our ability to disprove them. God is every bit as disprovable as Russel's tea pot - which is to say, He is not disprovable. As I stated before, no experiment (and I did think you were a huge fan of those?) and no check of anything in the natural world around us would come out differently if there IS an invisible white bearded magician calling the shots for everything. there is no way of *knowing* where that's true or not.Now I personally prefer to go with the 99.9999999999% guarantee that God is a human invention and has nothing to do with our universe. But what I cannot do is PROVE that I'm right.
Luckily for me, the entire point if Russel's tea point was to show that the burden of proof is not on me, but on those making the absurd claim. But the fact that I don't need to disprove something doesn't mean that I can. Put in another way, why would Russel (an intelligent gent) come up with this whole tea pot mental exercise if it was possible to disprove God's existence? he would have simply done so and moved on, rather than showing that it's pointless to do so.
There is a huge difference between you can't prove A negative by looking and not finding and you cannot prove THAT negative by looking and not finding.
Umm, actually, since the meaning of "A negative" is, in this case, "any negative", then no, there's no difference. Your statement that I just quoted is not unlike saying, "well sure, A human has never lived more than a billion years, but that's not like saying Albert Einstein didn't live for a billion years."
If, just by knowing about a statement that it is negative, you know that you can't prove it by looking and not finding, then it applies to every negative. Including this one.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Given this, we certainly cannot disprove the existence of God. But the burden of proof lies on those who MAKE the extraordinary claim - which is that God exists. So called "subjective proof", that someone feels they have talked to God, is impermissible. So far, no such proof has surfaced. Ergo, from a philosophical standpoint, there is no more reason to assume God exists than, say, a teapot in space between Earth and the Sun.
|
|
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Given this, we certainly cannot disprove the existence of God. But the burden of proof lies on those who MAKE the extraordinary claim - which is that God exists. So called "subjective proof", that someone feels they have talked to God, is impermissible. So far, no such proof has surfaced. Ergo, from a philosophical standpoint, there is no more reason to assume God exists than, say, a teapot in space between Earth and the Sun.
Absolutely true. But this is not at all what BigNorseWolf is trying to say (as a matter of fact, I mentioned the tea pot in my own post).
With you, Sissyl, I agree.
@BigNorseWolf,
Well, if there is something I learned here, it is that you are utterly, completely and perfectly incapable of admitting a mistake.
D'oh, messed up the item rules
Messed up the moving quickly to hide rules
Your proof was by contradiction (this is a fact and not an opinion), and you tried to use it to counter the notion that "not finding an example of" is an incorrect way to prove a negative. You got confused, which is ok, happens to everyone, and quite a lot.
There's nothing to get confused about.
I don't know what your proof by contradiction is, I have never heard of your proof by contradiction, and frankly scarlet i don't give a damn about your proof of contradiction. Whatever it is that you're reading into it that I'm doing wrong isn't there. Whatever you think your one true way of formal thinking there is I'm not following it. It was an english sentence, it works just fine in english , and if it messes up when you babblefish it into a logic table that your problem.
So to make your proof about cars valid, you had to relay on another, very crucial idea - that had there been a car, you would have seen it.
Which is kind of implicit in the fact that its a CAR. You know, 12 feet long, made of metal and plastic, makes a vrooming sound?
Secondly, there IS a difference between "proof of" and "very good reason to think that".
To a philosopher sure. But surely you've noticed by now how little that means to me.
-I would have felt wind if the earth moved....
And evidence against it would include the shape of the earth's shadow on the moon, the way a ship disappears on the horizon, and why a sticks shadow at noon changes the further north or south you go. The last was precise enough for the greeks to get a pretty accurate estimate of the size of the earth. I would not call the shepherder stupid: he has a fair bit of evidence for his side. The theologians not so much.
Less extreme examples exist, of course. Just about every scientist who lived a hundred years ago would have laughed in your face if you suggested some of what Quantum Mechanics show is possible, stating just how much evidence there is out there that nothing can simply disappear and reappear spontaneously, that the observer cannot possibly have an impact on the system, and that cats can be alive or dead in the same time. yet they had no actual proof, and all those terribly smart people are, seemingly, wrong.
You appear to be taking some of it too literally. The cat is not actually dead and alive at the same time.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Is there a perpetual motion machine under your bed?
Is there a 50 foot long st george and the type fire breathing dragon in your bathroom?Is there a 1958 Chevy under your mattress cushion?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Is there a perpetual motion machine under your bed?
