What is Your Definition of Proof?

[hoarder]

I often encounter people saying they will not believe something unless they see proof. I've called many on this, demanded them to define "proof" and in more than 80% of cases was ignored.

I want to know what GSUSers think "proof" is. :dunno

[ximmy]

I thought you were talking about coins...

[LuckyStrike]

http://dobrochan.ru/src/jpg/0909/125390785401600.jpg

[General of Darkness]

Hoarder that's a very vague question. Proof of what? I think really depends on what the discussion is. As an example does anyone have proof of God?

But to get to your question, for me personal it depends if the question is a scientific one or a spiritual one. Just my 2 cents.

[Awoke]

When I research the conspiracy, I try to find a jewish author that admits something and a non-jewish author that testifies the same thing against the jew.

Back when I wanted proof in Jesus, I prayed to the Father and asked him to reveal Christ to me in accordance with his will. Then pertinent miracles started to happen that were too specific to be coincidence.

There are different kinds of proof.

[hoarder]

Hoarder that's a very vague question. Proof of what? I think really depends on what the discussion is. As an example does anyone have proof of God?

But to get to your question, for me personal it depends if the question is a scientific one or a spiritual one. Just my 2 cents.
Good point. Spiritual and religious issues are more complicated. I don't argue those issues myself since in many cases they can't be proven or disproven by the same means we "prove" other things.

[willie pete]

hoard...you been on the wing lately? :D

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/6574/wildturkey.jpg

[hoarder]

When I research the conspiracy, I try to find a jewish author that admits something and a non-jewish author that testifies the same thing against the jew.
Usually you can find dozens of Jewish authors that disgree with the Jewish author that admits something, and a dozen goy authors that disagree with the goy author who confirms what the Jew author sdmits.

That said, I don't this there is anything about becoming an author that automatically makes them truth gods.

[vacuum]

Its not so simple, there is so such thing as absolute proof that is unquestionable. Your best chance to get the truth is to gather great quantities of information and 'facts' then sort them into self-consistent categories. As different possible scenarios are built up, you choose which one is to most likely to be true, but only when a decision must be made that forces you to act. When no decision is being made you keep all scenarios around and keep adding to them.

[palani]

To me proof is when the bartender can pour a drink into a saucer and light it on fire. That is my proof that the drink is at least half alcohol (100 proof) and that the drink has not been watered.

This test fails for most 80 proof liquors proving that you can't trust anybody.

[ximmy]

Its not so simple, there is so such thing as absolute proof that is unquestionable. Your best chance to get the truth is to gather great quantities of information and 'facts' then sort them into self-consistent categories. As different possible scenarios are built up, you choose which one is to most likely to be true, but only when a decision must be made that forces you to act. When no decision is being made you keep all scenarios around and keep adding to them.


there is Absolut proof...

[hoarder]

As different possible scenarios are built up, you choose which one is to most likely to be true, but only when a decision must be made that forces you to act. When no decision is being made you keep all scenarios around and keep adding to them.
Good, you described the relationship between asessment of probability and time.

[PatColo]

Boils down to "critical thinking" AKA "logic". TPTB methodically removed formal classes by those names from curriculums, as part of their deliberate-dumbing-down social engineering agenda (http://deliberatedumbingdown.com/).

I recall 'Critical Thinking' was still one of the core lower-division requirements in college mid-80s, memorizing & identifying fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies), defining adequate "proofs" etc were the core subject matter. I aced it, thinking it was so easy, but recall what a struggle it was for many if not most in the class-- as though it were trigonometry or something! I didn't have the life perspective to understand the reasons for this then, but since I realize it was my pops' influence: he was a juris-doctorate/systems-analyst/college prof, and a hard headed logic machine, which invariably influenced me, relative to J6P.

To anyone who's close to the college curriculum scene today, is "Critical Thinking/Logic" still anywhere in the curriculum? Is it a core requirement, or an elective?

I was going to start a thread on this article, but this thread will do; a trophy in the NWO's trophy case:


Study: Many college students not learning to think critically (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html)

[Buddha]

Boils down to "critical thinking" AKA "logic". TPTB methodically removed formal classes by those names from curriculums, as part of their deliberate-dumbing-down social engineering agenda (http://deliberatedumbingdown.com/).

