What is the highest form of proof?

[☭proletarian☭]

In your opinion, what is the highest form of proof in logical inquiry?

Is it

Mathematics, assuming the validity of the axioms

Logical implication/extrapolation, assuming the validity of the starting point

Observation, assuming the validity of the observation and interpretation thereof

Or something else?

(this was supposed to be a public poll, but that didn't work)

 

[amrchaos]

Actually

a priori logic--mathematics is just a sub-branch of logic that deals largely with quantities and comparisons.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

A combination of the above.

Appeals to authority are not a valid proof at all. Just because Newton said Apples fall from trees does not in fact mean that they do. Demonstration of the attraction between apples and the great green earth is what proves that apples fall out of trees.

 

[dilloduck]

getting someone else to believe you and act on it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

A combination of the above.

Appeals to authority are not a valid proof at all. Just because Newton said Apples fall from trees does not in fact mean that they do. Demonstration of the attraction between apples and the great green earth is what proves that apples fall out of trees.

Or that the apple stays put while the Earth moves, and the tree with it.

 

[Avatar4321]

As all science and faith is based on personal observation, i would say the highest form is what we can learn through our senses.

 

[uscitizen]

The highest for of Proof? I saw it on Fox.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

As all science and faith is based on personal observation, i would say the highest form is what we can learn through our senses.

How do we know our senses tell us anything at all? A walk through the crazyhouse tells us that personal experience tells us nothing.

 

[Avatar4321]

As all science and faith is based on personal observation, i would say the highest form is what we can learn through our senses.

How do we know our senses tell us anything at all? A walk through the crazyhouse tells us that personal experience tells us nothing.

How can we know anything else? how can we use reason and expect any sort of accuracy in our reasoning if we dont have data we've experienced to make those rational conclusions?

Reason is only as good as the data you have to put into it. Problem is people become obsessed with reason and dont reality there are other ways to learn things. Experience is far superior in my mind.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You claimed experience is superior to reason, but is not the interpretation of expericnce itself an attempt at reason?

 

[jillian]

As all science and faith is based on personal observation, i would say the highest form is what we can learn through our senses.

See... this is why you confuse religion and science.

You do not observe things you take on "faith". Taking things on "faith" means that you believe them because you do.

As opposed to science...or the combination of all three things in the O/P... dependent upon the accuracy of the initial valuation, presumption or observation. That is why there is a scientific method and before scientific theories are accepted, they are generally replicated. In all cases, they are based upon our best knowledge at the time in question... and are subject to modification or rejection if appropriate information is obtained. They are not based on wishful thinking.

 

[AVG-JOE]

'Proof' is as proof does.

'Proof' is personal and requires the perspective of the observer. I can NEVER prove that 2+2=4 to a creature that does not conceptualize numbers the way most humans do.

The things that humans agree are 'proven' are no more proven than God is.... we simply agree, and are therefore free to move on to discuss something unproven.