Quick poll: What is "proof" ?
-
Can inability to disprove a statement be considered proof of that statement [under any circumstances]? Vote 5 if you think it's WRONG to assume that, vote 1 if you think it's RIGHT. [EDIT]One of my friends says it's valid in *some* cases, which is why I mentioned it explicitly.[/EDIT] My argument that it is wrong: If you make a statement without providing any proof and put the onus on me to disprove it, then whether I can disprove it or not depends on my skills. There might easily be a way to disprove it, that I'm not aware of. Or it might just be that we don't have the technology to disprove it today. After all, all theories are wrong until proven otherwise. :~ Thanks for voting :rose:. And if you've got anything to say (disagreement ?), leave a message. :) Thanx,
Vikram.
My soon-to-be-updated site KI klike KDE kand kuse kit, kbut KI kmust kadmit, kstarting kall knames kwith K kis ksilly. KI khope kthey kwill kgive kup kthis kwhole kscheme ksoon kand kcome kup kwith kreal knames. pI vThink aHungarian nNotation vIs iA aWonderful nThing cAnd pEveryone avShould vUse pIt aAll dThe nTime, adNo nMatter pWhat dThe nContext, adEven adWhen vSpeaking.
-
Can inability to disprove a statement be considered proof of that statement [under any circumstances]? Vote 5 if you think it's WRONG to assume that, vote 1 if you think it's RIGHT. [EDIT]One of my friends says it's valid in *some* cases, which is why I mentioned it explicitly.[/EDIT] My argument that it is wrong: If you make a statement without providing any proof and put the onus on me to disprove it, then whether I can disprove it or not depends on my skills. There might easily be a way to disprove it, that I'm not aware of. Or it might just be that we don't have the technology to disprove it today. After all, all theories are wrong until proven otherwise. :~ Thanks for voting :rose:. And if you've got anything to say (disagreement ?), leave a message. :) Thanx,
Vikram.
My soon-to-be-updated site KI klike KDE kand kuse kit, kbut KI kmust kadmit, kstarting kall knames kwith K kis ksilly. KI khope kthey kwill kgive kup kthis kwhole kscheme ksoon kand kcome kup kwith kreal knames. pI vThink aHungarian nNotation vIs iA aWonderful nThing cAnd pEveryone avShould vUse pIt aAll dThe nTime, adNo nMatter pWhat dThe nContext, adEven adWhen vSpeaking.
According to the rules of logic (AFAIK) the burden of proof is on the one who makes a statement. It is not my or your job to disproof every crazy idea that someone is throwing out there. It is their business to prove that their idea is worth our consideration.
-
Can inability to disprove a statement be considered proof of that statement [under any circumstances]? Vote 5 if you think it's WRONG to assume that, vote 1 if you think it's RIGHT. [EDIT]One of my friends says it's valid in *some* cases, which is why I mentioned it explicitly.[/EDIT] My argument that it is wrong: If you make a statement without providing any proof and put the onus on me to disprove it, then whether I can disprove it or not depends on my skills. There might easily be a way to disprove it, that I'm not aware of. Or it might just be that we don't have the technology to disprove it today. After all, all theories are wrong until proven otherwise. :~ Thanks for voting :rose:. And if you've got anything to say (disagreement ?), leave a message. :) Thanx,
Vikram.
My soon-to-be-updated site KI klike KDE kand kuse kit, kbut KI kmust kadmit, kstarting kall knames kwith K kis ksilly. KI khope kthey kwill kgive kup kthis kwhole kscheme ksoon kand kcome kup kwith kreal knames. pI vThink aHungarian nNotation vIs iA aWonderful nThing cAnd pEveryone avShould vUse pIt aAll dThe nTime, adNo nMatter pWhat dThe nContext, adEven adWhen vSpeaking.
Proof: <webster> a : the minimum alcoholic strength of proof spirit b : strength with reference to the standard for proof spirit; specifically : alcoholic strength indicated by a number that is twice the percent by volume of alcohol present (whiskey of 90 proof is 45% alcohol) Main Entry: proof spirit Function: noun Date: 1790 : an alcoholic liquor or mixture of ethanol and water that contains 50% ethanol by volume at 60°F (16°C) </webster> :cool: - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
Can inability to disprove a statement be considered proof of that statement [under any circumstances]? Vote 5 if you think it's WRONG to assume that, vote 1 if you think it's RIGHT. [EDIT]One of my friends says it's valid in *some* cases, which is why I mentioned it explicitly.[/EDIT] My argument that it is wrong: If you make a statement without providing any proof and put the onus on me to disprove it, then whether I can disprove it or not depends on my skills. There might easily be a way to disprove it, that I'm not aware of. Or it might just be that we don't have the technology to disprove it today. After all, all theories are wrong until proven otherwise. :~ Thanks for voting :rose:. And if you've got anything to say (disagreement ?), leave a message. :) Thanx,
Vikram.
My soon-to-be-updated site KI klike KDE kand kuse kit, kbut KI kmust kadmit, kstarting kall knames kwith K kis ksilly. KI khope kthey kwill kgive kup kthis kwhole kscheme ksoon kand kcome kup kwith kreal knames. pI vThink aHungarian nNotation vIs iA aWonderful nThing cAnd pEveryone avShould vUse pIt aAll dThe nTime, adNo nMatter pWhat dThe nContext, adEven adWhen vSpeaking.
The rules of debate state that assertions presented without fact can be summarily dismissed without fact. Burden of proof rests on the presenter.
-
Can inability to disprove a statement be considered proof of that statement [under any circumstances]? Vote 5 if you think it's WRONG to assume that, vote 1 if you think it's RIGHT. [EDIT]One of my friends says it's valid in *some* cases, which is why I mentioned it explicitly.[/EDIT] My argument that it is wrong: If you make a statement without providing any proof and put the onus on me to disprove it, then whether I can disprove it or not depends on my skills. There might easily be a way to disprove it, that I'm not aware of. Or it might just be that we don't have the technology to disprove it today. After all, all theories are wrong until proven otherwise. :~ Thanks for voting :rose:. And if you've got anything to say (disagreement ?), leave a message. :) Thanx,
Vikram.
My soon-to-be-updated site KI klike KDE kand kuse kit, kbut KI kmust kadmit, kstarting kall knames kwith K kis ksilly. KI khope kthey kwill kgive kup kthis kwhole kscheme ksoon kand kcome kup kwith kreal knames. pI vThink aHungarian nNotation vIs iA aWonderful nThing cAnd pEveryone avShould vUse pIt aAll dThe nTime, adNo nMatter pWhat dThe nContext, adEven adWhen vSpeaking.
-
http://seercom.com/bluto/skepticism/criticalthinking/irf.burden.html [^] Don't ever fall for that "disprove me" trash. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
How about the scientific approach. To Disprove a theory, you only have to find ONE example of it not holding. To prove a theory, you have to prove that for ALL cases it holds true... "Now I guess I'll sit back and watch people misinterpret what I just said......" Christian Graus At The Soapbox