I recall 'Critical Thinking' was still one of the core lower-division requirements in college mid-80s, memorizing & identifying fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies) was the core subject matter. I aced it, thinking it was so easy, but recall what a struggle it was for many if not most in the class-- as though it were trigonometry or something! I didn't have the life perspective to understand the reasons for this then, but since I realize it was my pops' influence: he was a juris-doctorate/systems-analyst/college prof, and a hard headed logic machine, which invariably influenced me, relative to J6P.

To anyone who's close to the college curriculum scene today, is "Critical Thinking/Logic" still anywhere in the curriculum? Is it a core requirement, or an elective?

I took that class a few years ago at the locla community college. It was required, but it fell into a category when one could take a number of other classe to satisfy the requirement. The first part of the class wbout fallicies and the sencond was about logic in math.

I was going to start a thread on this article, but this thread will do; a trophy in the NWO's trophy case:


Study: Many college students not learning to think critically (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html)





I took that class (intro to logic) a few years ago at the local community college. It was required, but it fell into a category which one could choose from a number of other classes to satisfy the requirement. The first part of the class covered fallacies, rhetoric, etc and the second was about logic in math.

[hoarder]

I took that class (intro to logic) a few years ago at the local community college. It was required, but it fell into a category which one could take one of a number of other classes to satisfy the requirement. The first part of the class covered fallacies, rhetoric, etc and the second was about logic in math.


You can't go through college using poor spelling or grammar in classes other than spelling and grammar, but LOGIC is isolated from all other classes.

[General of Darkness]

I'd like to add, that the biggest problem we have in our society is that the majority of people do the following

1 - Accept what they see on the news as FACT
2 - Accept what the government says as FACT
3 - What they are taught in school is considered as FACT

Most people, from my experience, have a tough time thinking for themselves, which adds to this problem of Proof because they don't understand thinking for themselves and with their own brains.

[Sparky]

I'd say proof is corroborating and unambiguous evidence from a source that is mutually agreed upon to be authoritative.

[keehah]

Proof is a shortcut to understanding.
No need for critical thinking.
In much of life there are not shortcuts to understanding and critical thinking is required.
Demands for proof then can be a form of denial.

[Low_five]

To me proof is when the bartender can pour a drink into a saucer and light it on fire. That is my proof that the drink is at least half alcohol (100 proof) and that the drink has not been watered.

This test fails for most 80 proof liquors proving that you can't trust anybody.

You stole my joke.

[Agrippa]

The demonstration that a proposition is axiomatic. Rarely available....

[Ash_Williams]

You stole my joke.

Prove it.

[Ash_Williams]

Proof requires the cause and effect to be tied together in a way that can't be disputed. The cause must lead to the effect, without another possible cause being tangled in there. The second half of that is usually what is lacking.

Secondly the language must be precise or you end up with the old crap like "gun control makes us safer because there's less gun murders after." The statement is isn't precise because fewer gun murders doesn't make us safer if there are more murders overall. That kind of "proof" finds A -> C and then the claim is simply made that A -> B without determining if C -> B or C = B.

I also don't think of something as provable unless there can be a method for disproving it. There may be an exception - I'm not sure. If there is something like that, then I'd still say it's probably a statement so meaningless that there is no point in proving it. If something lacks a method to be disproven then that's not proof for or against it!

The atheists and theist use this line of flawed thinking with the classic pointless argument:
T: "There is a God!"
A: "Prove it"
T: "I can't prove it but you can't disprove it so it must be true."
A: "No you can't prove a negative so what I say must be true."

[hoarder]

I'd say proof is corroborating and unambiguous evidence from a source that is mutually agreed upon to be authoritative.

au·thor·i·ta·tive adj
\ə-ˈthär-ə-ˌtā-tiv, ȯ-, -ˈthȯr-\
Definition of AUTHORITATIVE
1a : having or proceeding from authority : official <authoritative church doctrines> b : clearly accurate or knowledgeable <an authoritative critique>

Sparky, the world's greatest liars have worked their way into positions of authority.

[hoarder]

Demands for proof then can be a form of denial.
It very often is, especially when demanded by people who have given little thought as to the definition of proof.

