Difference between revisions of "Proof"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(reverting discussion of scientific proof)
(added section Biblical proof)
 
(32 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
'''Proof''' is a firmly attested and evident objective fact, or a coherent set of facts, which cannot be refuted, often an inescapable conclusion based on undeniable [[evidence]]. Proofs have been set aside by [[logical fallacies]] and [[prejudice]].
 +
 
==Mathematical proof==
 
==Mathematical proof==
 +
A mathematical proof is a step-by-step demonstration of the truth of a mathematical theorem. Proofs build on [[axiom]]s, which are statements that are assumed to be true without proof, as well as previously-proved [[theorem]]s.
  
A mathematical proof is a step-by-step demonstration of the truth or falsity of a mathematical theorem.
+
Several types of proofs are widely used, such as [[proof by contradiction]]
Proofs build on [[axiom | axioms]], which are statements that are assumed to be true without proof,
+
and [[proof by induction]]. Proofs that do not rely on contested fields of maths are sometimes called [[elementary proof]]s.
as well as previously-proved [[theorem | theorems]].
+
  
Several types of proofs are widely used, such as [[proof by contradiction | proof by contradiction]]
+
==Scientific proof==
and [[proof by induction | proof by induction]]. Proofs that rely only on certain simple forms of reasoning
+
''Main article:'' [[Scientific evidence]]
are sometimes called [[elementary proof | elementary proofs]].
+
  
[[Andrew Schlafly | Andrew Schlafly]] cited the lack of a Wikipedia page on "elementary proof" as
+
Unlike the [[theorem]]s of [[mathematics]], [[science]] does not seek to prove that its [[theories]] are true. Instead, the [[scientific method]] seeks to check whether the predictions implied by a theory are observed in nature. Therefore, as philosopher of science [[Karl Popper]] argued, science can only hope to show that a theory is false. But scientists recognize that science ''can never prove'' that a theory is true in the same sense that a mathematical theorem is true. Therefore, scientists never claim that their theories are [[fact]]s. Instead, science searches for theories that are not disproved by currently-known experimental observations. Insofar as theories are consistent with nature, they may serve as a guide to improve [[technology]] for example and can be considered as true in laymen's terms.
proof of [[Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia | bias in Wikipedia]]. Ironically, at that time Conservapedia did not even have a page on "proof".
+
  
==Scientific proof==
+
A notable exception may be found in the field of biology, where educators and other proponents frequently contend that, "Evolution is a fact."
Unlike the [[theorem | theorems]] of [[mathematics | mathematics]], [[science | science]] does not seek to prove that its [[theory | theories]] are true. Instead, the [[scientific method | scientific method]] seeks to check whether the predictions implied by a theory are observed in nature. Therefore, as philosopher of science [[Karl Popper | Karl Popper]] argued, science can only hope to show that a theory is false. But scientists recognize that science ''can never prove'' that a theory is true. Therefore scientists never claim that their theories are [[fact | facts]]. Instead, science searches for theories that are not disproved by currently-known experimental observations. Insofar as theories are consistent with nature, they may serve as a guide to improve [[technology | technology]].
+
  
 +
==Notable Quotes==
 +
*John L. Synge:<ref name="Capria">{{cite book |author=Marco M. Capria, Aubert Daigneaut et al. |title=Physics Before and After Einstein |publisher=IOS Press |year=2005 |chapter=5. General Relativity: Gravitation as Geometry and the Machian Programme |pages=97, 114|isbn=1-58603-462-6 |url=http://www.dmi.unipg.it/~mamone/pubb/PBAE.pdf |quote=John L. Synge, who was the author of one of the classic reference books on relativity [101], wrote half a century after Einstein’s first formulation of general relativity: [...] when one examines some proofs in the Neo-cartesian spirit, too often they seem to dissolve completely away, leaving one in a state of wonder as to whether the author really thought he had proved something. Or is the reader stupid? It is hard to say. In any case I am still waiting for a rational treatment of the dynamics of the solar system according to Einstein’s theory [100, p. 14].}}</ref>
 +
<blockquote>''"...when one examines some proofs in the Neo-cartesian spirit, too often they seem to dissolve completely away, leaving one in a state of wonder as to whether the author really thought he had proved something. Or is the reader stupid? It is hard to say."''</blockquote>
  
 
==Biblical proof==
 
==Biblical proof==
 +
See [[Biblical inerrancy]] and [[Sola scriptura]].
  