Is there a 50 foot long st george and the type fire breathing dragon in your bathroom?
Is there a 1958 Chevy under your mattress cushion?
Do yetis exist? I don't know for sure, and neither does anybody else. Nobody has ever produced a yeti so there's no proof they do, but equally, there's no categorical proof that they don't. The regions they're believed to live are so remote that it's a possibility even if a very small one. There are (regrettably few) animals that have been believed extinct until living examples were found, like the coelacanth.
The chance that something like a yeti exists isn't just small, it's infinitesimal. List of animals described since 2000. There's a couple of distinct characteristics that ties these animals together, not all apply, but usually at least one:
-they live in tropical forests
-they're small
-they're omnivores or herbivores
-they were already known (some are just an update to the taxonomic treatment)
All of the larger animals discovered have come from densely wooded regions. For instance, the medium-sized cats come from Borneo and Sumatra, places they're still trying to catalog lots of things.
Large animals living on tops of mountains are pretty rare. So rare that the few that do are notable exceptions. The dietary needs of a large animal are just too taxing to survive in a place where not much grows. Even people have a difficult time living at high altitude and we're pretty resourceful and adaptable. There aren't very many places where primates have spread to that humans aren't one of the species living there.
Two of the larger mammals discovered recently:
Saola - kind of a cross between a goat/bovine/deer, it's about 1.5m long, 1m tall and around 90kg. Lives in mountain valleys, from 300-1800m above sea level. Remains of the animal were first discovered in 1992.
Tapirus kabomani - similar dimensions to the saola, but a little heavier at 110kg and a only 1.3m long. Even though it was recently classified as it's own species, there's a specimen in the American Museum of Natural History... it was obtained by Theodore Roosevelt in 1914.
The idea that a primate the size of a brown bear is hiding in the mountains and we have no evidence of it to date is pretty far fetched.
I can check under my bed, my bathroom, and under my mattress cushion. It is quite possible to check if they are there. If someone claimed to know that firebreathing dragons do not exist, I would be very interested in knowing HOW they could know that, given that they would need a way to check every planet in the universe. We believe perpetual motion is impossible, so we can probably discount that. If someone claimed 58 Chevys did not exist, that's a pretty stupid claim.
The chance that something like a yeti exists isn't just small, it's infinitesimal. List of animals described since 2000. There's a couple of distinct characteristics that ties these animals together, not all apply, but usually at least one:
-they live in tropical forests
-they're small
-they're omnivores or herbivores
-they were already known (some are just an update to the taxonomic treatment)All of the larger animals discovered have come from densely wooded regions. For instance, the medium-sized cats come from Borneo and Sumatra, places they're still trying to catalog lots of things.
Large animals living on tops of mountains are pretty rare. So rare that the few that do are notable exceptions. The dietary needs of a large animal are just too taxing to survive in a place where not much grows. Even people have a difficult time living at high altitude and we're pretty resourceful and adaptable. There aren't very many places where primates have spread to that humans aren't one of the species living there.
Two of the larger mammals discovered recently:
Saola - kind of a cross between a goat/bovine/deer, it's about 1.5m long, 1m tall and around 90kg. Lives in mountain valleys, from 300-1800m above sea level. Remains of the animal were first discovered in 1992.
Tapirus kabomani - similar dimensions to the saola, but a little heavier at 110kg and a only 1.3m long. Even though it was recently classified as it's own species, there's a specimen in the American Museum of Natural History... it was obtained by Theodore Roosevelt in 1914.
The idea that a primate the size of a brown bear is hiding in the mountains and we have no evidence of it to date is pretty far fetched.
Pretty far-fetched, true, evidence strongly suggesting non-existance, true, proven not to exist, false.
|
|
@BigNorseWolf
Proof by contradiction is nothing complex. Fastest explanation: Let's say you know that A -> B, and you want to disprove A. Proof by contradiction is showing that B is false, which then proves that A is false. Because saying that A -> B is the same as saying that NOT(B) -> NOT(A).
Now let's formalize the car argument:
DEFINITONS:
1) There is a car
2) I see a car
ASSUMPTION:
3) If there is a car, I can see it
3*) (an equivalent assumption): If I can't see a car, it's not there
4) I don't see a car
CLAIM:
4) there is no car
We will denote definition 1 as A, definition 2 as B, assumption 3 as A -> B, and assumption 4 as NOT(B).
Now you can see that the claim is deduced naturally from the assumptions, via Modus ponens.
I assure you, Wolf, that every single person who studied the most rudimentary, high-school level of logic (probably you, too) would assert the above proof. Every single one of them will also be able to tell you that without assumption 3, the proof doesn't hold.
And the nice thing is that every single correct proof of anything in the universe has to also be a correct proof in logic. Not that you have to formalize it in logic to prove it, but it has to still work when you formalize it. And your's doesn't unless it contains the assumption that cars are visible. And if it does, then it is proof by contradiction. And it it's proof by contradiction, then it is not "proof by looking and not finding".
And as to some of your silly, pointless answers - I don't think that the world is flat and the center of the universe. I am, in fact, very familiar with all the various ways we proved that it isn't. Set through several very thorough classes about it, actually. I was bringing the example to show you that clearly, our ability to produce evidence is constrained by both our technology and our creative thinking. Which is why proof by lack of evidence is not, under any circumstances, an actual proof. Which is why your points about how unlikely it seems that a god exists (and I agree it seems unlikely, and I myself don't believe it for a millisecond), that is not proof that He doesn't.
And, for haven's sake, the cat thing was a joke. You managed to take that entire argument - that again and again and again things we once couldn't prove for lack of evidence turned out to be true once we had the means to investigate further- and ignore all of it, while also replaying in a way that implies that you think I'm an idiot. I don't even care if your comment was humorous as well, that's just dodging the point.
|
|
Also, BigNorseWolf, I would like it if you could response specifically to my Russel's Tea Pot argument - why would Russel be forced to take a back route of proving that you don't have to prove God doesn't exist (instead showing us that the burden of proof lies on the believers), if it would have been possible to prove that God doesn't exist?
Proof by contradiction is nothing complex. Fastest explanation: Let's say you know that A -> B, and you want to disprove A. Proof by contradiction is showing that B is false, which then proves that A is false. Because saying that A -> B is the same as saying that NOT(B) -> NOT(A).
That's actually proof by contrapositive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contrapositiveProof by contradiction is done by supposing the proposition's negation is true and showing that this leads to a contradiction.
In this case, the negation would be "there exists a car that I can't see".
The problem with the original car example isn't really that it's false-- if we can agree that "all cars are visible" is reasonable, at this time-- rather, the problem is that not seeing a car at time t doesn't allow you to infer anything about the presence of a car at time t+a (for a=/= 0). You could obviously still be hit because of the time elapsed between looking and pulling out into traffic. But, you know, that isn't relevant to the overall point of the example.
Secondly, there IS a difference between "proof of" and "very good reason to think that". Again, not an opinion, but a fact.
That is essentially the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. Yes, inductive reasoning doesn't assert that conclusions are absolutely true, rather that they are probably true; that there is good evidence to think that something's true. Inductive reasoning is what most of us use to function in everyday life. Inductively, it reasonable to assume that there is no car at time t+a (for small a) because there was no car at time t.
When people say "you can't prove that something doesn't exist", they usually mean you can't employ deduction in that situation because you can't possibly check every case (as Sissyl said). Sometimes you can deductively show that things don't exist because you don't have to check every case."No dogs are made of fire." This is easy because humans have made a definition for what it means to be a living thing. Living things are made of "stuff" (that's the scientific term), but fire is not "stuff". Stuff that is occupying the same space as flame is said to be "on fire" not "made of fire".
I never realized that I was so bigoted toward elementals.
Some definitions of god make proving nonexistence possible ('proof' in the deductive sense, as you were using it). Defining god as "the creator of the universe" is vague enough to make it impossible. Defining it as "unknowable" makes proof impossible by definition.
Science (and philosophy) is done using a combination of deduction and induction. Sometimes science-hostile types claim that there's no proof for scientific theories because "they're just theories". This is partly a misunderstanding of the word "theory", but it's also a claim that science is likely wrong because it often employs inductive reasoning (especially to formulate initial hypotheses) and scientists can't possibly check every case of something. Having to check cases is not usually a desirable way to prove something; alas, large primes are a pain.
Legal proof is just evidence, not proof. People use "proof" in conversation differently that it's used in logics.
It's true that oftentimes inductive arguments are specious, either because they don't make deductively valid arguments or they are bad at prediction. In the LGBT Gamer thread, they're arguing about the usefulness of hospitals asking for a patient's gender. One argument goes, "If I know a patient's gender and age, I can reasonably conclude some information about the patient that is necessary to patient care." For any claims made about people based on their gender, I can easily find lots of counterexamples.