[hoarder]

Proof requires the cause and effect to be tied together in a way that can't be disputed. The cause must lead to the effect, without another possible cause being tangled in there. The second half of that is usually what is lacking.


But proof is not certainty, it is not absolute. There may be several weaker forms of proof, none absolutely certain (in proving cause and effect) in themselves, but added together prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Example: An accused murderer is shown to have the means, motive, opportunity, modus operandi and motive agendi.

[Twisted Titan]

NO PROOF IS ABSOLUTE BECAUSE AT SOME POINT THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH YOU RELY MUST BE "TRUSTED"

WHICH LEADS TO A WHOLE OTHER DISCOURSE AS TO HOW ONE DEFINES TRUST.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS NOTHING IS INCONTROVERTABLE HENCE NO PROOF OR TRUST IS ABSOLUTE.

[hoarder]

NOTHING IS INCONTROVERTABLE Conclusions are only an excuse to stop thinking.

[palani]

Estoppel and laches are important tools to silence anyone who does not agree with your "proofs".

[Sparky]

I'd say proof is corroborating and unambiguous evidence from a source that is mutually agreed upon to be authoritative.

au·thor·i·ta·tive adj
\ə-ˈthär-ə-ˌtā-tiv, ȯ-, -ˈthȯr-\
Definition of AUTHORITATIVE
1a : having or proceeding from authority : official <authoritative church doctrines> b : clearly accurate or knowledgeable <an authoritative critique>

Sparky, the world's greatest liars have worked their way into positions of authority.


Right. That's why I included "mutually agreed upon". If you can't go that far, then you end up in the "nothing can be proven" camp, and the discussion is pretty much over. From Woody Allen: "Can we know what we know, and if so, how do we do this?"

[Twisted Titan]

Estoppel and laches are important tools to silence anyone who does not agree with your "proofs".


what is a lache???


T

[sirgonzo420]

Estoppel and laches are important tools to silence anyone who does not agree with your "proofs".


what is a lache???


T


It's that thing on the door that keeps it shut.


;D

[Ash_Williams]

But proof is not certainty, it is not absolute. There may be several weaker forms of proof, none absolutely certain (in proving cause and effect) in themselves, but added together prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Example: An accused murderer is shown to have the means, motive, opportunity, modus operandi and motive agendi.

It works to some extent in court 'cause you have both sides: the prosecution is arguing that the accused did it and the defense can show that there are others with the means, motive, opportunity, etc. Assuming the defense is competent, of course.

Without the other side of the argument, you could convict the first person you run across who doesn't like the victim.

Even with the adversarial system, I'm not all that comfortable with murder convictions when the victim is 'someone' (ie not just a dead gangbanger). I know if I were to kill someone, the first step would be to do my research and figure out who I would setup to take the fall for it, 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. Frankly I don't think the investigators are smart enough to figure these kinds of things out.

[hoarder]

what is a lache???


T
I had to look it up as well.

 /ˈlætʃɪz/ Show Spelled
[lach-iz] Show IPA

–noun ( used with a singular verb ) Law .
failure to do something at the proper time, esp. such delay as will bar a party from bringing a legal proceeding.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What this boils down to in my opinion, is that if you want to lie, be the first to speak, then prevent any alternate view from being expressed. Once a certain amount of time has passed, the lie becomes official.

Example:
1945 "Six million Jews were gassed".

1945-1970 '''silence''

1970 a hundred holocaust movies about this accepted "truth" which was never even referred to as "holocaust" before.

[hoarder]

It works to some extent in court 'cause you have both sides: the prosecution is arguing that the accused did it and the defense can show that there are others with the means, motive, opportunity, etc.
There always has to the other side. When the "other side" is suppressed or silenced, proof is nullified. Outside of courts, open debate fills this void.

I use means, motive, opportunity, evidence, modus operandi and motive agendi as tools to figure out human events. Also "Cui bono?".

[palani]

what is a lache???


LACHES. This word, derived from the French lecher, is nearly synonymous with negligence.

