Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

German court ruling rejects logic, scientific method

Page 2 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

13 Mar 2015, 10:49 pm

RhodyStruggle wrote:
People who are not mathematicians and/or logicians may as well stop using the word proof, but that condition doesn't apply to me.


Mathematicians and logicians live in the same reality we do, I think it applies to everyone Rhody.
Our perception of the world guides what we "know", not what is actually there.


_________________
comedic burp


RhodyStruggle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 508

13 Mar 2015, 11:40 pm

appletheclown wrote:
RhodyStruggle wrote:
People who are not mathematicians and/or logicians may as well stop using the word proof, but that condition doesn't apply to me.


Mathematicians and logicians live in the same reality we do, I think it applies to everyone Rhody.


The point was that the concept of proof is valid and useful in the domains of math and logic, not that people well-versed in those domains should extend the concept of proof to other domains.


_________________
From start to finish I've made you feel this
Uncomfort in turn with the world you've learned
To love through this hate to live with its weight
A burden discerned in the blood you taste


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Mar 2015, 12:44 pm

Magneto wrote:
Huh? Science *can* prove something to be the case. Or are you going to insist gravity is "just a theory" and jump off the top of a building?



Not sufficient for -proof-. All one can say is various occurrences of falling tend to corroborate the hypothetical force of gravitation. What happens when you toss a helium filled balloon of a roof? To account for this you must hypothesize a counter force buoyancy. Scientific laws cannot be proven for sure. they can only be disproved for sure.



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 112
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

14 Mar 2015, 2:33 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
"Proof", and"truth" mean certain things to scientists, and the two words mean slightly different things to lawyers. They speak in different languages.

In fact lawyers involved in civil law dont speak quite the same language as do lawyers in criminal law.


Well said.

In some cases, Philosophy as a discipline will also define terms differently than both Law and Science. Which is why I always emphasize to younger people that one must understand the terms that another person is using within the context of the paradigm that that other individual operates within. High level communication ought always to provide operationalized definitions where appropriate.

Good thread!



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

14 Mar 2015, 4:31 pm

^ Agreed

To properly comment on the case you need far more information than is available in this article. On the face of it and given the history of the biologist I am happy he has been forced to pay up. The last thing we need are more idiots persuading the ignorant to not vaccinate their kids.

Nothing in the article describes the ruling in detail, eg does the Judge allow for some leeway regarding what "proof" actually is. I think (maybe) in a situation like this "overwhelming evidence" is enough.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx