Timeline for Is there such a thing as absolute proof?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2018 at 1:25 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Sep 22, 2018 at 1:41 | |||||
| Jan 6, 2017 at 12:26 | comment | added | TCN | I'm glad you were able to reconsider your position instead of insisting on hiding behind layers of sophistry. | |
| Dec 22, 2016 at 3:08 | history | edited | Ronnie Smith | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 30 characters in body
|
| Dec 22, 2016 at 2:31 | history | edited | Ronnie Smith | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 13 characters in body
|
| Dec 22, 2016 at 2:23 | comment | added | Ronnie Smith | Accepting that any idea is falsifiable is key to philosophy. | |
| Dec 22, 2016 at 1:06 | comment | added | TCN | If you put your technicalities aside and actually focus on the content of what is being told to you you'd understand the very simple message: how do you go about disproving something if you cannot prove that it is disproven? | |
| May 29, 2015 at 21:52 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Jun 1, 2015 at 18:56 | |||||
| Apr 6, 2015 at 16:33 | comment | added | Ronnie Smith | So you are saying that you have proved "¬P" because you disprove "P". | |
| Apr 6, 2015 at 16:31 | comment | added | user2953 | No, I'm explaining you a very basic definition from high school logic. | |
| Apr 6, 2015 at 16:30 | comment | added | Ronnie Smith | You are assuming that reality is fact, are you not? | |
| Apr 6, 2015 at 16:21 | comment | added | user2953 | The question is: "can we prove anything in philosophy?" - you say, that you cannot (which seems correct to me), because you can only disprove. My comment intends to show you that disproving some theory is equivalent to proving the negation of that theory (which is the meaning of that symbol). For example, if you disprove "All swans are white", you essentially prove "There exists at least one swan which is not white". The conclusion of your answer seems correct to me to some extent, the argumentation not. | |
| Apr 6, 2015 at 16:19 | comment | added | Ronnie Smith | Saying that one thing is not false does not necessitate another thing is true. It appears you are using symbols to communicate. I do not understand your comment. Can you explain? Are you saying that if P then not -P? What does that mean? | |
| Apr 6, 2015 at 16:02 | comment | added | user2953 | If you disprove P, do you not prove ¬P? | |
| Apr 6, 2015 at 16:00 | history | answered | Ronnie Smith | CC BY-SA 3.0 |