This is a case for the harder philosophies like philosophy of science and the paradox of Hempel's ravens. Hempel showed us that anything could prove any statement of logical equivalence. Most statements have a logical equivalent that encompasses a different set from itself and thus a differing set of objects etc. that count as corroboration. In Hempel's specific case, a white shoe is seen to be evidence for all raven's being black. With this in mind, yes proof exists, but is meaningless as everything is proof of everything else.
luckily science doesn't rely on the logic of words to prove things
__________________ He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
One must not be so quick to discard the "logic of words" since logic is absolute. Science is consistently incorrect and goes through massive phases of self correction and modification. If there is a flaw behind the logic of science, there is a flaw in science as a way of knowing. Furthermore, science does and indeed can not "prove" anything for proof is a term that solely applies to logic and math because of the exact aforementioned logical restriction.
correct me, but wasn't the first post I replied to a repudiation of formal logic, as the system allows one to prove anything from any set of clauses?
such as: a white shoe is seen to be evidence for all raven's being black.
describe the process of testing a hypothesis, svp?
ah pedantic semantics, as terrible an intellectual endeavor as it is difficult to annunciate.
__________________ He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Pragmatically speaking, it doesn't make a difference if you can prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt. We have no way of really knowing anything other then that we exist, and what we can sense and experiment with around us.
actually, sensory illusions show that our perception is highly subject to error.
Because of the distribution of touch receptors in your arm, for instance, I can touch you with 1 or 2 pencil shaped objects and you would not be able to tell. You would only ever experience being touched by one object unless I spaced them properly.
the traditional optical illusions also imply this.
As far as knowing we exist, that is also questionable. Modern neuroscience challenges the very idea of a "you" that you might refer to in such a statement. At the very least, even concepts with long standing philosophical traditions, like consciousness itself, might be found to be entire illusions (and dualism is already scientifically dead).
__________________ He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 8th, 2009 08:40 AM
