Go Back   Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums > General Discussion > Critical Thinking
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-19-2006, 09:40 PM   #1
Cavernio
sunshine and rainbows
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
Default Proof

What makes something proveable? Is seeing believing? Is feeling believing? Is mathematically proving something mean you believe its true, its factual?
Cavernio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 09:45 PM   #2
Windscarredfaith
(づ ̄ ³ ̄)づ watermelon
FFR Veteran
 
Windscarredfaith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New Jersey
Age: 30
Posts: 2,612
Send a message via AIM to Windscarredfaith Send a message via MSN to Windscarredfaith
Default Re: Proof

If someone else AAAs something like FotBB besides Shash, bill, and Bahamut, it's basically not believable.
__________________
Windscarredfaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 09:50 PM   #3
T0rajir0u
FFR Player
FFR Simfile Author
 
T0rajir0u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: awsome
Posts: 2,946
Default Re: Proof

Proof of statements about the physical world relies entirely on the definitions of the words you use to formulate your statements.

Ultimately, words can only be defined by reference to the physical world.
__________________
hehe

Last edited by T0rajir0u; 10-19-2006 at 10:41 PM..
T0rajir0u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 09:51 PM   #4
Squeek
let it snow~
FFR Veteran
 
Squeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 34
Posts: 14,457
Send a message via AIM to Squeek
Default Re: Proof

Reproduced results.

End of story. This is the division between pseudoscience and science.

Science = test can be repeated with similar or same results.

Pseudoscience = test cannot be repeated, or results are not the same with every test.
Squeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 09:55 PM   #5
T0rajir0u
FFR Player
FFR Simfile Author
 
T0rajir0u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: awsome
Posts: 2,946
Default Re: Proof

You can't call a scientific statement "proven." It's either supported by physical evidence (i.e. it is a useful generalization about the physical world), or it isn't (i.e. it is not a useful generalization about the physical world). We can only have evidence of a scientific statement's predicting power, and evidence does not constitute proof.
__________________
hehe

Last edited by T0rajir0u; 10-19-2006 at 10:41 PM..
T0rajir0u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 09:57 PM   #6
Squeek
let it snow~
FFR Veteran
 
Squeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 34
Posts: 14,457
Send a message via AIM to Squeek
Default Re: Proof

Ok, so how would you prove something.

I want to prove 2+2 is 4.

I have two apples and add two more. I got four.

Maybe apples are weird, so I use oranges. I add two oranges to two oranges and I get four.

Combination! I add two apples with two oranges... I still got four.

I reproduced the results of the experiment, and if I keep doing it thousands and thousands of times, I will still get the same answer.

In fact, anyone who adds two tangible objects with two other tangible objects will always get four!

Reproduced results!

If you were so inclined, you COULD take scientific facts and test them for yourself. Go ahead. If it's supposedly proven and you follow the experiment with the parameters given, you will get the same result.
Squeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 10:27 PM   #7
studmuffin51306
FFR Player
 
studmuffin51306's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 149
Send a message via AIM to studmuffin51306
Default Re: Proof

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeek View Post
Ok, so how would you prove something.

I want to prove 2+2 is 4.

I have two apples and add two more. I got four.

Maybe apples are weird, so I use oranges. I add two oranges to two oranges and I get four.

Combination! I add two apples with two oranges... I still got four.

I reproduced the results of the experiment, and if I keep doing it thousands and thousands of times, I will still get the same answer.

In fact, anyone who adds two tangible objects with two other tangible objects will always get four!

Reproduced results!

If you were so inclined, you COULD take scientific facts and test them for yourself. Go ahead. If it's supposedly proven and you follow the experiment with the parameters given, you will get the same result.

You're mixing Math with Science. In Math, we create the rules. 1+1 will always be 2, unless we alter the rules. Math is imaginary and infinitely changable. Science is guessing at what might be right. We do not make the rules in Science. God does (or nature, I don't want another religious argument). And while there seem to be patterns, nothing can truly be proven because we aren't in a position to know what will always happen.

Basically, to know anything, you have to know everything.
__________________
studmuffin51306 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 10:33 PM   #8
Windscarredfaith
(づ ̄ ³ ̄)づ watermelon
FFR Veteran
 
Windscarredfaith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New Jersey
Age: 30
Posts: 2,612
Send a message via AIM to Windscarredfaith Send a message via MSN to Windscarredfaith
Default Re: Proof

If you guys really are getting into this... just say that nothing can be proven, because nothing exists.
__________________
Windscarredfaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 10:40 PM   #9
T0rajir0u
FFR Player
FFR Simfile Author
 
T0rajir0u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: awsome
Posts: 2,946
Default Re: Proof

Quote:
Originally Posted by Windscarredfaith View Post
nothing exists.
Define existence.
__________________
hehe
T0rajir0u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 10:43 PM   #10
studmuffin51306
FFR Player
 
studmuffin51306's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 149
Send a message via AIM to studmuffin51306
Default Re: Proof

Quote:
Originally Posted by Windscarredfaith View Post
If you guys really are getting into this... just say that nothing can be proven, because nothing exists.
But nonexistant things like numbers can be proven.
__________________
studmuffin51306 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 10:51 PM   #11
Windscarredfaith
(づ ̄ ³ ̄)づ watermelon
FFR Veteran
 
Windscarredfaith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New Jersey
Age: 30
Posts: 2,612
Send a message via AIM to Windscarredfaith Send a message via MSN to Windscarredfaith
Default Re: Proof

No. What if everything is just nonexistant, so what you think exists is actually nonexistant because what you think is nonexistant?

