The Burden of Proof

[Deleted member]

Delorted, let me ask you this. Are you agnostic or atheistic towards the existence of a flying elf in the sky who individually hand-crafts every single snowflake that falls to earth during the winter?

Oh yeah, and he's invisible.

I don't know if this exists or not.

 

[RDK]

Because that's the only image of God there is RDK?

Whoever said it had to be god? I'm talking about an elf. Replace it with fairies if you like.

I don't know if this exists or not.

Okay. Do you believe it is a more likely or less likely explanation for the existence of snowflakes than the current natural explanation?

 

[CRASHiC]

RDK, stop stealing your material from George Carlin.

 

[Deleted member]

Whoever said it had to be god? I'm talking about an elf. Replace it with fairies if you like.



Okay. Do you believe it is a more likely or less likely explanation for the existence of snowflakes than the current natural explanation?

That's a loaded question. The only important question is if the being exists, not if it also creates snowflakes. I still don't know if that being exists.

 

[Mewter]

Okay. Do you believe it is a more likely or less likely explanation for the existence of snowflakes than the current natural explanation?

Del, there's no question about it. He's asking you if you would believe more in the fairy-snow explanation or the science-snow explanation. Would you lean more toward one side or the other?

Anyways, it's okay for the fairy to exist, but it's not mandatory. It just can't craft the snow.

 

[AltF4]

I think Del answered pretty clearly that he's an Agnostic. And I just can't quite comprehend how you can be Agnostic about something as absurd as invisible snowflake elves. It seems to me that the only reasonable position would be to not believe in the existence of the elves, until any positive evidence surfaces.

I can see being agnostic about many topics. The existence of alien life in the universe is a good one. We just don't have enough evidence to make any kind of statement on the subject. (The Drake Equation is just a load of BS) We are working very hard to come up with evidence one way or another, and are starting to get some. It seems only proper to withhold judgement until we get this data.

...but invisible snowflake elves? No.

 

[Reaver197]

Especially with the evidence of the fact that life can come around (we have all the zoology on Earth attesting to that), but we have no other reference point/piece of evidence to indicate just how common life on planets are, or even what range of planets/environments life can thrive in.

However, with things like snow elves, or anything else that has zero evidence pointing towards it's existence, especially with something as tactile as making snow, or interfering with human affairs (like, raising the dead, destroying whole cities, flooding the world, etc, etc), there really isn't any other justifiable position to take other than they don't exist unless positive evidence is shown for them. Plus, not to mention that a lot of these stipulations would run counter to many established theories and/or bodies of evidence.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

While we do know that Del is an agnostic, I am not too particularly fond of the talking down that he does towards atheism, where it sounds like he is saying "You're not an atheist, your just a poser raging against religion because it's the flavor of the hour." sort of B.S.

Del, you need to tone that down, seriously.

 

[blazedaces]

Delorted, I do not believe that's honestly how you feel. That's imply the answer you're choosing to give so you don't have to admit the silliness in your original statement. But this isn't a question about faith in god (I personally don't think that's silly)... this is a question about snow producing elves... No one thinks an agnostic stance on God is stupid... but your answer about these elves... I'm sorry it's quite plain stupid.

You have plenty of evidence on how snow is produced naturally, through the hand of god or not. But no evidence whatsoever that snow producing elves exist. I highly doubt that you live your whole life having an agnostic stance on EVERY POSSIBLE IMAGINARY SCENARIO explaining random things in the world. I doubt your belief in God controlling the sea is on par with your belief in Poseidon being there, or aliens having landed there a millennium ago and controlling it through nobs in Atlantis. To go through life this way you might as well say I don't know how ANYTHING works. It's not even the stance that "God is just doing it all", it's the stance of "I don't know anything and I don't take a stance on any subject whatsoever".

In fact you wouldn't even have a good reason to eat or breath, since NOT eating or breathing in your mind is just as likely to keep you alive...

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

Del, there's no question about it. He's asking you if you would believe more in the fairy-snow explanation or the science-snow explanation. Would you lean more toward one side or the other?

Anyways, it's okay for the fairy to exist, but it's not mandatory. It just can't craft the snow.

You don't get what's going on here, clearly. I know what he's proposing; it's a loaded question. One with ties to religion. He's very blatantly rephrasing the creationist argument with the silly elf thing.

You should know by now that I don't associate God with religions inherently, so for him to make that question so loaded is unfair. I don't know if the elf exists or not.

While we do know that Del is an agnostic, I am not too particularly fond of the talking down that he does towards atheism, where it sounds like he is saying "You're not an atheist, your just a poser raging against religion because it's the flavor of the hour." sort of B.S.

