Firstly, I would like to say that it seems like “I think therefore I am” proves one exists, but only to oneself. Last time this came up, this led to a very interesting debate. Forgive me if that similar thread still exists. I am pretty sure the one I am thinking of got destroyed in the hacker incident. I would do a search, but search won’t give daddy any love today. The thread was about proving one’s self exists - if I remember correctly. The classic “I think therefore I am” came up, which was disputed as proof of existence. The reasons were interesting, but the specifics escape me.
Secondly, I am interested in re-running that debate because of a certain phenomenon I keep running into, which I affectionately call “The Brick Wall”. The brick wall is when someone says something like “Prove that chair exists.” in response to a statement like “Belief without proof is irrational.” Now, to prove that chairs exist, one must ask “What is proof?” It seems like it is a reasonable amount of evidence. Then comes “What is evidence?” - Which is a problem. I (typing I in italics is fun), would say that a reasonable standard for evidence is that it must be something that can be perceived, shared, tested (in repeatable tests), and be able to assist in making predictions. I think my definition may be a bit lacking here, so I am hoping for some help there.
So, evidence defined, one can prove the chair exists by presenting reasonable evidence such as all of your past experience with chairs. One could interview a hundred people (although anyone but an idiot need only ask their parents at a very early age) to confirm their experience with chairs. One could pick the chair up. One could take a photograph of the chair. The chair seems proved to me. Still, my brick wall slinging friends will point out that until I have sat on the chair, I have not proved it’s existence, and some will say it is not proven even then. So to believe the chair will support me is now somehow just as irrational as me believing that monkeys will fly out of my butt - assuming, of course, that belief without proof is irrational. Then, in come the axiom philosophers stating that “all systems of knowledge are equally valid”.
I really have a hard time with this line of thinking. Doesn’t this effectively destroy proof as a whole? Surely there are things we can prove! Surely there is a range that can be called reasonable! The definition of evidence should not have to change based on the subject. While going through life, we must separate the scams from the butter, and we use reason for this. We create a standard of evidence which we need before we accept something. Why is this somehow invalid when dealing with issues (metaphysical) which do not meet that standard of evidence? Why must all evidence suddenly become incapable of proving anything?
I have a numer of devout fundamentalist christians in my family (southern baptists no less), and we have always debated ferociously with each other. I also have a number of friends (who associate themselves with no religion) who love to debate anything and everything. I run into this Brick Wall with them in matters which don’t regard religion in any way - so please don’t inerpret this as me saying this is a “religious” thing. It is a debate thing. I struggle with it to the point of frustration and then give up. I would like to get some advice on how to work through this with people using reason instead of throwing my hands up in the air and rolling my eyes.
I did a search on “debate” and “axiom” and came up with a great link:
Wow. That’s a brain full. I’m going to go re-read it a few times. If you have the time, read pages 2 through 6. I am very interested in what people’s thoughts are on this issue.
DaLovin’ Dj