JacobGalt Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 What am I missing? Probably the book OPAR. (I can't tell if this is a serious question or not, I really doubt it is). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knast Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Why do you think proof is ultimately "social" or a matter of agreement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaight Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairnet Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axiomatic Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindy Posted August 20, 2010 Report Share Posted August 20, 2010 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaight Posted August 20, 2010 Report Share Posted August 20, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted August 20, 2010 Report Share Posted August 20, 2010 About one in ten million people actually wants to know when they are in the wrong. Is this a social consensus? Or have we found the 650 or so people who actually changed their mind when they discovered they were in the wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomer Ravid Posted August 24, 2010 Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 (edited) Proving certain things is a right value in proper to the objectivist standard and self esteem concept. It is way productive, neither objective and rational, independent of any social ideas instead of reality. Edited August 24, 2010 by Tomer Ravid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.