What Constitutes ''Proof''?

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Show me proof. The burden of proof.

These are common phrases in conspiracy circles. While these phrases are understandable and even warranted - what exactly constitutes ''proof''? We tend to blurt out these phrases without really specifying what we mean. A video? A recording? Would probably depend on the claim. Indeed, there will be people who are never going to accept there is anything outside of their vision. In that case, we are not dealing with proof but with a programmed mind that is not going to listen. It is important to differentiate between the people who really want proof and have a vivid understanding of what proof means to them and the people who do not have any idea what they are after. Furthermore, a skewed perception of ''proof''' may lead to problems just as much as no clear definition of ''proof.''




posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   

FlowThruSpace
Show me proof. The burden of proof.

These are common phrases in conspiracy circles. While these phrases are understandable and even warranted - what exactly constitutes ''proof''? We tend to blurt out these phrases without really specifying what we mean. A video? A recording? Would probably depend on the claim. Indeed, there will be people who are never going to accept there is anything outside of their vision. In that case, we are not dealing with proof but with a programmed mind that is not going to listen. It is important to differentiate between the people who really want proof and have a vivid understanding of what proof means to them and the people who do not have any idea what they are after. Furthermore, a skewed perception of ''proof''' may lead to problems just as much as no clear definition of ''proof.''


When I made the thread thats in my sigy I was quite surprised, people said that if aliens landed in front of them they still wouldn't believe it!
Some people just cant get their head around certain idea's and nothing will persuade them.



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Proof will never be enough for a "debunker" or a "true believer" (depending on the issue). A true skeptic is one who looks at both sides of the argument with an open mind and draws a conclusion from what is presented or defers drawing a conclusion until more evidence comes out for either side.



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Definition of proof? CNN

Seriously, its all relative to each of us. Accumulative eyewitness testimonies can be good proof, in my opinion. You can determine proof from listening to a politician easily enough. Just believe the opposite of what he/she says.



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Tucket

You can determine proof from listening to a politician easily enough. Just believe the opposite of what he/she says.


Evidence aka proof is different from opinion aka belief. Ultimately proof is factual evidence for a hypothesis.



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
I went out to gather proof, pardon the pun



The irony is that the definition does include elements such as belief. I guess you were proved correct



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Knew I was going to get a lashing for that line... I'll learn.

Proof, for me, regarding many of the controversial topics covered in this forum, is found simply by looking out my apartment _



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Tucket
 


You can determine proof from listening to a politician easily enough. Just believe the opposite of what he/she says.

Thats truer than some will let on. Not only do they say the opposite, the media will pick up that torch without any objective analysis and run with it. Then you really know its fabricated.

Especially when it comes to terms like Humanitarian Aid (weapons) or Intervention (invasion).

Exact opposites. You learn to sound those out.



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
proof?

I say it's real.

period.

that is proof.



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
There is no such thing as absolute proof. Everything is open to question, after all. The best we can hope for is reasonable certainty based on objective, replicable evidence.

There are many cases, though — UFO encounters, supposed miracles, and similar extraordinary events — where good evidence is almost impossible to produce. In such cases we have to go with whatever seems the most likely explanation for the phenomenon given the evidence we do have and what is suggested by experience. Since opinions on what is most likely will differ, there will always be room for argument and doubt.

Some will say that even the most self-evident phenomena — gravity, for example — cannot be proven because of quantum uncertainties, psychological factors and so on. They are right in theory, but in practice their objections can always be dealt with by inviting them to step off the nearest convenient cliff.



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Proof in the modern age is a curious stew of rotted meat.

Here, proof = link. Someone feels it is proven if it is on another site, in writing, that's proof.

Proof in the science world simply means that something is presented in agree upon terms, the terms are arbitrary, but agree upon ahead of time.

Video or picture is proof, but of course it isn't.

Problem with proof as it is defined by the nuts who demand proof is they want the symbols used to express something to be common. Here is example where it all falls apart for them. People see in three colors, so green is green. But, there are a handful of people who see in four colors, so green is very different to them. If you say, "prove the color is green" then there is no issue amongst the three color people, but the four color person is likely to get shot when they suggest the color is more blue then green.

Proof was not introduced to the human populace as a way of evening out the playing field, it was done to divide and you can see it on this site in particular. Each person feels they own the process of proof, many simply because the read books or websites, or went to school. They feel their form of logic is the standard of proof and that's that.

What proof really is, is there a way I can demonstrate my experience to you? Demonstrate, not speak, or describe, but demonstrate. If we do not agree on how we see the world at some level - and we should not, then proof is a silly exercise in futility, as there will always be a person who sees in four colors. I know what I know, can I prove it to you? No Can I demonstrate it to you, occasionally.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Now more than ever, it becomes clear just how far from absolute our languages are. A word by itself has much less meaning than a word which has been placed in a larger scheme, a grammatical context by which to define the intentions and limitations of its use. Much like a box placed behind a window which you can only look at from one fixed position, as opposed to a box placed on a table you can walk around and explore.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Look around. Proof.

Think about it and express it. No proof.

Words are not a direct 1-to-1 ratio with the actual world.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Proof, is getting samples of chemtrails; not scientific documents and plans of them.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by FlowThruSpace
 





It is important to differentiate between the people who really want proof and have a vivid understanding of what proof means to them and the people who do not have any idea what they are after


If it were humanly possible to do so, what purpose would this differentiation serve?
edit on 26-9-2013 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


Proof in the science world simply means that something is presented in agree upon terms, the terms are arbitrary, but agree upon ahead of time.

There is no such thing as proof in 'the science world'. There are falsifiable theories whose acceptance is based on experimental agreement with theory. The process of agreement by consensus has no place in science. If many scientists agree on a theory, that is because objective evidence for the theory is strong.


What proof really is, is there a way I can demonstrate my experience to you?

That's replicability, not proof. And if you can't demonstrate it, or show that others have had it also, it means that you hallucinated your experience, misinterpreted it or made it up altogether.


proof is a silly exercise in futility

For idiots who want others to swallow the same lies they've been hooked by, the quest for evidence of what is actually true is indeed an exercise in futility.



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Only what is actually here now is a fact.
Can anyone say what it is?



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Only what is actually here now is a fact.

I don't believe you. Prove it.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Astyanax
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Only what is actually here now is a fact.

I don't believe you. Prove it.


It is self affirming.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Tucket


Proof, for me, regarding many of the controversial topics covered in this forum, is found simply by looking out my apartment _


Give an example of a controversial topic that is proven to you by looking out the _





new topics
top topics
 
5

log in

join