What constitutes evidence? What constitutes proof?
There are many discussions on agnostic.com where one member demands proof to substantiate the claims made in another’s comment. Members often have wildly different interpretations of what constitutes proof, what constitutes supporting evidence, and even philosophically how we positively know something. A few definitions are necessary to begin the process of helping everyone to refine their thought processes and helping various individuals to understand the positions of other classes of thinkers. I will make three definitions of logic going from the most to least restrictive.
Deductive reasoning, used by mathematicians extensively, is perhaps the strongest, most formalized proof. (It is the most restrictive and limiting method.) It typically starts with a known mathematical formulation and proceeds statement-by-statement only when the next step is both a necessary and sufficient condition. That is to say, one could equally start at the final conclusion and deductively arrive at the starting point.
Inference reasoning is the result of making numerous precise measurements or conducting a large number of carefully controlled experiments and always obtaining the same result, i.e. the same cause and effect relationship. Gravity is a prime example of inference reasoning. There is no way to prove gravity via deductive reasoning. Gravity is an inference from a huge number of experiments, all obeying the same theory (law) without exceptions. Scientists extensively use both deductive and inference reasoning. Long-standing, time-tested theories, which really should be relabeled laws, then become knowledge. Science is both a method and a body of knowledge, constrained by observational data.
Knowledge in the minds of philosophers is based on their personal experiences and their personal thought processes. While the philosopher’s approach is the most expansive and least restrictive logic, it often leads to ambiguity and unfocused conclusions. In effect, there is far less that can ever really be known in the mind of a philosopher. "Atheist vs Agnostic"
8
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
The truth like evidence now is a fact(s) dislodged by those who rather submit fake facts, fake news as real evidence and truth!
of-the-mountain
Level 9
May 31, 2018
0
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That sums it up for me.
If you told me you had toast for breakfast this morning I’d probably believe you. If, however to told me you had a pet dragon at home I’d probably ask you to provide me with at least a photo.. lol.
KenG
Level 6
May 31, 2018
3
Seems to me that it is causation that is too slippery for many discussions to make use of it well.
Whether we are talking cigarettes and lung cancer (the causal link is only inductively provided and consequently was unnecessarily 'under debate' as climate science as been lately), gun control, how much religion hurts/helps people, MSG, Anti-Vaxxers, race, or even Immigrants/immigration; all of these discussions seem to be hamstrung by both poor understanding and poor explanations of why effect always follows cause... Even if that cause doesn't always result in the said effect.
daddy2two
Level 5
May 31, 2018
2
@NotConvinced That's because the questions have only a little to do with the actual problem.
Note that I personally believe that Cigarettes cause cancer and sensible gun control is essential to a civil society. MSG is kind of slippery since it does not seem harmful for those not sensitive to it and the journals are overflowing with almost as many industry-sponsored studies as Vaping.
What you say may be so, but these things I mentioned are still only inductively shown. Even when Alpha is less than 0.05 and the t-test is greater than 2. That's because it only shows how unlikely that the appearent relationship has happened at random (without a causal link). That still leaves what people think is a weakness in the proof. No matter the analysis quality or the fitness of the data.
Look, I know that statistics is the workhorse of modern science, industrial process controls, applied physics, social science & policy analysis, and it is everything in epidemiology. I know that it works.
I also know that it can be done sloppily, confounded, mis-applied, mis-reported in the media, or even done in such a way as to be culturally/racially/gender biased. Between these concerns and the inherent induction previously mentioned, you can have otherwise seemingly intelligent people picking apart even something like the most well proven scientific fact of all time (the evolution of the species).
I guess what I am getting at is this: Scientists seem to often speak of probabilities of how the system results from a given state or variable, but we should be picking apart the generally unchanging, discreet, and decisive causality upon which the system relies. Then we will have enough to start asking counter-factual questions.
@TheAstroChuck Oh, I agree about stats in that I don't think it's a problem to use induction and expect definitive facts. Hell, I'm published in epidemiology, so it would be pretty funny for me to question a hammer I am proud to use.
I just don't equate it to deductive logic... even if the odds are astronomical against the null hypothesis. I know some people (including the legal profession in some respects) accept it as such. But to me it's as different as a measured concentration with significant figures and a pure integer in a chemistry problem.
Certainly people with a faux education picking apart studies often without reading or understanding them is no reason in and of itself to change how science is done.
I would refer to Judeah Pearl's 'Causality' for an excellent treatment of how philosophy, graph theory, and statistical inference relate to understanding and analyzing causality.
Proof is very subjective. My truth will not be your truth. For instance, belief in ghosts. Some people have had encounters with ghosts, others have not - and often they have had identical experiences. Those who don't want to see it can be given no "proof", those who want to see it consider it "proof". The thing is, belief is a choice. If someone desires a thing (say good weather), and they get it, they can attribute that to whatever they believe in, and they need no proof. A theist would call it an answered prayer, a mystic would say the universe has granted their desire, a statistician would argue that the odds of it happening were good, etc. If truth is subjective, than proving that a thing is true is often difficult. If you quote Trump along side of opposing facts and state "Trump is a liar", people who don't want to believe Trump is a liar will rationalize and excuse his lie, or deny its existence, deny your source as valid, whatever they need to do to keep their personal belief intact. If you dislike someone and they do something detrimental, to you that is "proof" they are a bad person. To one of their friends, it proves nothing and is no big deal. It has become evident to me lately that lots of people demand "proof" of something when they don't want to believe it and they are simply out to waste your time - anything you present to prove it to them will be dismissed as invalid. With "alternative facts" trending with the corrupt, manipulative liars that "lead" us, proof is hard to come by these days.
“Perception is more important than reality. If someone perceives something to be true, it is more important than if it is in fact true. This doesn't mean you should be duplicitous or deceitful, but don't go out of your way to correct a false assumption if it plays to your advantage.”
― Ivanka Trump, The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Work and Life
exilesky
Level 7
May 31, 2018
2
"for there is nothing either good or bad But thinking makes it so"
I prefer Shakespeare to Mrs. Kushner (who, of course, is in good company: "It is not truth that matters but victory" ).
@TheAstroChuck That is your choice, but not everyone has the same path as yours.
There is no proof, it is impossible to prove all statements. All that can be done is provide the best, and most scientific answer at this time.
The perception of truth is subjective, no matter how objective we try to be.
Sofabeast
Level 7
May 31, 2018
5
I like your answer.
@TheMiddleWay Given that the assumptions are true which can not always be proven. So, most proofs are accepted proofs based on assumptions. But those are good enough proof for me as we can find evidence that align with the proofs.
@TheMiddleWay I need to look up law of excluded middle, I’ve never heard of it
It depends.
Proof is readily available, you just have to qualify it. Proof is not one thing, but a body of things.
For example:
We have proof that past events happened in the past, since we have the corresponding information to prove it.
If I am 40 years old, I have been 30 before. My proof being that my current age necessarily follows later in the sequence.
If cold is the absence of heat, removing heat from a space is cooling the place.
Proof is simple.
@TheMiddleWay
"Or if we use your example, by proving to us that you are 40 and not 39 or 41 or 30 or 50."
No.
I was proving that If I am 40 I must have been 30 at some point.
Proving that I'm forty is as simple as providing the required pieces of evidence.
@TheMiddleWay awesome-I’m going in! I subscribed ?
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.