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.
My stance is that nothing is proven scientifically. Proof is really the purview of math and liquor, and to a certain extent logic while science doesn't deal in proof nor is scientific proof a thing.
False dichotomy.
Maybe.If you deny premise 1 then my logical inference is not a proof to you. I imagine it would be difficult to prove many other things to you that would be commonly accepted.
Maybe.
But I'm no longer confident about what "proof" should mean.
As I noted earlier: maybe what the paper author means by "proof" is just "highly convincing".
Quite true. My mistake.It was actually a question. What's a third option for these propositions?
Quite true. My mistake.
I have no opinion on these premises until you support them with evidence.
Not per the unicorn example in the paper. For the obvious reason that....Do you not believe that modus tollens proves a negative?
Are you using “know” as in “has knowledge of”?A follow up question would be whether "proof" is necessary for knowledge.
You cannot prove that you ate what you ate for breakfast last Tuesday. But does this mean you cannot know what you ate for breakfast last Tuesday?
Not per the unicorn example in the paper. For the obvious reason that....
"2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record"
We discover new species in the fossil record all the time.
(Maybe he abused modul tollens, I dont know.)
Are you using “know” as in “has knowledge of”?
Did I say I didn’t accept them? No, no I didn’t.If you do not accept the premises then my syllogism is not a logical proof for you. I assume that most people would accept these premises though.
The first one. You cant prove that earth is the only source for teapots in the universe (that, again, would be proving a negative).This could theoretically be proven if we were able to gain an adequately exhaustive knowledge of Jupiter's orbit. It could also be logically inferred:
1. If a teapot is orbiting Jupiter then it came from planet earth.
2. No teapot has ever been sent from planet earth to Jupiter.
3. Therefore a teapot is not orbiting Jupiter.
Which premise would you challenge?
Then no, I don’t know what I ate for breakfast last Tuesday.I'm using "know" in the technical, epistemological sense.
The form works so long as we stipulate the truth of the premises.Here's an uncontroversial example of modus tollens:
1. If and only if my professor is sick today, then class is cancelled.
2. Class is not cancelled.
3. Therefore my professor is not sick today.
Did I say I didn’t accept them? No, no I didn’t.
And proof is for alcohol and math, not Philosophy.
And why would I care that other people might accept your premises? Do you believe that the more people believe your premises, the more likely they are to be true?
Then no, I don’t know what I ate for breakfast last Tuesday.
Do you?
Never heard of substitute teachers?Here's an uncontroversial example of modus tollens:
1. If and only if my professor is sick today, then class is cancelled.
2. Class is not cancelled.
3. Therefore my professor is not sick today.
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?