Re: [asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here)

James Patterson wrote:
> What evidence? What "proof"? You can't prove your own existence, neither can
> I prove mine. There is only
> degrees of clarity and strength to evidence. The "P word" as used by Bernie,
> should be used but rarely.
>
>
James
I both agree and disagree with you about proof and probabilities. As I
have written previously, on this list, I view all knowledge as
probabilities and never as absolute certainties. However, when:
a)the probabilities get high then I use language like proof
b)the probabilities get low then I use language like disproof,
impossible etc

Even with a proof in euclidean geometry I recognize that a mental error
could have occurred, however I think the possibility is vanishingly
small.

IMHO not to use words like proof, impossible... falls into the same kind
of pedantic position that some do in trying to limit the word evolution
to biology. This is not to say that I necessarily think, that things
like evolutionary sociology etc are necessarily valid or appropriate or
that word "evolution" should be used simply as a synonym for change or
life cycle. In general when I think of an evolutionary process I imply
a case where small changes are made repeatedly to an artifact and then
after each "improvement", the changed artifact is tested to see if the
change was helpful or not. Thus there is an analogy to variation and
natural selection.

Obviously we disagree about using words like proof etc.

Dave W

PS Greg. No I am not convinced to use the word "evolution" only in a
biological sense, I have simply given up arguing with you. However, you
have persuaded me that some of the uses of the word and concepts of
evolution in the social sciences appear to be inappropriate. But bear
in mind that social science is not where my area of expertise lies.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Feb 26 06:55:12 2009