2. In general, when a party has been guilty of laches in enforcing his right by great delay and lapse of time, this circumstance will at common law pre-judice, and sometimes operate in bar of a remedy which it is discretionary and not compulsory in the court to afford. In courts of equity, also delay will generally prejudice. 1 Chit. Pr. 786, and the cases there cited; 8 Com. Dig. 684; 6 Johns. Ch. R. 360.

3. But laches may be excused from, ignorance of the party's rights; 2 Mer. R. 362; 2 Ball & Beat. 104; from the obscurity of the transaction; 2 Sch. & Lef. 487; by the pendency of a suit; 1 Sch. & Lef. 413; and where the party labors under a legal disability, as insanity, coverture, infancy, and the like. And no laches can be imputed to the public

Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent appears to consent.

If you fail to speak up when you had the opportunity to then you lose the right to speak up when you might see the need to.

[Book]

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/67831/thumbs/s-BRIAN-WILLIAMS-large.jpg

Proof? Whatever jew-teevee says is proof enough for America.

:oo-->

[MNeagle]

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/67831/thumbs/s-BRIAN-WILLIAMS-large.jpg

Proof? Whatever jew-teevee says is proof enough for America.

:oo-->


That's ironic considering your new avatar Book!!

[Bigjon]

I often encounter people saying they will not believe something unless they see proof. I've called many on this, demanded them to define "proof" and in more than 80% of cases was ignored.

I want to know what GSUSers think "proof" is. :dunno


Proof to me is something that is not falsifiable.

Any statement or statement about an event that can't be shown to be false is proof of it's truth.

[sirgonzo420]

I often encounter people saying they will not believe something unless they see proof. I've called many on this, demanded them to define "proof" and in more than 80% of cases was ignored.

I want to know what GSUSers think "proof" is. :dunno


Proof to me is something that is not falsifiable.

Any statement or statement about an event that can't be shown to be false is proof of it's truth.




That can get slippery....



"The Giant Spaghetti Monster created the universe."


Prove me wrong...

[Awoke]

That said, I don't this there is anything about becoming an author that automatically makes them truth gods.


Touche. You are absolutely correct. It's important to ensure that your research is verifiable from multiple sources that are accurate and truthful to the best of your discernment.
Not "Sorcha Faalesque"

[hoarder]

My approach to seeking truth is different from people who simply look for "proof".
I place information in three categories:

1) What is possible.
2) What is certain.
3 What is PROBABLE.

1) Nearly everything is possible.
2) Hardly anything is absolutely 100% certain.
3) Assessing probability is where real critical thinking comes in.

#1 and #2 are so broad and narrow as to include or exclude nearly everything. Since nearly everything is possible and nearly nothing is certain, I focus my energies on WHAT IS PROBABLE.

Many will dismiss that as speculation. Of course it's speculation. I'm an investor, that's what I do for a living and I'm good at it.

The truth is like a crossword puzzle, it consists of many convoluted pieces and there are usually a few missing. In some cases the missing pieces make discerning the whole picture impossible, in other cases it leaves no significant question.


That said, probability is something to be measured in degrees, not something absolute.

[Bigjon]

I often encounter people saying they will not believe something unless they see proof. I've called many on this, demanded them to define "proof" and in more than 80% of cases was ignored.

I want to know what GSUSers think "proof" is. :dunno


Proof to me is something that is not falsifiable.

Any statement or statement about an event that can't be shown to be false is proof of it's truth.




That can get slippery....



"The Giant Spaghetti Monster created the universe."


Prove me wrong...


There are no spaghetti monsters.

prove me wrong... show me one.

[palani]

There are no spaghetti monsters.

... show me one.


Those aren't meatballs!

http://knowyourmeme.com/system/icons/206/original/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.jpg?1241373617

[Bigjon]

There are no spaghetti monsters.

... show me one.


Those aren't meatballs!

http://knowyourmeme.com/system/icons/206/original/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.jpg?1241373617


a picture of bad art is not a monster.

Even if it makes you hurl.