Medical claim: "Women have ovaries."
"This woman does not have ovaries."
Medical claim: "Define 'women' as those individuals that have XX sex chromosomes. Women have ovaries."
"This person with XX sex chromosomes does not have ovaries."
[Opinion] It is obvious to me that any assumptions you try to make will be wrong for some patients (or many, depending on the assumption), so it doesn't seem very useful. Hence, if you need to know about ovaries-- or really any detail about a patient's body-- I think you should investigate that thing rather than rely on generalizations about humans. It would be embarrassing to recommend that a patient have their gall bladder removed only to be told that they've already had it removed.
This, however, doesn't mean that inductive reasoning never produces anything useful.
Lordsnow, I am done defending "my" alleged error that only comes about when YOU decide to break the statement down. It is completely inane to accuse me of using the "wrong" kind of proof when I used neither the name nor the formula for any proof.
I assure you, Wolf, that every single person who studied the most rudimentary, high-school level of logic (probably you, too) would assert the above proof. Every single one of them will also be able to tell you that without assumption 3, the proof doesn't hold.
Then by all means, make assumption 3! Dear polyhedral gods you make it sound like I had a list of assumptions to start with and left it off or something. I do not in normal conversation need to account for the possibility of wonderwoman trying to land the invisible jet on the interstate.
And you wonder why I think philosophy is useless.
Also, BigNorseWolf, I would like it if you could response specifically to my Russel's Tea Pot argument - why would Russel be forced to take a back route of proving that you don't have to prove God doesn't exist (instead showing us that the burden of proof lies on the believers), if it would have been possible to prove that God doesn't exist?
Because he's aiming for philosophical proof. You cannot philosophically prove the back of your own hand. Its a useless, unattainable standard.
We believe perpetual motion is impossible, so we can probably discount that.
There you go. God is a perpetual motion machine. Discounted. Done.
Do yetis exist? I don't know for sure, and neither does anybody else. Nobody has ever produced a yeti so there's no proof they do, but equally, there's no categorical proof that they don't. The regions they're believed to live are so remote that it's a possibility even if a very small one. There are (regrettably few) animals that have been believed extinct until living examples were found, like the coelacanth.Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Is there a perpetual motion machine under your bed?
Is there a 50 foot long st george and the type fire breathing dragon in your bathroom?
Is there a 1958 Chevy under your mattress cushion?
I'm Yetiagnostic but I'm definitely an Asasquatchist. Someone should have run over one by now...
Pretty far-fetched, true, evidence strongly suggesting non-existance, true, proven not to exist, false.The chance that something like a yeti exists isn't just small, it's infinitesimal. List of animals described since 2000. There's a couple of distinct characteristics that ties these animals together, not all apply, but usually at least one:
-they live in tropical forests
-they're small
-they're omnivores or herbivores
-they were already known (some are just an update to the taxonomic treatment)All of the larger animals discovered have come from densely wooded regions. For instance, the medium-sized cats come from Borneo and Sumatra, places they're still trying to catalog lots of things.
Large animals living on tops of mountains are pretty rare. So rare that the few that do are notable exceptions. The dietary needs of a large animal are just too taxing to survive in a place where not much grows. Even people have a difficult time living at high altitude and we're pretty resourceful and adaptable. There aren't very many places where primates have spread to that humans aren't one of the species living there.
Two of the larger mammals discovered recently:
Saola - kind of a cross between a goat/bovine/deer, it's about 1.5m long, 1m tall and around 90kg. Lives in mountain valleys, from 300-1800m above sea level. Remains of the animal were first discovered in 1992.
Tapirus kabomani - similar dimensions to the saola, but a little heavier at 110kg and a only 1.3m long. Even though it was recently classified as it's own species, there's a specimen in the American Museum of Natural History... it was obtained by Theodore Roosevelt in 1914.
The idea that a primate the size of a brown bear is hiding in the mountains and we have no evidence of it to date is pretty far fetched.
And you can't prove you're not a brain in a jar.
Is that a useful thing to spend your time investigating though?
It would explain all the pimentos floating by...
|
|
Lordsnow, I am done defending "my" alleged error that only comes about when YOU decide to break the statement down. It is completely inane to accuse me of using the "wrong" kind of proof when I used neither the name nor the formula for any proof.