I don't actually believe this. Just proving the point.
__________________
Windscarredfaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 10:53 PM   #12
T0rajir0u
FFR Player
FFR Simfile Author
 
T0rajir0u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: awsome
Posts: 2,946
Default Re: Proof

The question of whether numbers exist is moot. Mathematical objects are characterized entirely by their function, not their substance.

The question of whether real objects exist depends on your definition of "exists," which is a subtletly that centuries of philosophers failed to grasp.

The concept of existence, in absence of language, can only be understood in terms of the senses. Something exists if you can sense it. (You will disagree with this definition. Keep reading.)

The obvious disagreement people will raise: A hallucination, for example, constitutes a sensory experience that is "not real." That is, the objects in that hallucination "do not exist."

What do we mean by that? If we hallucinate a chair in the corner of the room, it means that "that chair" is "not there."

What do we really mean by that? It just means that our experience is incomplete. We associate the visual perception of a chair with a corresponding perception in terms of touch. When we hallucinate a chair, we have the visual perception without the corresponding touch perception.

When we say that "that chair" is "not there," what we really mean is that a visual stimulus isn't being accompanied by other expected stimuli. What is "that chair"? It is nothing beyond its visual stimulus. The mistake in our cognition that produces a sense of unreality is thinking that every such stimulus is always paired with other corresponding stimuli.

"That chair," as far as being a pattern of signals in your visual cortex, exists in your brain. It does not exist as a regular chair because it cannot be touched (unless you hallucinate that too) and/or because it disappears once the hallucination is over (other chairs do not exhibit this behavior). What we have here is a mistake in our mental grouping. We assume that the visual chair we see belongs to the cognitive network of "chairs" in our head, when it doesn't.



In short: Everything that you can perceive exists as a perception.

(This is the way you counteract retarded Matrix arguments about reality.)



ps

Quote:
Originally Posted by Windscarredfaith View Post
No. What if everything is just nonexistant
DEFINE EXISTENCE.
__________________
hehe
T0rajir0u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 10:56 PM   #13
studmuffin51306
FFR Player
 
studmuffin51306's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 149
Send a message via AIM to studmuffin51306
Default Re: Proof

Quote:
Originally Posted by T0rajir0u View Post
The question of whether numbers exist is moot. Mathematical objects are characterized entirely by their function, not their substance.

The question of whether real objects exist depends on your definition of "exists," which is a subtletly that centuries of philosophers failed to grasp.

The concept of existence, in absence of language, can only be understood in terms of the senses. Something exists if you can sense it. (You will disagree with this definition. Keep reading.)

The obvious disagreement people will raise: A hallucination, for example, constitutes a sensory experience that is "not real." That is, the objects in that hallucination "do not exist."

What do we mean by that? If we hallucinate a chair in the corner of the room, it means that "that chair" is "not there."

What do we really mean by that? It just means that our experience is incomplete. We associate the visual perception of a chair with a corresponding perception in terms of touch. When we hallucinate a chair, we have the visual perception without the corresponding touch perception.

When we say that "that chair" is "not there," what we really mean is that a visual stimulus isn't being accompanied by other expected stimuli. What is "that chair"? It is nothing beyond its visual stimulus. The mistake in our cognition that produces a sense of unreality is thinking that every such stimulus is always paired with other corresponding stimuli.

"That chair," as far as being a pattern of signals in your visual cortex, exists in your brain. It does not exist as a regular chair because it cannot be touched (unless you hallucinate that too) and/or because it disappears once the hallucination is over (other chairs do not exhibit this behavior). What we have here is a mistake in our mental grouping. We assume that the visual chair we see belongs to the cognitive network of "chairs" in our head, when it doesn't.



In short: Everything that you can perceive exists as a perception.

(This is the way you counteract retarded Matrix arguments about reality.)



ps



DEFINE EXISTENCE.
agreed.
__________________
studmuffin51306 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 11:21 PM   #14
Patashu
FFR Simfile Author
FFR Simfile Author
 
Patashu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: we traced the call...it's coming from inside the house
Age: 30
Posts: 8,608
Send a message via AIM to Patashu Send a message via MSN to Patashu Send a message via Yahoo to Patashu
Default Re: Proof

If nothing exists, how the heck are we here debating this?
__________________
Patashu makes Chiptunes in Famitracker:
http://soundcloud.com/patashu/8bit-progressive-metal-fading-world
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/Mechadragon/smallpackbanner.png
Best non-AAAs: ERx8 v2 (14-1-0-4), Hajnal (3-0-0-0), RunnyMorning (8-0-0-4), Xeno-Flow (1-0-0-3), Blue Rose (35-2-0-20), Ketsarku (14-0-0-0), Silence (1-0-0-0), Lolo (14-1-0-1)
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee301/xiaoven/solorulzsig.png
Patashu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 11:30 PM   #15
Squeek
let it snow~
FFR Veteran
 
Squeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 34
Posts: 14,457
Send a message via AIM to Squeek
Default Re: Proof

Math correlates perfectly with my argument, so why did you throw it out the window?

