Does proof exist?

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.

All it takes.....

Originally posted by lefroz
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

Originally posted by inimalist
luckily science doesn't rely on the logic of words to prove things

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.

Originally posted by lefroz
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.

Most of the things that can be proven absolutely aren't of much use anyway.

Originally posted by lefroz
One must not be so quick to discard the "logic of words" since logic is absolute.

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.

Originally posted by lefroz
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.

describe the process of testing a hypothesis, svp?

Originally posted by lefroz
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.

ah pedantic semantics, as terrible an intellectual endeavor as it is difficult to annunciate.

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.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
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).

does exist exist?

Proof I say!

Originally posted by Quark_666
at what point does everyone feel comfortable "knowing" something.

When you know that that something exists...😉

Proof doesn't exist, so I believe using a random function about what I feel, sounds like bullsh_t and whatnot.

Proofs are possible, as science has enough capacity to reveal answers for such desires of understanding. Study the information given and the proofs can be trackable. In science, there exists a lot of ideas about the human world. The human anatomy, if studied, can present some proofs.