I assure you, Wolf, that every single person who studied the most rudimentary, high-school level of logic (probably you, too) would assert the above proof. Every single one of them will also be able to tell you that without assumption 3, the proof doesn't hold.Then by all means, make assumption 3! Dear polyhedral gods you make it sound like I had a list of assumptions to start with and left it off or something. I do not in normal conversation need to account for the possibility of wonderwoman trying to land the invisible jet on the interstate.
And you wonder why I think philosophy is useless.
But this is what you fail to grasp here.
This is not philosophy. This is not opinion. This is not a worldview or a personal preference or anything else of the sort.
You think that your example of the car is of "proving that something does not exist by looking and not finding". It is not. I explained several times and in a clear manner why it isn't. This is a cold, hard, unquestionable fact. You, and nobody else, is capable to prove a negative by showing that you found no evidence of the positive. It is simply, maybe even simplistically, a logical fallacy. I have shown you, by actually breaking down your statement to it's component, that your example was of proof by negation and nothing else. I have even friggin shown you examples of ideas that seemed downright implausible, and that had you and me held this conversation in the not so distant past you would have insisted you can prove are wrong, but that turned out to be right - for example, quantum mechanics.
Notice well - this is an actual proof that it is objectively impossible to prove a negative by showing that no evidence was found:
Until Quantum Mechanics there was no evidence that any physical system can be impacted just by being observed.
Until Quantum Mechanics there was no evidence that information can travel faster than the speed of light
Yet now we know both of those things to be true - because our methods of inquiry got better and because some brilliant scientist came up with an idea nobody else had before. So, before these were discovered, by your logic, we could have "proved" that these things are impossible, because despite our best efforts at the time there was no evidence to support those ideas. Those ideas were, actually, seemingly absurd and most people would have been able to show a lot of good reasons to *believe* they aren't true. But since those facts can't be both wrong and right, how could they have been proven wrong before the discovery of quantum mechanics but not after?
And, how can you prove to me that a similar revolution is *impossible* with God?
"Your" "alleged" error is an error. This is the bottom line, and all there is to it. Philosophy is not involved, nor any other subjective school of thought. That is all.
This is not philosophy. This is not opinion. This is not a worldview or a personal preference or anything else of the sort.
It most certainly is. Your entire critique rests on
1) I did not specify the assumption that cars are visible.
2) I was using the Wrong term for the type of disproof when I never used any terms at all.
This is material component of a fireball levels of inanity here.
The fact is that you risk your life on the mental process I described multiple times a day. You look, you don't see anything, you pull out into traffic. If you can't rationalize why that thought process is good enough to risk your life on that's your problem.
|
|
This is not philosophy. This is not opinion. This is not a worldview or a personal preference or anything else of the sort.It most certainly is. Your entire critique rests on
1) I did not specify the assumption that cars are visible.
2) I was using the Wrong term for the type of disproof when I never used any terms at all.
Not true at all. I didn't care that you didn't specify your assumption, only wanted to make it clear that it's there, which is really just a details that is not very important.
What matters is number 2. What you said was: "I can prove a negative by looking and not finding". What you DID was prove a negative by contradiction.
Maybe I failed to convey this so far, but let me stress this point: I am not saying that your claim that "if you don't see a car is not there" is wrong. It's a correct claim. I am just saying that this claim is not an example of "proving a negative by looking and not finding".
That is all. All I was saying was that your argument was not the kind of argument you said it was, which is important because you brought it as an example of a certain kind of argument, which it wasn't.
|
|
And I would add this: the fact that your argument is a proof by contradiction is just that - a fact. Not an opinion, and nothing whatsoever to do with philosophy. You used the wrong kind of argument as an example that it is possible to prove a negative by looking and not finding. I have showed your argument a couple posts above. You can't argue that what I described there is not your argument. And it is of the precise template of proof by contradiction, which is not under any circumstances a proof of looking and not finding.
The only reason I mentioned the "cars are visible" assumption was to prove that your proof was by contradiction - I initially thought my meaning about this would be obvious. I was wrong about that.
To understand why the "cars are visible" assumption is important, look at this proof with the same structure: "A friend asked me a riddle. I couldn't find an answer to the riddle, so it's unsolvable."
Clearly this proof is wrong. What is the difference? unlike a car, that is visible, it is easily conceivable that someone might not be able to find the solution of a riddle, even if they search for it. Which goes to show you that the proof about the car is correct because you can assume that if there would have been a car, you would be able to see it - and since you can't, there is no car. Proof by negation.
