2 ms·

"There are things that are true that are unprovable, and there are things that are proved that are not true." Not in my reasoning there aren't. An example, ple

by sho 18y ago

"There are things that are true that are unprovable, and there are things that are proved that are not true." Not in my reasoning there aren't. An example, please, of something that has been proved, yet remains paradoxically untrue? Anyway, I wasn't really talking about beliefs, I was just pointing out that the natural human tendency of "wanting to be part of a group" doesn't excuse or require magical thinking as the price of entry.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
An example, please, of something that has been proved, and remains paradoxically untrue??? Science is built of models, paradigms. These paradigms are validated and true only to the ability of experimenters to empirically verify them. That's the way science works. That's what faith in empiricism entails. So, for instance, Newton was "right" in his law of gravity. But then again, he was wrong because once relativity came along our understanding of gravity changed. It's likely to change again. Science is built on a really interesting idea called induction[1]. It says if you go outside and drop a rock and the next day it rains, and you repeat that experiment a few times, and each time it rains, then you can assume that dropping a rock is a cause of rain. That, of course, is the worst-case scenario -- an experiment that looks good simply because it only fails when ran a (relatively) large number of times. It's easy to prove things that aren't true. We've done it time and time again. And we'll continue to do it. That's the way science works. 1. I'm oversimplifying here to a great degree for brevity's sake
- sho 18y ago
  I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you, I didn't realise you were talking about the scientific process. Of course you are right. The confusion arose from your use of the word "true", which to me means "indisputable objective fact", not the current ascendency of a particular theory. For example, water is composed of 2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen atoms. Gravity exerts a downward acceleration of ~9.8ms2. Etc. These kind of things are "true" for me. Theories are things which cannot be "true", really, merely the best current explanation of something. But perhaps I confused the terms and misread your arguments, so actually it seems we're in happy agreement. And yes, I also suspect General Relativity is not the final word.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    The point being, when you say something like "religion is false" then you have to have this other discussion about what true and false are. People who say religion is false usually pose science as being true, which really doesn't hold up that well either.
    - sho 18y ago
      Well, I'd try not to use such absolute terms. Obviously, I cannot prove religion false. I can say it's incredibly unlikely to be true, and has little evidence in support of its fantastical claims, but I can't go all-out "false" - see The Dragon in my Garage et al. You do touch upon an interesting point, though - for some time I've thought that our very language is at fault here. True and false, right and wrong - loaded, ambiguous terms. Even proven and unproven don't really cut it. And yet for brevity's sake we cannot fully articulate upon the nuanced and disclaimer-filled totality of our meaning. See Sapir & Whorf. Anyway, I didn't claim religion is "false". I would argue such a term is inapplicable. I do maintain, however, that it is outlandishly, even laughably, unlikely, and with scant hard evidence in its favour, its embrace reflects badly upon those who accept its tenets without question.
banned_man 18y ago
It depends on the standard of proof. Mathematics has no concept of platonic truth (things are true or false within a specific logical system) but precise notions of proof. Since any rich logical system has a P such that neither P or not-P is provable, this means that there are unprovable truths, if the law of the excluded middle is to be assumed (not all logic systems do). Most of the world has it the other way around: a very strong sense of truth/falsity and mediocre standards for "proof", allowing things that turn out to be false to be "proven". Many people have been "proven" guilty then found innocent.

by sho 18y ago

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

An example, please, of something that has been proved, and remains paradoxically untrue??? Science is built of models, paradigms. These paradigms are validated and true only to the ability of experimenters to empirically verify them. That's the way science works. That's what faith in empiricism entails. So, for instance, Newton was "right" in his law of gravity. But then again, he was wrong because once relativity came along our understanding of gravity changed. It's likely to change again. Science is built on a really interesting idea called induction[1]. It says if you go outside and drop a rock and the next day it rains, and you repeat that experiment a few times, and each time it rains, then you can assume that dropping a rock is a cause of rain. That, of course, is the worst-case scenario -- an experiment that looks good simply because it only fails when ran a (relatively) large number of times. It's easy to prove things that aren't true. We've done it time and time again. And we'll continue to do it. That's the way science works. 1. I'm oversimplifying here to a great degree for brevity's sake

sho 18y ago
I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you, I didn't realise you were talking about the scientific process. Of course you are right. The confusion arose from your use of the word "true", which to me means "indisputable objective fact", not the current ascendency of a particular theory. For example, water is composed of 2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen atoms. Gravity exerts a downward acceleration of ~9.8ms2. Etc. These kind of things are "true" for me. Theories are things which cannot be "true", really, merely the best current explanation of something. But perhaps I confused the terms and misread your arguments, so actually it seems we're in happy agreement. And yes, I also suspect General Relativity is not the final word.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  The point being, when you say something like "religion is false" then you have to have this other discussion about what true and false are. People who say religion is false usually pose science as being true, which really doesn't hold up that well either.
  - sho 18y ago
    Well, I'd try not to use such absolute terms. Obviously, I cannot prove religion false. I can say it's incredibly unlikely to be true, and has little evidence in support of its fantastical claims, but I can't go all-out "false" - see The Dragon in my Garage et al. You do touch upon an interesting point, though - for some time I've thought that our very language is at fault here. True and false, right and wrong - loaded, ambiguous terms. Even proven and unproven don't really cut it. And yet for brevity's sake we cannot fully articulate upon the nuanced and disclaimer-filled totality of our meaning. See Sapir & Whorf. Anyway, I didn't claim religion is "false". I would argue such a term is inapplicable. I do maintain, however, that it is outlandishly, even laughably, unlikely, and with scant hard evidence in its favour, its embrace reflects badly upon those who accept its tenets without question.

banned_man 18y ago

It depends on the standard of proof. Mathematics has no concept of platonic truth (things are true or false within a specific logical system) but precise notions of proof. Since any rich logical system has a P such that neither P or not-P is provable, this means that there are unprovable truths, if the law of the excluded middle is to be assumed (not all logic systems do). Most of the world has it the other way around: a very strong sense of truth/falsity and mediocre standards for "proof", allowing things that turn out to be false to be "proven". Many people have been "proven" guilty then found innocent.