Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Isn't proof ultimately social?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Even if I correctly integrate the information I have and come to a specific conclusion, it won't be "proof" unless other people agree with me. What am I missing?

If you feel a sensation that causes you tremendous discomfort, and you conclude that you are feeling pain, who can agree with you that you are feeling pain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proof is not a matter of having other people agree.

From OPAR: "Proof" is the process of establishing truth by reducing a proposition to axioms, i.e., ultimately, to sensory evidence.

Galileo had correctly integrated information and come to a specific conclusion. Unfortunately, others not agreeing with him led to his incarceration.

Newton agreed with his conclusion, and used it to build upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if I correctly integrate the information I have and come to a specific conclusion, it won't be "proof" unless other people agree with me. What am I missing?

You're missing a proper understanding of the concept of 'proof'. Proof is a matter of the relationship between your mind and reality. Other people don't come into it. A man alone on a desert island would be perfectly capable of proving things. Why would you think otherwise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if I correctly integrate the information I have and come to a specific conclusion, it won't be "proof" unless other people agree with me. What am I missing?

You can't make other people agree with you. No matter how good your reasoning is, it is still up to them to think. Even if you annihilate someone's arguments and make them realize that there position is wrong, you can't control if they will integrate a correct, new position, successfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't make other people agree with you. No matter how good your reasoning is, it is still up to them to think. Even if you annihilate someone's arguments and make them realize that there position is wrong, you can't control if they will integrate a correct, new position, successfully.

Old grandmother's adage: "Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if I correctly integrate the information I have and come to a specific conclusion, it won't be "proof" unless other people agree with me. What am I missing?

Consensus is not proof of anything. If everyone you knew agreed that the world was flat in the face of evidence to the contrary, would you consider that the truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be proof whether others admit your position is proved or not. Proving something, and proving it to someone else's satisfaction are two separate things.

Not only do you have to come up with the proof, you have to stand alone in your conviction that the point is proved. About one in ten million people actually wants to know when they are in the wrong.

Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About one in ten million people actually wants to know when they are in the wrong.

Someone -- I forget who -- had a famous line to the effect that when given a choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, most men get busy on the proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...