Basic logic Part II

[Zhavric]

The statement "nothing can be proven" is true or false?

Discuss.

[Hmm]

My friend likes to argue this point to me all the time, and I'm not sure where I stand on the issue...

[shrike]

"nothing can be proven"

Including this statement?

[5010]

"nothing can be proven"

False, which begins with 'F', which is the grade one would get in geometry if they followed the above claim.

[Osborn F Enready]

Life is absolute, Death is absolute, reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute.

We live in a world of absolutes.

To quote Ayn Rand:
"There are no absolutes" they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute.

[Milton Bradley]

To quote Ayn Rand:
"There are no absolutes" they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute.

[ Snickers ]


Absolutely!


That was so well said, that I'll just leave my post here so people know who voted.

[WindWip]

Seems rather basic.

It is an absolute that some things may or may not be absolute. There's an absolute for ya

[Fangrim]

I voted True.


Before I'm shot, I do think that we can "prove" things as much as is humanely or logically possible.

The problem is that for any proof, you're going to be making some assumptions of what is already proven. An example:

Statement A (which is true) + Statement B (which is true)= Statement C is true.

For this, you would be assuming that A and B are true. Let's look at A.

Statement M (which is true) + Statement N (which is true)= Statement A is true.

Once again, you're left with your syllogism assuming that its components are true. But how do you prove those components? How do you prove the most basic component statements of all, except with other basic compenent statements?

In the end, we have to assume something, which basically means we haven't really proven anything. That's why we have postulates in math: they're not proven, but they haven't been disproven.
That's why we have postulates in math, or axioms in logic and ethics. They're "self-evident" assumptions, and of course you can't have a claim that proves itself with its own pre-supposed validity.

But for all realistic purposes, yes, things can be "proven."

[Alive]

Life contains absolutes, we just can't know them absolutely.

Proof is impossible. Yes, including proving that last statement. There are a number of ways to demonstrate the impossibility of proof, perhaps the simplest is this:

Attempt to prove proof possiple. Your conclusion must be: proof is possible. To prove that proof is possible, you must hold as a premise that proof is possible, since if proof is not possible, your proof cannot work. But if your conclusion and your premise are the same, that means your argument is circular, and therefore invalid. So it is impossible to prove that proof is possible. Which means that any "proof" is based on an unprovable assumption, which means it is only as strong as that unprovable assumption--in other words, it is unprovable itself.

By the way, geometrists understand this well enough, to whoever talked about that earlier. We have different axioms for different kinds of geometry; we know that our theorems are only as good as our axioms, and therefore that the theorems we have in one kind of geometry with one set of axioms cannot be transferred to another kind of geometry with a different set of axioms. So no, a belief that proof is impossible will not make geometry any harder, quite the contrary.

[Jagged]

Its a moot point. If indeed nothing can be "proven," then argument should never account for whether something can be proven or not. We all accept certain standards- call that sufficient proof.

[ZNFYRH]

I can prove that Jagged posted Yesterday at 7:22 pm EST.

That makes the poll answer "False"

[Zhavric]

Once again, you're left with your syllogism assuming that its components are true. But how do you prove those components? How do you prove the most basic component statements of all, except with other basic compenent statements?

In the end, we have to assume something, which basically means we haven't really proven anything.

Regarding the bolded section, we prove things using logic. See my reply to Alive below.

Attempt to prove proof possiple.

• 1) Claims exist.
  
• 2) Claims may be true, false, or unknown.
  
• 3) Logic exists.
  
• 4) Claims may be compared to one another using logic.
  
• 5) By equating specific claims, it is possible to discern what is true.

The first four premises we know to be true. Calling any one of them false creates a paradox.

"Claims don't exist."
"Isn't that a claim?"

The fifth statement provides a framework for us to begin drawing comparisons between different things. It is a basis which we can build from to deduce. From this framework, the possibility of proof is quite valid.

Remember also that stating "proof is impossible" is completely untenable because any proof offered for the statement negates the statement.