In this thread, Diogenes the Cynic stated that proof is worthless if it is not tested by others. I looked up the word proof on Dictionary.com and came up with this:
I believe you are using definition 3 in your argument that proof is not valid unless it is independently verified, which is all well and good when one is after objective proof, ie scientific theory.
If you use defintion 1, however, proof does not require independent verification, and can still be valid to the self. In other words, subjective proof does exist, most notably in with regards to religious beliefs( I think it exists for the arts as well). Mangetout can in fact have proof of God and it would equally as valid as the Hindu who believes in Krishna.
I have proven to myself that deity does exist, and this is as valid a proof as the atheist who has proven to him/herself that God does not exist. And I don’t need independent verification of this proof in order for it to be valid to me.
I was using the third definition because that is the only one which has any value in a debate. Would you feel better if I rephrased my assertion to read as follows?
[Ahem] Proof which cannot be observed or validated by others is of no value to others.
I would also argue that the other definitions for “proof” carry at least the implication the evidence for a truth should be external rather than internal, otherwise the individual has not reasoned anything through the observation of empirical reality but simply come to a personal conclusion based on nothing that even that individual has reason to rely on as truth.
If two different people each believe that they have received proof of flatly irreconcilable truths, then how can either individual say with any intellectual honesty that his/her own truth has been proven any more dispositively than the other person’s contradictory truth?
It is all well and good to say that “I have proven to myself that God exists,” but in a philosophical debate this translates as simple tautology and, as such, is valuless to anyone else.
Yes I would actually. Why should a proof be of “value” toward others?
You assume alot. Obviously one cannot know the experiences of another entirely, and so I would say that you cannot know what an individual relies upon as truth. Therefore a person can come to a conclusion based upon personal experience and have it be a truth to that person and that person alone. As an example, my personal truth is that external evidence need not be implied in definition 1.
You argue from the assumption that both parties believe in an absolute truth, which I will admit many people do. From my part, I will say that I have no problems with others receiveing what they believe to be “truths” even if they are contradictory to mine, because I acknowledge that their are no absolute truths.
Which is why I don’t argue about the existence of deity philosophically. Conversations about deity are not automatic philosophical debates.
Of what use is a proof, period? To justify a belief?—let us say it is so. Then it would only be of value to someone who held the belief, and if the proof proved nothing to me, then it would indeed be worthless. Why is this a problem?
The problem is in stating that subjective proof is worthless to everyone, including the person who actually holds the belief to begin with (I’m speaking specifically about religion).
As an example, I have experienced something that I can only explain as an encounter with the divine. I need no further proof of the veracity of this encounter, because it was clearly self-evident in my eyes. Simply stating this would automatically make me into a deluded idiot to some, simply because that experience was not independently verified and tested, regardless of whether I push this belief on others. This is where the problem occurs.
I don’t see why this is a problem… in many cases we accept subjecive reports as factual ones. But if we don’t, then the subjectivity is the problem: it cannot be duplicated. And so the experience is worthless. Of course, I agree it isn’t worthless to the person who believes whatever is in question. I wasn’t disagreeing with you, FTR, I think subjective proofs are perfectly valid, within a subjective scope. But that is a narrow application indeed.
And if that one person (or band of persons) carries a sword and threatens to cut you head off, if you don’t take to his subjective view?
And that, my friends, is how the ‘truth’ was spread.
Now, at last, reason seems to be mightier than the sword.
No matter how you like to switch roles, Bryan, in saying that the objectives are trying to ‘force’ their view on the subjectives.
Whew, it’s a good thing we’re not talking about those people, huh?
You mean the folly of attempting to force one’s subjective truths on another? What a terrible and despicable evil.
That’s a nice use of a metaphor. Reason (the idea made into a person-form) has conquered over the ignorant unwashed hoard.
You don’t seem to understand. It’s the people who have attemtped to claim the mythologies as true that have spilt blood over the ages. They were examples of people trying to put an objective scope on a subjective subject.
Regarding things like religious faith, aesthetics or morality, why would anyone wish to use the word “proof” at all?
The model for “proof” in general is in mathematics (and in certain kinds of science), so to speak of proof in matters that don’t involve formal logic or empirical fact suggests that one is imagining that faith, art or morality somehow aspires to the condition of mathematics or science, in which case, faith, art and morality will be found deficient, but for all the wrong reasons.
I feel no need to speak of proof in these matters, which goes together with a realization of just how small a role provability plays in our lives, unless you happen to be a mathematician or a scientist.
I think that the latter realization is extremely important if mankind is to reap the benefits of technology and scientific knowledge without eclipsing the kind of truth that conviction brings to aspects of life where nihilism (not certainty) is the only alternative.
The use of the word proof is an optional thing. What I’m arguing against is the assertion that personal truths should be considered invalid (even to one’s own self!)because noone else can verify them. “Subjective Proof” is just the way one may have come upon those truths.
And read definition 1 of the OP. It says nothing about math, formal logic, or empirical fact.
The definition of “proof” in the dictionary is less important than an understanding of what proof means in the history of human thought. Proof is access to certainty during an age when knowledge seems to be thought of in terms of certainty (roughly, since Descartes).
Personal truths, if I understand that term, are my convictions, for example, what I find to be beautiful, worthwhile, morally good or bad, worthy of faith.
Nobody else can verify these personal truths, and moreover, I myself cannot “verify” them, because the sort of conviction at stake here is not a matter of verification. It is a matter of self-knowledge, expressed, for example, in confession and in action.
If that is you’re personal truth, then I respect it.
I would agree except for the last example. If I experience something that proves to me the existence of deity, I’m not going going to say I have “faith” in deity, anymore than I can say I have “faith” in the beauty of a painting.
I agree that this is not a matter of verification. The problem is when people demand external proof of something that is clearly not externally verifiable (it’s even happening in this thread as we speak!). Conversely, the problem is also when people treat personal truths as objectively true and externally provable. Both these camps would like to treat both personal and external truths as one and the same. I obviously do not agree with this stance.