I am just saying that this claim is not an example of "proving a negative by looking and not finding".
I look for a car.
I don't find a car.
I risk my life on the conclusion that the car is not there.
But its not an example of looking and not finding....
|
|
I am just saying that this claim is not an example of "proving a negative by looking and not finding".I look for a car.
I don't find a car.
I risk my life on the conclusion that the car is not there.
But its not an example of looking and not finding....
Perfectly correct. It is not an example of *proof* by looking and not finding. The proof is not "I looked and didn't see a car", it's "I looked and didn't see a car, AND I WOULD HAVE SEEN A CAR IF IT WAS THERE, so there is no car".
Again, imagine basically the same sentence but with a riddle instead of a car. Let's say you play a trivia game on TV, and there is a big prize you might win if you answer correctly. The show host purposes the following challenge: he will ask you a riddle. You will either give an answer to the riddle, or state that it's unsolvable. If it's really unsolvable and you said so, you'll win the million dollars. If, however, you say it's unsolvable but there IS a solution, you lose the 100,000$ you accumulated so far.
You look for a solution.
You don't find a solution.
You risk a lot of money on the conclusion that the solution doesn't exist.
But this is obviously, clearly, plainly and surely not a proof that a solution doesn't exist.
Now, your turn. You tell me - what is the difference between your example with the car, and mine with the riddle?
Can we agree on this?
assuming we can, let's take the next logical step forward, OK? If the fact that the car is visible is a necessary component of our proof, that must in turn mean that we use that fact somewhere in the proof. Where? in the part where we declare, "since I would have seen a car had it been there, and I don't see a car, then...".
So, the proof is correct because the idea that you would have not seen a car if it had been there contradicts an established fact - that cars are visible.
But Lord Snow, why would you bold that word?
Why, because it's a key word in the sentence. It shows us what kind of logic we used to prove our statement. proof by contradiction.
"I looked and didn't see a car", it's "I looked and didn't see a car, AND I WOULD HAVE SEEN A CAR IF IT WAS THERE, so there is no car".
I for the life of me cannot see why you're foaming at the trunk over that or any of the other 500 implicit assumptions that go into every day conversation (i exist, the car exist, we are not in the matrix, ) that I didn't spell out. You're also mad I didn't call the proof the right thing.. but i didn't call it ANYTHING. I used a process and an example, not a name.
Your problem seems to be with the analogy, which is fine, but also subjective.
|
|
Your problem seems to be with the analogy, which is fine, but also subjective.
My problem is not with your analogy, it's with every analogy.
It's not a subjective matter at all. Using any sort of analogy to prove that "you can prove a negative by looking and not finding" will be incorrect.
While I have concentrated on showing how the specific analogy you have chosen was not a proof by looking and not finding but rather a proof by contradiction (after my previous post I can't fathom why you'd still think this is not the case), I could have done the same with virtually any other. Because it is impossible to prove something that is wrong. And the sentence "I can prove a negative by looking and not finding" is a wrong one. Nothing subjective here.
|
|
Plus, I did rebuff your more general claim by citing historical occurrences, like the discovery of all the weirdness that has to do with quantum mechanics, to demonstrate that just because you can't find evidence for something *right now* doesn't mean it's false. This was my most objective claim, which you ignored entirely in favor of suggesting that I couldn't tell that the living/dead cat is merely an analogy.
Well, unless proof by looking and not finding is some sort of fallacy or proof that I'm not aware of, the ideas that proof via looking and not finding and proof via contradiction aren't mutually exclusive. You can justify it how you want, the fact is its a rational process that we use all the time.
We do not seriously call people that don't believe in sasquatches or tooth faries a sasquatchists or a toothfariests. . We do not fault them for not having an open mind or invoke an unprovable philosophical standard of epistemic nihlism as THE right standard for belief in these things.
The evidence against it is overwhelming. The evidence for it is junk. We do not actually say "Well it hasn't been proved" we says its bull.
We believe perpetual motion is impossible, so we can probably discount that.
True, but it's a false belief. It is possible, without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Requires capacity to manipulate electromagnetic fields we currently don't have.
It's just an incredibly bad idea. Due to entropy (and not in a way related to temperature), you have a device that is pretty much guaranteed to eventually fail. 9 times out of 10, explosively. And you could probably get the same results by simply buying a bunch of dynamite (which would also be massively cheaper). This is why it is true closed-system energy devices are bad.