Del, you need to tone that down, seriously.

Tone what down, my beliefs? The fact that you guys still call yourself atheists is enough justification to feel frustrated with the way things are. I know that even I look at religious people differently than "normal" people. We see religious people as judgmental, even bigots sometimes. We see atheists as hipsters. It's fashionable to be an atheist. Why are you trying to deny that? When has religious right ever been cool?

Not to mention that you're missing my point entirely. Atheism being cool is not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that people in this Debate Hall cling to the word "atheist" because it connotes a certain stigma, a certain idea of seeing religions (mostly Christianity) and an attitude towards secular faith itself. NOT because they are actually atheists.

Delorted, I do not believe that's honestly how you feel. That's imply the answer you're choosing to give so you don't have to admit the silliness in your original statement. But this isn't a question about faith in god (I personally don't think that's silly)... this is a question about snow producing elves... No one thinks an agnostic stance on God is stupid... but your answer about these elves... I'm sorry it's quite plain stupid.

You have plenty of evidence on how snow is produced naturally, through the hand of god or not. But no evidence whatsoever that snow producing elves exist. I highly doubt that you live your whole life having an agnostic stance on EVERY POSSIBLE IMAGINARY SCENARIO explaining random things in the world. I doubt your belief in God controlling the sea is on par with your belief in Poseidon being there, or aliens having landed there a millennium ago and controlling it through nobs in Atlantis. To go through life this way you might as well say I don't know how ANYTHING works. It's not even the stance that "God is just doing it all", it's the stance of "I don't know anything and I don't take a stance on any subject whatsoever".

In fact you wouldn't even have a good reason to eat or breath, since NOT eating or breathing in your mind is just as likely to keep you alive...

-blazed

Blazed, I know how snow is produced. I know how the earth was formed. Yet I don't know if it was random or not. I cannot, in good conscience, outright deny the existence of snow elves (no matter how silly it sounds) just as much as I cannot deny the existence of a God. RDK is trying to show that both are silly. Maybe so to him. Yes, I will admit it sounds farfetched. But I still cannot dismiss the claim. It is both the blessing and the curse of being philosophically inclined.

Alt, (I love how I don't quote you.. ever) I'm not agnostic about everything. Just things I'm unsure about.

 

[Mewter]

And my answer was a loaded answer.
I'm aware it was supposed to be analogous to a religious God (most hopefully not a deistic god though). It was a little unfair, but the question still stands about the religious God and whether or not you would lean more toward one side or the other if its performance had been outshone before.

I guess it just depends on whether or not you want to make a decision based on how probable the claim of a deity sounds based on its performance and consistency so far.

And I'm totally atheist just to be cool. If it weren't fashionably in right now, I wouldn't be atheist.

 

[Deleted member]

And I'm totally atheist just to be cool. If it weren't fashionably in right now, I wouldn't be atheist.

You're a moron. You aren't an atheist. That's my point, fool. The only reason I lash out now is because you're simply ignoring my posts. CK, go ahead and give me an infraction - I just don't think this one is warranted.

 

[Mewter]

Ignoring your posts? Then state concretely, right here in this thread what your definition of atheism is, then. Everyone here seems to believe atheism is simply having no theism, or religion.

We've seen you state hundreds of times that we aren't atheists, so what is your definition of atheist? Someone who completely rejects the idea of a god of any kind? I read your posts (you seemed to touch on it once).


So while we're arguing semantics, it is worth mentioning, actually, that Atheist is defined by diction ary.com as:

A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Call this strawmanning, but I can easily say that by this definition, an atheist is allowed to be agnostic to the idea of a god but atheistic to the idea of God. It's open to interpretation. It doesn't say to disbelieve all supreme beings, just a supreme being or set of beings. There we go. Legit atheism that is agnostic to the idea of a god.

 

[Deleted member]

Call this strawmanning, but I can easily say that by this definition, an atheist is allowed to be agnostic to the idea of a god but atheistic to the idea of God. It's open to interpretation. It doesn't say to disbelieve all supreme beings, just a supreme being or set of beings.

Before I define anything, please explain to me why you identify with the atheistic side of the definition rather than the agnostic side.

You are atheistic towards God (capital G)

But agnostic towards a god (lower case g)

This isn't about religion. This is about whether god exists or not. Religion (aka, God) has nothing to do with it.

Therefore, you are agnostic, as it is the BIGGER PICTURE. Adding in the "atheistic towards established Gods" is just a silly bit of fat. You can excise it

I would also like to mention that if we went with dictionary definitions 100% of the time, gays would never be married. If I'm the only one presenting new ideas, so be it. Just don't point to the dictionary and laugh at me.

 

[Mewter]

In that case, Delorted, I would identify with agnosticism (for that though).
If people ask for my religious stance, though, they would be on the receiving end of the word atheist. It doesn't matter if one's the bigger picture. They're both separate issues.

I'll present a new, non-dictionary idea too: atheist=non-theist. I'd love if that was how the dictionary defined it, honestly.

 

[Deleted member]

But why? You're only denying what you truly are. Unless you're referring to strictly religious stances. Religion and this debate are like oil and water. They don't mix. They shouldn't mix.

Otherwise, you're simply using the word atheist because of some internal reason which you aren't explaining. If you are an agnostic towards the bigger picture, why aren't you explaining that to people? Explain that.

 

[Mewter]

Wow, you reply quickly.

If this debate were strictly on religious stances, I would classify myself as atheist. I don't believe in any religious gods, and therefore any religions. Or I'm atheist and don't have a religion. Both of these are to express that I don't have a religion and that I don't believe in any religious deities.

Non-religiously, I'm open to the idea of a god but still don't believe in any. AKA, I'm agnostic (to the idea of a god). If I were to identify myself strictly in a debate about a random non-religion associated god, I would go with agnosticism.

Like you said, they're oil and water. I'm using the word atheist for religious stances and agnosticism for the possible existence of a god. That's why I identify myself with atheist when people ask (because they usually are asking for the religious affiliation, and most atheists are agnostic otherwise to the existence of a god). See the reasoning behind it (1st real paragraph)?

 

[Deleted member]

I don't see the correlation. If someone asks you "do you believe in (g)God?"

You should be saying, "well, probably not a religious deity. But I'm agnostic."

And to be honest, I could argue that you shouldn't even consider yourself an atheist towards religion. Like my stance with the elf, I don't know if these fantastical beings exist or not, and neither do you.

But whatever. Finally, an "atheist" confesses. Thank you, Mewter.

 

[Mewter]

Let me say this first: agnosticism and open-mindedness are not the same thing (especially if there is swaying evidence present).

But the main question with the elf was if it causes the snow to crystallize into shapes, not if the elf exists! I can be almost certain that the elf doesn't do this, and that it's simply a part of nature. If I'm proven wrong though, I'll gladly switch sides. The fairy might exist, but it certainly isn't carving snowflakes. I'm open-minded about the issue, but not agnostic because that entails not having sided, which I have done. You can still side and change your mind later.

Just like with religion. I don't believe the deity/fairy/whatnot did whatever the religion says for whatever reason, so I take a side on that issue. If there was a religion worshiping an invisible candy monster that makes clouds during the nighttime (and that is why clouds are made), I would point out that the clouds are formed naturally. I don't believe that certain type of candy monster exists (the one that makes clouds) since it seems nonsensical compared to another finding, so I'm against it. There might be a candy monster that doesn't make clouds, but I'm almost positively sure that there isn't one that makes clouds (agnosticism and open-mindedness are not the same thing).

So, you see, I do consider myself an atheist toward religion. And no, I did not "confess", by whatever you meant by that term. >_>
I'm an atheist capable of changing my mind when evidence points in a different direction. I do not hold a non-position unless there's no swaying evidence.

 

[blazedaces]

Blazed, I know how snow is produced. I know how the earth was formed. Yet I don't know if it was random or not. I cannot, in good conscience, outright deny the existence of snow elves (no matter how silly it sounds) just as much as I cannot deny the existence of a God. RDK is trying to show that both are silly. Maybe so to him. Yes, I will admit it sounds farfetched. But I still cannot dismiss the claim. It is both the blessing and the curse of being philosophically inclined.

Alt, (I love how I don't quote you.. ever) I'm not agnostic about everything. Just things I'm unsure about.

Sorry, but to go through life with a black-and-white approach to all situations is impossible. You don't always have two choices about what to do. You don't just "believe it or not". That's the whole point Alt4 was trying to make with the "rating" system.

Maybe both you and I agree about the snow elves, that we're not going to outright deny their existence, but to me the odds of snow elves existing is 0.00... (so many hundreds of zeroes later) 001% and you make it sound like it's half and half. Sorry, I don't buy it. You're just not willing to admit earlier points made in your argument are stupid/silly so you're watching your responses trying to be purposefully consistent.

I have a question though Delorted. The stance you have against atheists, that they can't actually be 100% sure of the non-existence of god. Shouldn't you be showing just as much contempt against EVERY religious believer because they shouldn't be 100% of the existence of any God, or even the possible existence of multiple gods? Basically, in order to be truly consistent, you should be running the streets yelling at EVERYONE in the world who IS NOT Agnostic. Agnosticism is the only legitimate stance to take... and not just about religion... about EVERYTHING!

Sorry Delorted, but this is extremely unpractical. Real-life decisions require you to choose a single stance on plenty of subjects in order to make a decision. You guess which of two choices is correct based on the available information. You don't seriously consider the snow elves because the chances of their existence is so small you consider it to be approximately equal to 0. You round. Get over it.

-blazed

 

[AltF4]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the capital and lower case G's, Del. Are you trying to say that you're atheist with respect to any particular god, but agnostic toward the concept of any gods in general? (Then take it one further step and cut out the first statement as irrelevant.)

If so, might I probe you to try to define this "gods in general" concept further? I think that you may find it impossible. (Kind of like how I challenge people to define "free will" in a non-circular way) It's not a coherent concept. If I tell you "chairs in general" you can picture a rough outline of a chair in your head. But what about a god?

But gods can be literally anything. From invisible men in the sky, to aliens, to trees, to the universe itself. The word becomes incoherent when it can literally mean anything.

I think the question (and subsequent debate) only makes sense when framed in terms of any specific god. Because I don't even know what "gods in general" means.

 

[Deleted member]

Blazed, my bias against atheists actually started here in the debate hall. I looked at the God debates and saw literate, thought out posts coming from the atheists, and absolute wharrgarbl coming from the believers. It was really frustrating.

Atheists are a much larger challenge. There is no debate to be had with anyone else on this subject. You cannot debate with the believers. You will get nowhere. So my first bias is due to challenge.

Secondly, I debate with you guys because I kind of want you to succeed. I want you guys to improve your arguments just that much better. I'm your worst critic, but for a reason. This is not to say that I want god to be disproved. I just think the current debate is ridiculous. Adopt the term of agnostic and your arguments will be 100% fool-proof.

Alt, the g-G thing is simple.

Which is easier to believe: that I have a cat, or that I have a cat with blue fur?

General concepts of things are safe. Say we're arguing about the existence of Allah. Because there are tacked-on things that make the concept of Allah kind of preposterous, it's way easier to deny him. Yet if I just say that I believe in a god, you are pretty boned to argue against it. The god in my mind could be faceless; bodyless; formless. I don't have the concept of the god made up. I could simply believe in one.

There's a difference. A general god is much easier to defend than a specific one. Just like it's easier to believe in elves than it is elves that produce snowstorms. (..I guess that's a stretch.)

If you revolve it around specific Gods, it becomes a religious debate. That's a bad idea, amigo.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Maybe both you and I agree about the snow elves, that we're not going to outright deny their existence, but to me the odds of snow elves existing is 0.00... (so many hundreds of zeroes later) 001% and you make it sound like it's half and half. Sorry, I don't buy it. You're just not willing to admit earlier points made in your argument are stupid/silly so you're watching your responses trying to be purposefully consistent.

Del said he didn't know if the elf exists or not. This does not mean "50/50". It simply means not "100/0" (or vise-versa). I don't know if the elf exists or not either. Does that mean I think there's an equal chance of it existing or not existing? No! If I HAD to assign a number, it would be similar to yours, blazed. But I'm still agnostic towards the idea.

Sorry Delorted, but this is extremely unpractical. Real-life decisions require you to choose a single stance on plenty of subjects in order to make a decision. You guess which of two choices is correct based on the available information.

Agnoticism doesn't mean that you can't make decisions. You just don't know whether they will be "right". I would say that I believe protons and neutrons exist. But am I ABSOLUTELY 100% sure? No.

You don't seriously consider the snow elves because the chances of their existence is so small you consider it to be approximately equal to 0. You round. Get over it.

-blazed

Uh... no. You don't round. Say I went back 2000 years* and explained the the solar system, and asked what their thoughts of the chances of it existing were. I would think they'd say less than 0.5%.


*Let's assume these people speak modern english and understand the concept of percentages.

 

[CRASHiC]

Actually, mainly people are making a mistake here.

Let me illustrate through proof by contradiction.


Let's assume it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

Therefore it is impossible to prove that an X does not exist that is greater or equal to negative infinity and less then or equal to positive infinity such that X+1=X.


Let's use graph theory, an intersection is a solution.

Let's convert then into the normal form.

y=a+bx

y=1+1x
y=0+1x

b is the slope.

Since both of the slopes are one, the lines are parallel, therefore, the lines must intersect at either all points or no points.

Let x = 1.

(y=1+1x) = (y=0+1x)
(y=1+1(1))=(y=0+1(1))
(y=1+1)=(y=0+1)
(y=2)=(y=1)
2=1

Contradiction!!!

Using pseudo-science and -maths to baffle people in an argument has no place in this thread.


That mathematics doesn't illustrate your point at all. It's like saying 'lets call this spoon a fork... BUT WAIT, this can't be a fork, it doesn't have tines. CONTRADICTION'. If someone said that to me I wouldn't see their underlying point, equally what you have said in that maths doesn't prove anything.

Maths is supposed to show something simply and elegantly. I don't believe you've done that.
What you showed was that the solution was wrong, which is completely different to contradiction. Your maths didn't show two solutions which were opposed to each other or two mathematical principals which were opposed to each other, all you did was show that the solution was wrong. It wasn't contradicting anything, it was just not a solution to that expression. Imagine you count up your change incorrectly, you wouldn't call your calculation a contradiction per se, because it's not opposing anything. You should avoid using that word in maths anyway, it's a word to be used to describe an argument; a counterpoint. I could be said to be contradicting you if I asserted the opposite argument to you, but not if I wrongly called you Tim instead of Logan I wouldn't be actively denying that your name is Logan, I'm just incorrect. I hope I've made that clear, it's difficult to explain. Maths is a language and what you 'said' obviously wasn't what you meant to say. To sum up: 'contradiction' is not a synonym of 'wrong'.

TL;DR version: Things can be proven, but we're not interested in statements that can be effectively proven in science, only disproving statements that can be disproven. Also, you should read this, because it is how to debate, even though it is relevant to the debate at hand.

True, some things are 100% provable in science, like the structure of the eye. But the theory of gravity and evolution aren't 100% provable. Put more accurately, these two theories can not be proven to be 100% right. Sure, there are creatures on this earth with similar characteristics, but you can't say that it is definitely an effect of evolution.

There are still many holes in our knowledge of gravity so that wasn't a grëat example...

We don't know why it's so weak, if there is a carrier particle involved with the interaction, why the universal gravitational constant is the magnitude it is (there is a nice little relation to c and the constant of charge and magnetism but can only measured G, we have no idea what it relates to and how). At the moment we often just ignore it.

It's a bad example because the theory of gravity would not just show what it does, but how it does it. That's what a theory does and currently we don't have an adequate one for gravity.

 

[KrazyGlue]

True, some things are 100% provable in science, like the structure of the eye.

Nope. They're not. I could go on all day about how nothing can be completely 100% proven or denied in science.

 

[CRASHiC]

Nope. They're not. I could go on all day about how nothing can be completely 100% proven or denied in science.

If so, then respond to adumbrodeus's post in full.

 

[KrazyGlue]

If so, then respond to adumbrodeus's post in full.

I'll question his assumptions, but I'd rather not spend a half hour multiquoting his entire post. However, since you believe that what we know about the structure of the eye is true, I challenge you to prove that you are correct.

DISPROOF BY CONTRADICTION!

Nothing can be proven

Take statement: There exists a black swan.

A black swan is observed, therefore there exists a black swan.

Counter-example! The statement "a black swan exists" has been proven.

Therefore, you can prove statements.

So how do you know you saw a black swan? Explain.

(a heck of a lot of existential statements are proven in science, and a heck of a lot of negative universal statements are proven)

Name one and explain how it was "proven".

 

[adumbrodeus]

Using pseudo-science and -maths to baffle people in an argument has no place in this thread.

That was neither pseudo science nor pseudo-math.

That mathematics doesn't illustrate your point at all. It's like saying 'lets call this spoon a fork... BUT WAIT, this can't be a fork, it doesn't have tines. CONTRADICTION'. If someone said that to me I wouldn't see their underlying point, equally what you have said in that maths doesn't prove anything.

How?

I chose a subject that I could easily and clearly illustrate where it fails.

Maths is supposed to show something simply and elegantly. I don't believe you've done that.
What you showed was that the solution was wrong, which is completely different to contradiction. Your maths didn't show two solutions which were opposed to each other or two mathematical principals which were opposed to each other, all you did was show that the solution was wrong. It wasn't contradicting anything, it was just not a solution to that expression. Imagine you count up your change incorrectly, you wouldn't call your calculation a contradiction per se, because it's not opposing anything. You should avoid using that word in maths anyway, it's a word to be used to describe an argument; a counterpoint. I could be said to be contradicting you if I asserted the opposite argument to you, but not if I wrongly called you Tim instead of Logan I wouldn't be actively denying that your name is Logan, I'm just incorrect. I hope I've made that clear, it's difficult to explain. Maths is a language and what you 'said' obviously wasn't what you meant to say. To sum up: 'contradiction' is not a synonym of 'wrong'.

*facepalm*

Learn discrete mathmatics.


Firstly, elegence is not a proper criteria of whether math is correct or not, only effect.



You will learn if you ever take discrete mathmatics that when dealing with proving things for individual numbers or systems of numbers, it's very common to take a number as a counter-example. In fact, THAT'S THE WAY THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DONE.


At the very least, read the wikipedia page on discrete mathematics, browse the links too.


FURTHERMORE CONTRADICTION IS A KEY WORD IN ALL SORTS OF MATHEMATICAL PROOFS!


Now, look at what I am discussing, and tell me where my error is.


My attempt is to prove that two lines do not intersect, therefore proving it is possible to prove something does not exist.

I prove that the slopes are equal, therefore they must intersect at either all points or none.

If it intersects at points, then if I input any x into both graphs, then the y should be equal.

I input an x, they are not equal.

Therefore, I have proved that a point of intersection does not exist.

Therefore I have proven that it is possible to prove things do not exist.



Drawing the graph is just as easy a way to prove the intersection doesn't exist, draw it if you're not convinced.



That's the essence of proof by contradiction, prove that you followed all the right methods, but at some point 1=2 or the statement is incorrect.

It is basic discrete mathematics.

True, some things are 100% provable in science, like the structure of the eye. But the theory of gravity and evolution aren't 100% provable. Put more accurately, these two theories can not be proven to be 100% right. Sure, there are creatures on this earth with similar characteristics, but you can't say that it is definitely an effect of evolution.

There are still many holes in our knowledge of gravity so that wasn't a grëat example...

We don't know why it's so weak, if there is a carrier particle involved with the interaction, why the universal gravitational constant is the magnitude it is (there is a nice little relation to c and the constant of charge and magnetism but can only measured G, we have no idea what it relates to and how). At the moment we often just ignore it.

It's a bad example because the theory of gravity would not just show what it does, but how it does it. That's what a theory does and currently we don't have an adequate one for gravity.

You misunderstand.

I was not talking about science.

I was talking about in general. Science functions by it's own rules, and only observations are 100% proven.


Also, you're wrong.

So how do you know you saw a black swan? Explain.

Now you're being a philosopher.


The assumption here is that the universe exists and we are able to make reliable observations.


We're comparing it to:

Which is defined as a white swan.

Name one and explain how it was "proven".

Observation, simple.


If observe a black swan, that proves that there exists a black swan and disproves that a black swan doesn't exist.

Leave aside the naming conventions, the pictured creature, observing it proves that something exists with the observed attributes (thus disproving the negative statement).


But again, science was not what I was addressing in that section, I had a specific section for science laying out the scientific method, and why it is done like it is.

 

[KrazyGlue]

The assumption here is that the universe exists and we are able to make reliable observations.

The point is that you're making an assumption. That is all.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The point is that you're making an assumption. That is all.

Of course, but if we're talking about science and math, we need that basic assumption in order to function properly.


Then it becomes the realm of philosophy, which unfortunately isn't very useful.

 

[blazedaces]

People, all points made against adumbrodeus's posts thus far have been fallacious. I understand the need to doubt... everything. But a line should be drawn...

Plus I hate philosophical debates about the nature of knowledge... but if you want to you can start another thread about it Krazy. With all the old threads in archive anything new to spark a discussion could cause an increase in debate activity...

-blazed

 

[CRASHiC]

when dealing with proving things for individual numbers or systems of numbers, it's very common to take a number as a counter-example. In fact, THAT'S THE WAY THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DONE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_mathematics

furthermore, contradiction is a key word in all sorts of mathematical proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

As I said before, you weren't using a contradiction proof in a valid way. You weren't opposing anything.

Now, look at what I am discussing, and tell me where my error is.


My attempt is to prove that two lines do not intersect, therefore proving it is possible to prove something does not exist.

So you want to show that they don't intersect at all?

I prove that the slopes are equal, therefore they must intersect at either all points or none.

Wait what? When simultaneously equating two functions one finds the points at which the functions intersect on a graph. Sure, you can find that they don't intersect but they can't intersect at all points. If you drew two functions that intersected at every point you would in fact have only drawn one function.

If it intersects at points, then if I input any x into both graphs, then the y should be equal.

No. Say I have f(x)=x+5 and g(x)=x^2:

As equations y=x+5 and y=x^2. Equating them gives x^2=x+5 or X^2 - x - 2=0. This is then factorised => (x-2)(x+1)=0 which gives x=2 or x=-1. When x=2, y=4 and when x=-1, y=1 so the solution is (-1,1) or (2,4). This means that the two functions intersect at two points (-1,1) or (2,4).

If I decide that I'm going to 'let x=7' for example:
y=7^2 =>49
y=7+5 =>12

49≠12. I think we can agree on that much . Because they don't equal I've proven that when x=7, the y values are different thus they do not intersect (cross or touch). I haven't however proven that the two functions contradict or that they don't intersect. Just that they don't intersect at the point where x=7.

That's the essence of proof by contradiction, prove that you followed all the right methods, but at some point 1=2 or the statement is incorrect.

What statement?? You have to assert a statement before you can contradict it. Just having two equations and sticking random numbers into them serves no purpose.

 

[blazedaces]

Crashic, I think you misunderstand the point he's trying to make. I'll admit he could have been a tad more clear, but you're overthinking things, trying to prove him wrong when... he isn't.

If two lines are parallel (that is their slopes are the same) then they must intersect at all points or no points (this is a fundamental truth, I vaguely remember it being written as one you can find in any basic mathematics textbook). It is also true that when two lines intersect at all points they are equal, you are correct about that. But how does this refute any previous statements?

So we are considering again an x that equals x + 1.

if we say f(x) = x and g(x) = x+1, we can consider them both of the form y=(y-intercept)+(slope)*x

f(x) = x+1 = (1)+(1)*x
g(x) = x = (0) + (1)*x

You can go ahead and plot these two lines on a graph to view graphically they are never equal:

Or you can plug in the same number for x, let's say 1:
f(1)=1+1=2
g(1)=1=1

Since 2 does NOT equal 1 they do not intersect at that point. Going back to the above statement on parallel lines (they either ALWAYS intersect or they NEVER intersect) not intersecting once means not intersecting ALWAYS.

We have proven that x does not ever equal x+1. Or that there DOES NOT EXIST an x such that x = x+1.

-blazed

 

[RDK]

Of course, but if we're talking about science and math, we need that basic assumption in order to function properly.


Then it becomes the realm of philosophy, which unfortunately isn't very useful.

I can see where Crash is coming from; you're making a fundamental mistake in the way you go about describing what constitutes proof.

In science, nothing is ever proven. Facts are weaved together to form theories, this is basic scientific knowledge. We deal with probabilities, not concrete proof; some probabilities just happen to be insanely greater by orders of several magnitudes when compared with others (I.E. the existence of a black swan vs. the origin of the universe).

The only time anything can ever be "proven" is in mathematics. Math deals with "proofs", science deals with probabilities.

 

[CRASHiC]

I wasn't complaining about what was being said per say, more the way it was being said and nitpicking some things

 

[KrazyGlue]

People, all points made against adumbrodeus's posts thus far have been fallacious. I understand the need to doubt... everything. But a line should be drawn...

Plus I hate philosophical debates about the nature of knowledge... but if you want to you can start another thread about it Krazy. With all the old threads in archive anything new to spark a discussion could cause an increase in debate activity...

-blazed

I'm not going to make a new thread, don't worry. It just (for some reason) aggravates me when someone says something like "that's true, we can 100% prove something in science". Because that's honestly just flat out wrong.

I can see where Crash is coming from; you're making a fundamental mistake in the way you go about describing what constitutes proof.

In science, nothing is ever proven. Facts are weaved together to form theories, this is basic scientific knowledge. We deal with probabilities, not concrete proof; some probabilities just happen to be insanely greater by orders of several magnitudes when compared with others (I.E. the existence of a black swan vs. the origin of the universe).

The only time anything can ever be "proven" is in mathematics. Math deals with "proofs", science deals with probabilities.

This is true, though that's mainly because math's foundation is built upon numbers, which are merely concepts. So yes, this is true.

 

[blazedaces]

Yes, technically when he "proved" something it was only based on "math", not "science"...

But I don't think he was trying to say science can prove something, but rather it was in response to a different statement someone said: "You cannot prove something does not exist".

If you think of it that way he did show that's possible.

-blazed

 

[KrazyGlue]

"You cannot prove something does not exist".

If you think of it that way he did show that's possible.

-blazed

But you really can't prove that either, without making the same assumptions we have to make to prove something does exist.

 

[adumbrodeus]

As I said before, you weren't using a contradiction proof in a valid way. You weren't opposing anything.



So you want to show that they don't intersect at all?



Wait what? When simultaneously equating two functions one finds the points at which the functions intersect on a graph. Sure, you can find that they don't intersect but they can't intersect at all points. If you drew two functions that intersected at every point you would in fact have only drawn one function.




No. Say I have f(x)=x+5 and g(x)=x^2:

As equations y=x+5 and y=x^2. Equating them gives x^2=x+5 or X^2 - x - 2=0. This is then factorised => (x-2)(x+1)=0 which gives x=2 or x=-1. When x=2, y=4 and when x=-1, y=1 so the solution is (-1,1) or (2,4). This means that the two functions intersect at two points (-1,1) or (2,4).

If I decide that I'm going to 'let x=7' for example:
y=7^2 =>49
y=7+5 =>12

49≠12. I think we can agree on that much . Because they don't equal I've proven that when x=7, the y values are different thus they do not intersect (cross or touch). I haven't however proven that the two functions contradict or that they don't intersect. Just that they don't intersect at the point where x=7.



What statement?? You have to assert a statement before you can contradict it. Just having two equations and sticking random numbers into them serves no purpose.

So this entire thing is because you neglected to read.

b is the slope.

Since both of the slopes are one, the lines are parallel, therefore, the lines must intersect at either all points or no points.

They are parallel lines, I proved that, therefore they must intersect at all points or none, that is the nature of parallel lines.

Capish?


No, your functions aren't parallel.


If you're gonna comment on a mathematical proof, you need to read the actual proof.

I can see where Crash is coming from; you're making a fundamental mistake in the way you go about describing what constitutes proof.

In science, nothing is ever proven. Facts are weaved together to form theories, this is basic scientific knowledge. We deal with probabilities, not concrete proof; some probabilities just happen to be insanely greater by orders of several magnitudes when compared with others (I.E. the existence of a black swan vs. the origin of the universe).

The only time anything can ever be "proven" is in mathematics. Math deals with "proofs", science deals with probabilities.

You're wrong, while you're correct in practice, I'm taking it from a technical logical point of view.


Firstly, that set of posts was primarily dealing with a pure logic prospective, in other words MATH. I did a little burb on science at the end, but my PRIMARY commentary was on logic.


Secondly, as far as science goes, you only cannot prove things or disprove it when you talk about it in the practical sense (namely, what science is built to examine). In the technical logical sense, you're proving and disproving things all the time.


Science is primarily concerned with commentary on:

A. Positive Universal Statements.

B. Negative existential statements.


A is "for all", and B is "x does not exist",


In the framework of science, it's for all practical senses impossible to prove that something applies universally, and it's equally impossible to prove something does not exist.


However, you can prove another statement, the positive existential statement, the positive existential statement is the "facts" that you refer to, those are the observations, they are proven all the time because the observance of one proves the existential statement.



In the same sense, it is impossible to practically disprove that something exists (the main issue here being that the positive universal statements are impossible to prove).


However, you can disprove universal statements, that happens all the time. The process is called "rejecting the null hypothesis" (I know that you know what this is, but just explaining what it is from a technical logical prospective).




So, I know that this will come up very rarely, but it's important to have the technical background clear because it does come up, and realistically having the terminology right helps in those situations.



Really, how much more effort does it take to say, "negative existential statements are impossible to prove" then "negatives are impossible to prove"? Just type the extra two words.

Yes, technically when he "proved" something it was only based on "math", not "science"...

But I don't think he was trying to say science can prove something, but rather it was in response to a different statement someone said: "You cannot prove something does not exist".

If you think of it that way he did show that's possible.

-blazed

Pretty much.



But also commenting on science from a technical logic prospective, the scientific method does prove and disprove things, they're just not the things science is talking about.

But you really can't prove that either, without making the same assumptions we have to make to prove something does exist.

That assumption is assumed for any debate that is not philosophical or supernatural in nature, every debate has it's preconceptions (namely the scenario), and implicit in those preconceptions is what needs to exist for the debate to occur exists.

 

[KrazyGlue]

That assumption is assumed for any debate that is not philosophical or supernatural in nature, every debate has it's preconceptions (namely the scenario), and implicit in those preconceptions is what needs to exist for the debate to occur exists.

It's actually a basic rule for science as well. To quote wikipedia:

Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them.

It's a scientific concept as well as a philosophical one.
____________________________

To be honest, I don't see how such an assertion would be necessary in any debate, let alone one about the burden of proof.