Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00258)

In a message dated 11/21/99 8:01:01 AM Central Standard Time, WLR7D@aol.com
writes:

> "Proof" and "belief" are such
>  words.  I understand they may be fighting words to some, absurd to
>  others,(this provides information to me in itself),  or a bite by someone
> who
>  has it all figured out.
I've watched this for awhile and will say this.  You couldn't
define your terms when pressed to do so.  You had a
loose way of talking about science, reasoning, evidence, and such that
indicated they were being used as glorified jargon.  You have yet to
provide a definition of what you mean by reason, experience, evidence.
I showed reason is equivocal by drwing out its various meanings.
The whole cottage industry of epistemology runs on the question
of what is evidence and what is not, and why (on what reasonable criteria)
is such a line drawn.  You and Kym like using the word "proof" a lot
when its not clear that you mean anything more than a very strong
personal conviction/prejudice, epistemic confidence, or strong hope.
Physical science hardly ever gives an absolute proof except in falsification
of a theory when what it predicts does not happen.  Then we KNOW
it false.  But unfalsified theories, no matter how long they have survived
testing, are not KNOWN to be true.  Technically, a "proof" in contemporary
science and mathematics is that for which there is a (mechanical)
decision procedure (like the completeness of first order propositional
logic).  I see Dalva using reason as competently as you.  Your appeals
to reason and experience seem to be a dogmatic foreclosure on your
part, especially since you do not seem to want to get into defining
your concepts of these favorite terms of yours.

Grigor