Two apples with two apples ALWAYS makes four apples.

SIMILARLY, you can prove that as a result of an invisible force called gravity, dropping those apples off of a table will ALWAYS make them go down. WHY can we prove this? If we REMOVED gravity, they DON'T fall down. If we make the gravity NEGATIVE, they fall UP. THEREFORE, WE CAN DISCERN THAT GRAVITY IS THE FORCE THAT PULLS THINGS DOWN, THUS, PROOF.

I don't see what is so difficult to understand about my argument. Proving something is simple. Set forth the rules of the experiment, make a reproductive result, and allow anyone else in the world to do that experiment following your guidelines. If they don't get the same result, either they didn't follow your guidelines or there's something wrong with your guidelines; something you didn't account for.

Prove to me that gravity doesn't exist. Jump in the air unassisted and don't fall back down while on the surface of Earth. Show judge and ini.
Squeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2006, 12:31 AM   #16
T0rajir0u
FFR Player
FFR Simfile Author
 
T0rajir0u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: awsome
Posts: 2,946
Default Re: Proof

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeek View Post
Two apples with two apples ALWAYS makes four apples.
This is not the same thing as saying 2 + 2 = 4. Number and quantity are conceptually distinct.

Also, not true in a black hole. If you have two apples in a black hole, and you get two more apples, then you're in a black hole. The apples disintegrate. You have no apples.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeek View Post
SIMILARLY, you can prove that as a result of an invisible force called gravity, dropping those apples off of a table will ALWAYS make them go down.
This is a theory that is heavily supported with experimental evidence. You're missing my point. I didn't say that theory wasn't valid, but support needs to be distinguished from proof.

The real world offers no guarantees. You have no guarantee that any particular scientific statement will always hold true. The fact that it has held true in any given instance of testing it is certainly very strong evidence, but it does not constitute a guarantee that the next test will end up failing.

This doesn't mean that science isn't trustworthy. In a nutshell, it's our "best guess," and we have to go with that because we don't have anything better.



Edit: How did I miss this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeek View Post
SIMILARLY, you can prove that as a result of an invisible force called gravity, dropping those apples off of a table will ALWAYS make them go down. WHY can we prove this? If we REMOVED gravity, they DON'T fall down. If we make the gravity NEGATIVE, they fall UP. THEREFORE, WE CAN DISCERN THAT GRAVITY IS THE FORCE THAT PULLS THINGS DOWN, THUS, PROOF.
I see where the issue here is. As usual, it's an issue of semantics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
proof  /pruf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proof] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
In this sense, you would be largely correct, although your example is horrible. You don't have the power to physically reverse gravity or set it to zero.
__________________
hehe

Last edited by T0rajir0u; 10-20-2006 at 12:37 AM..
T0rajir0u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2006, 12:47 AM   #17
Kilgamayan
Super Scooter Happy
FFR Simfile Author
 
Kilgamayan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Location, Location.
Age: 36
Posts: 6,584
Send a message via AIM to Kilgamayan
Default Re: Proof

My stance on the issue.

http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...ad.php?t=30784
__________________
I watched clouds awobbly from the floor o' that kayak. Souls cross ages like clouds cross skies, an' tho' a cloud's shape nor hue nor size don't stay the same, it's still a cloud an' so is a soul. Who can say where the cloud's blowed from or who the soul'll be 'morrow? Only Sonmi the east an' the west an' the compass an' the atlas, yay, only the atlas o' clouds.
Kilgamayan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2006, 12:50 AM   #18
T0rajir0u
FFR Player
FFR Simfile Author
 
T0rajir0u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: awsome
Posts: 2,946
Default Re: Proof

Fundamentally, solipsism is only a worthwhile philosophy if you decide, for whatever reason, that you don't care about other people.
__________________
hehe
T0rajir0u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2006, 12:51 AM   #19
Kilgamayan
Super Scooter Happy
FFR Simfile Author
 
Kilgamayan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Location, Location.
Age: 36
Posts: 6,584
Send a message via AIM to Kilgamayan
Default Re: Proof

Hence the humor of "discuss".

C'mon, man, I expected you of all people to get it. :(
__________________
I watched clouds awobbly from the floor o' that kayak. Souls cross ages like clouds cross skies, an' tho' a cloud's shape nor hue nor size don't stay the same, it's still a cloud an' so is a soul. Who can say where the cloud's blowed from or who the soul'll be 'morrow? Only Sonmi the east an' the west an' the compass an' the atlas, yay, only the atlas o' clouds.
Kilgamayan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2006, 12:56 AM   #20
T0rajir0u
FFR Player
FFR Simfile Author
 
T0rajir0u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: awsome
Posts: 2,946
Default Re: Proof

That was just in case someone else decided to take you seriously. ;D
__________________
hehe
T0rajir0u is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution