Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Some psychologists restrict the term confirmation bias to selective collection of evidence that supports what one already believes while ignoring or rejecting evidence that supports a different conclusion. Other psychologists apply the term more broadly to the tendency to preserve one's existing beliefs when searching for evidence, interpreting it, or recalling it from memory - Wikipedia.
No, we always need to start from axioms.
Hmm. I didn´t mean to use "axiom" in the way you defined it (with that touch of arbitrariness to it). I meant to use it as sort of "inescapable premise". These premises can not be "proven" (and from within the frame of reference they are used in they needn´t be "proven", I may add.).This is a common modern sentiment. Underlying it are two assumptions that classical philosophy would find overtly strange:
- A proof or demonstration by definition starts with axioms.
- Axioms are ungrounded and in some sense arbitrary or at least merely stipulations common to a community or race.
Now "axiom" does have that flavor, but "first principle" or "self-evident truth" does not. In any case, saying that nothing can ultimately be proven because axioms cannot be arrived at syllogistically ignores a great deal of philosophy and epistemology. Syllogistic reasoning has traditionally only been understood to be a single part of the reasoning capacities of the human being.
Yes I prove things all the time.Can We Prove Anything in some kind of ultimate sense?
I think its not possible in math, as demonstrated by Godel, the overall system being either inconsistent or incomplete. So proofs are kind of conditional. (?) But perhaps his proof about formal systems hits 'rock bottom'. (?) Anyway.....
Is it possible in any other realm?
For example.....?Yes I prove things all the time.
Ken
Specific mathematical equations, (base 10) actions that have taken place, personal preferences, and the list goes on.For example.....?
Yeah, we talked about math already.Specific mathematical equations, (base 10) actions that have taken place, personal preferences, and the list goes on.
Ken
Things I can proveYeah, we talked about math already.
Go ahead. Prove a personal preference.
None of those can be proven without resting on certain unprovable assumptions.Things I can prove
*1+1=2 (Base 10)
*I stand over 5 feet tall
*I prefer the taste of sweet over bitter
Need I go on?
Ken
Care to list some of these "unprovable assumptions" that you speak of?None of those can be proven without resting on certain unprovable assumptions.
There's the old standby brain-in-a-vat. Maybe you dont stand anything tall.Care to list some of these "unprovable assumptions" that you speak of?
Ken
Brain in a vat? Stand anything tall? I'm afraid I don't speak gibberish; care to repeat that in English?There's the old standby brain-in-a-vat. Maybe you dont stand anything tall.
Nice explanation....However, it does mean that theories can be proven wrong.
When such evidence is encountered that refutes a theory or hypothesis, you have successfully "proved it to be wrong".
...But you can NEVER be certain that the next black person you examine won't have blue eyes.
However, it would take only one example of a black person with blue eyes to refute the idea.
At which point it would be proven absolutely that the hypothesis is incorrect.
'Brain in a vat' is solipsism lite - the idea is that the information your senses tell you could be entirely fake, and, in true Hammer Horror or Twilight Zone style, you're just a brain floating in a jar, being fed convincing sensory information by the stimulation of your nerves.Brain in a vat? Stand anything tall? I'm afraid I don't speak gibberish; care to repeat that in English?
'Brain in a vat' is solipsism lite - the idea is that the information your senses tell you could be entirely fake, and, in true Hammer Horror or Twilight Zone style, you're just a brain floating in a jar, being fed convincing sensory information by the stimulation of your nerves.
I suppose the modern equivalent would be being in the Matrix.
If you were just a brain in a jar, you wouldn't have a body to measure, so you wouldn't be any measure of tall (you wouldn't stand anything tall).
It cant be proven true. And no one said it could.Lets assume for a second that the truth is that we're all brains in vats. How could this truth be proven true?
If it were proven true, wouldn't the next question be "why are we all brains in vats?" Implying a higher more complex reason for why we're all brains in vats. Which would then show that the fact that we're all brains in vats is actually not the absolute truth(it would be a fact) because it raises more questions and implies an even more meaningful truth that beckons to be understood.
It cant be proven true. And no one said it could.
Nice explanation.
Yes, it's true in principle; but in practice, even falsification isn't absolutely certain; falsification is far more effective and reliable than verification, but, like any human endeavour is fallible itself. Multiple falsifications of an hypothesis via independent means or methods will get you as close to absolute certainty as makes no practical difference, but you can never be absolutely certain. I'm absolutely certain of that
Yes. Its a hypothetical situation that destroys any certainty of sensory input.It's a hypothetical.
I'm curious as to how you're so certain that this truth can't be proven true? Was it proven false to you? This is the only explanation for your apparent certainty.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?