even science is based on evidence that is built around assumption. what do we really know? for sure?
2006-06-06 14:54:49 · 8 answers · asked by lobsta 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
oh, and i'm not trying to say i'm against science or anything; i'm not even against religion anymore. science and religion should pool their resources. i'm sure there are facts of the universe that science tends to ignore, in the same way that religion seems to ignore scientific facts.
2006-06-06 14:57:52 · update #1
It is possible to prove many, many things. What is not possible is to prove is all things.
You are correct in your sense of 'some deeper unquestioned thing that is assumed so that we can deal with other things'.
The only thing I would point out is that we are unable to question meaningfully beyond a certain point, that point where the apodictic (good word, if you don't know it you should look it up) arises. In the same way that you cannot query your own kidneys, so too are you unable to delve deeper into your brain than that which presents itself to you.
We are always faced with this conundrum. How to decide in a world where we do not know all the facts? And we manage quite well in spite of starting somewhere in the middle of the story. Consider what we can do with chemistry even though quantum mysteries remain. Our method seems to be to focus on *this* and the things closely connected to it in the hopes that we don't need to extend our understandings very far from the *this* on offer. Sometimes that bites us in the butt, but often it works pretty well.
2006-06-06 15:07:18 · answer #1 · answered by xaviar_onasis 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe that it is possible to prove anything, beyond all possible of a doubt. In geometry, you can't prove that two points determine exactly one line. You have to take that as a self-evident truth. David Hume noted that the past is not under any obligation to act like the future, we just expect it to. I also believe philosophers have, in general, abandoned a requirement for such a level of proof. If I am a brain in a vat, being fed electrical impulses which turn into "thoughts", can I even agree with DeCartes that "I think, therefore I am"? Under those circumstances, should I even call that "thinking?" Can I prove that I wasn't created yesterday, complete with memories, like everyone else? Not beyond all doubt.
However, I think that a pragmatist would say that you can prove things to the point where acting upon your belief is a rational thing to do, and that is all you really need.
2006-06-07 00:02:33 · answer #2 · answered by Space Cowboy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Using logic in science is common place, and although you cannot completely prove a theory, you can disprove a theory with 100 per cent accuracy.
An example: If process (p) takes place then attribute (a) will be present.
even though somethin else can cause (a) to be present other than (p); (p) cannot be true unless (a) presents itself.
But you asked for proof... well in this case we have proof that a theory can be definately disproved.
2006-06-07 01:06:46 · answer #3 · answered by mike 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Descartes said "I doubt therefore I am" feelings and emotions and knowledge is an individual thing although most individuals agree on much. 2 + 2 =?? You get the idea. In the end it really comes down to freedom of choice... and how many even believe that that is true? According to Descartes, my feelings and emotions have everything to do with it. Gotta go with your gut. Like the statement that "There are no absolutes" that in itself is a contradiciton. Again I state... Go with your gut!
2006-06-06 22:03:42 · answer #4 · answered by Island Berry 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
assumtiones are based on facts facts are based on truths.
The thing is you gota figure out for your self what is the truth and what is a lie and when you have come to an assumption of your own then you can base your beliefs on something that you assume to be the truth other then assuming some one elses asumptions. When there assumptions are not assumed ...yes very confusingPeace!@
2006-06-06 22:53:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Math and Logic are the only things we can "Prove" but how the proof relates to our perception of reality is subjective. So we can prove a few things but we cannot then use those proofs for anything that relates to the physical world.
"I can doubt everything, except one thing, and that is the very fact that I doubt." -- Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650)
2006-06-06 22:01:12 · answer #6 · answered by stickmanBOB 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
good question. and im not sure. i guess some things can be proved but i think your talking more about the bigger picture...... so ill have to get back to u on this...
2006-06-06 22:01:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i can not see the wind only the effects of...just because you can not see something does not mean it is not there..pinch yourself..i can prove it hurts.-
2006-06-06 21:59:46 · answer #8 · answered by deerwoman777 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