God is the [[creation|creator]] of the universe. He is [[omnipotence|omnipotent]], [[omniscience|omnicent]] and [[omnipresence|omnipresent]]. The proof[http://www.parentalguide.com/Documents/Bible_Desk/proof_bible_true.htm] of this and all other things can be found in the [[Bible]].
+
== Legal Proof ==
 
+
 
+
==Problem of Evil==
+
 
+
Without editing the previous article, I must challenge its assertions:
+
 
+
 
+
Omniscience - Infinite knowledge
+
 
+
Omnipotence - Infinite power
+
 
+
Omnipresence - The property of transcending the boundries of space and time
+
 
+
Evil - The antithesis of good
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
If one follows the new testament and asserts God is benevolent (all-good)...
+
 
+
Why does evil exist in the world?
+
  
 +
In American courts, crimes are proved "beyond reasonable doubt" to a jury, based on the jury's own analysis of the admissible evidence. Other legal issues may be decided by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not).
  
God's omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresense, or goodness must be suspect, unless one accepts that evil does not exist.
+
==Baking==
 +
In [[baking]], proofing is the process of letting a [[dough]] rise. The process of letting a [[sourdough]] starter (or sponge) feed and develop is also called proofing.
  
 +
== References ==
 +
{{Reflist}}
  
For more information please see the Stanford Free Philosophy Archive @ http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=problem+of+evil
+
== See also ==
 +
*[[Explanation in science]]
 +
*[[Proof text]]
 +
[[Category:Mathematics]]
 +
[[Category:Science]]
 +
[[Category:Law]]
 +
[[Category:Food and Drink]]

Latest revision as of 14:42, 24 July 2016

Proof is a firmly attested and evident objective fact, or a coherent set of facts, which cannot be refuted, often an inescapable conclusion based on undeniable evidence. Proofs have been set aside by logical fallacies and prejudice.

Mathematical proof

A mathematical proof is a step-by-step demonstration of the truth of a mathematical theorem. Proofs build on axioms, which are statements that are assumed to be true without proof, as well as previously-proved theorems.

Several types of proofs are widely used, such as proof by contradiction and proof by induction. Proofs that do not rely on contested fields of maths are sometimes called elementary proofs.

Scientific proof

Main article: Scientific evidence

Unlike the theorems of mathematics, science does not seek to prove that its theories are true. Instead, the scientific method seeks to check whether the predictions implied by a theory are observed in nature. Therefore, as philosopher of science Karl Popper argued, science can only hope to show that a theory is false. But scientists recognize that science can never prove that a theory is true in the same sense that a mathematical theorem is true. Therefore, scientists never claim that their theories are facts. Instead, science searches for theories that are not disproved by currently-known experimental observations. Insofar as theories are consistent with nature, they may serve as a guide to improve technology for example and can be considered as true in laymen's terms.

A notable exception may be found in the field of biology, where educators and other proponents frequently contend that, "Evolution is a fact."

Notable Quotes

  • John L. Synge:[1]
"...when one examines some proofs in the Neo-cartesian spirit, too often they seem to dissolve completely away, leaving one in a state of wonder as to whether the author really thought he had proved something. Or is the reader stupid? It is hard to say."

Biblical proof

See Biblical inerrancy and Sola scriptura.

Legal Proof

In American courts, crimes are proved "beyond reasonable doubt" to a jury, based on the jury's own analysis of the admissible evidence. Other legal issues may be decided by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not).

Baking

In baking, proofing is the process of letting a dough rise. The process of letting a sourdough starter (or sponge) feed and develop is also called proofing.

References

  1. Marco M. Capria, Aubert Daigneaut et al. (2005). "5. General Relativity: Gravitation as Geometry and the Machian Programme", Physics Before and After Einstein. IOS Press, 97, 114. ISBN 1-58603-462-6. “John L. Synge, who was the author of one of the classic reference books on relativity [101], wrote half a century after Einstein’s first formulation of general relativity: [...] when one examines some proofs in the Neo-cartesian spirit, too often they seem to dissolve completely away, leaving one in a state of wonder as to whether the author really thought he had proved something. Or is the reader stupid? It is hard to say. In any case I am still waiting for a rational treatment of the dynamics of the solar system according to Einstein’s theory [100, p. 14].” 

See also