[Antonio]

This one is easy. Proof BEGINS to appear when someone is willing to die for some truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku

Comrade Stalin.
PS.Proletarian best wishes.
PS.PS. Even better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

[Bigjon]

http://www.friesian.com/popper.htm

Sir Karl Popper (1902-1994)

The most important philosopher of science since Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Sir Karl Popper finally solved the puzzle of scientific method, which in practice had never seemed to conform to the principles or logic described by Bacon -- see The Great Devonian Controversy, by Martin J. S. Rudwick, for a case study of Baconian rhetoric and expectations being contradicted by actual practice and results. Instead of scientific knowledge being discovered and verified by way of inductive generalizations, leaping from perceptual data into blank minds, in terms that go back to Aristotle, Popper realized that science advances instead by deductive falsification through a process of "conjectures and refutations." It is imagination and creativity, not induction, that generates real scientific theories, which is how Einstein could study the universe with no more than a piece of chalk. Experiment and observation test theories, not produce them. This was not, in retrospect, so hard to understand; and some philosophers, like Kant, had come close to recognizing it. It is still subject to some dispute, though mainly from those who misunderstand the rejection of induction or who demand positive epistemic reasons for crediting theories that are derived negatively, by falsification (see "Criticism of Karl Popper in Anthony O'Hear's An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science"). That is a reasonable enough demand, but the answer can only come from deeper philosophical epistemology, not from science or philosophy of science. That deeper epistemology is, in fact, Friesian.

The most important question about Popper for The Proceedings of the Friesian School is why he says that, rather than a Positivist, he is more a Kantian in the Friesian tradition:

It seems to me that the view here upheld is closer to that of the 'critical' (Kantian) school of philosophy (perhaps in the form represented by Fries) than to positivism. [The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson of London Ltd., 1959, 1977, p.105 note]

He undoubtedly says this because Fries had held that synthetic propositions a priori, or the First Principles of Demonstration, do not need to be proven. This follows from Hume and Kant's definition of "synthetic" (can be denied without contradiction) and from Aristotle's definition of "First Principles" (are not justified by derivation from other propositions). Since Popper thought that justification works through falsification, and never through verification, he obviously agreed that such propositions do not need to be proven in the sense of logical derivation. It is now common in science to use falsifiability as a criterion for dismissing theories or claims as parts of science. Popper's own critique of Marx and Freud as unfalsifiable was a classic study, and the salutary influence of the principle in discussion of psychics or astrology is occasionally seen.

Popper, however, misunderstands the rest of Fries's theory, accusing him of "psychologism" in the sense that Fries supposedly relies on a psychological or subjective sense of certainty to justify instances of immediate knowledge. This is not true. On the very page cited above, Popper says:

I admit, again, that the decision to accept a basic statement, and to be satisfied with it, is causally connected with our experiences -- especially with our perceptual experiences. But we do not attempt to justify basic statements by these experiences. [ibid. p.105, boldface added]

Whether or not there is a causal relation between perceptions and statements or beliefs is actually irrelevant, and Popper commits a grave error by dwelling on it. We justify statements about experience by reference to the objects of experience. There is in fact no other way to justify them except by memory, hearsay, or inference. Reference is not a causal relationship but a fundamental logical property of concepts and propositions, as Popper well understands. The problem with reference to the objects of experience, as Descartes discovered, was the question of access to those objects. Popper's mistake, in criticizing the Positivists, was to accept a Positivist, and Empiricist, premise, that we only have access to perceptions, to contents of the mind, not to the objects themselves. Popper misses the Kantian aspect of Friesian theory that immediate knowledge consists of phenomenal objects, which as objects, are not merely psychological or subjective. One's psychological attitude, or its origin, is therefore irrelevant; and the cognitive force of immediate knowledge lies in the intersubjective availability of empirical objects, our direct acquaintance with them, and the possibility of their being shown to others by way of justification. (These issues are discussed in the essay "Ontological Undecidability.") Furthermore, Popper himself realized that the test of falsification cannot be applied to everything, for it is not clear how the principle of falsification itself could be subject to a falsifying test. If the principle can then be known to be true, there must be some means of verification for certain things after all. That must return us to Fries' original considerations.

Popper's connection with Nelson's Neo-Friesian School is recounted in his Unended Quest, an Intellectual Autobiography [Open Court, 1985]:

I had met Julius Kraft (of Hanover, a distant relation of mine, and a pupil of Leonard Nelson [note]), who later became a teacher of philosophy and sociology at Frankfurt; my friendship with him lasted until his death in 1960.

Julius Kraft, like Leonard Nelson, was a non-Marxist socialist, and about half our discussions, often lasting into the small hours of the morning, were centered on my criticism of Marx. The other half were about the theory of knowledge: mainly Kant's so-called "transcendental deduction" (which I regarded as question-begging), his solution to the antinomies, and Nelson's "Impossibility of the Theory of Knowledge". Over these we fought a hard battle, which went on from 1926 to 1956, and we did not reach anything approaching agreement until a few years before his untimely death in 1960. On Marxism we reached agreement fairly soon. [pp. 74-75.]

Nelson, as it happens, regarded the "transcendental deduction" as question begging also, where the idea of "transcendental" knowledge dangerously obscured the question whether such knowledge would be synthetic a priori or a posteriori. If the former, an argument to prove the existence of synthetic a priori knowledge would be circular; but if the latter, it would then seem that necessary a priori knowledge would somehow be certified by contingent and a posteriori knowledge. The Friesian theory of Deduction addresses that dilemma.

The solution to the antinomies was the view that phenomenal objects were not things in themselves, which Popper evidently did not want to accept. And the argument of Nelson's "Impossibility of the Theory of Knowledge" was simply that a theory of knowledge cannot prove that knowledge exists, for it would have to presuppose the possibility that the existence or non-existence of knowledge could be known, which would beg the question.

What Popper finally got Kraft to agree to is not stated, though the implication is that Popper carried the argument. Such an outcome, sadly, seems to have spelled the end of Nelson's own students taking Friesian epistemological principles seriously, which left very little for which to recommend Fries and Nelson to the philosophical community or the general public.

Finally, in Nelson's tradition of political activity, Popper stands as one of the great opponents of totalitarianism, and its philosophical roots, in the century. The Open Society and Its Enemies [1945], like the nearly contemporaneous Road to Serfdom [1944] of F.A. Hayek (who used Popper's ideas and helped him professionally), were seminal works in the history of liberty and the counterattack against the intellectual and political assaults, from both political right and left, on freedom and classical liberal principles in the Twentieth Century. As with Nelson's work, Popper's exposure of the irrationality and danger of the doctrines of philosophers like Hegel and Marx has yet to have its influence properly felt. Unfortunately, Popper did not accept Hayek's own defense of free market capitalism, and both he and most of his recent followers have accepted the muddled welfare-statism whose principles are more or less assumed as truisms in most political debate in Europe and the United States. Below is a link to an exchange with an important associate and supporter of Popper, funded by philanthropist George Soros, which began hopefully but then turned acrimonious as the differences between Popper and Hayek emerged. Indeed, it was surprising and disturbing just how acrimonious the exchange quickly became -- reflecting, perhaps, the reenergized hostility to capitalism found in the recent left (and thoughtlessly aided by some successful capitalists, like Mr. Soros). How Karl Popper, one of the greatest critics of totalitarianism, could be now used in the defense of statism and serfdom (as Hayek put it), is a very tragic development.


Letter from Sir Karl Popper to K.L. Ross, 12 December 1992

Criticism of Karl Popper in Anthony O'Hear's An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science

Criticism of Karl Popper in Martin Gardner's Are Universes Thicker Than Blackberries?

Exchange with Mark Notturo on Popper and Hayek

History of Philosophy

Epistemology

Philosophy of Science

Popper on Home Page

Home Page

The Karl Popper Web

[Neuro]

There are no spaghetti monsters.

... show me one.


Those aren't meatballs!

http://knowyourmeme.com/system/icons/206/original/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.jpg?1241373617


a picture of bad art is not a monster.
Well, you can't prove that it isn't either. ;D

[Bigjon]

Karl Popper basically qualified scientific statements as those that can be falsified and any statement that can't be falsified as being non-scientific and should be relegated to the realm of religion.

[hoarder]

Karl Popper basically qualified scientific statements as those that can be falsified and any statement that can't be falsified as being non-scientific and should be relegated to the realm of religion.
Replace the word "falsified" with "tested" and it makes more sense.

[Bigjon]

Karl Popper basically qualified scientific statements as those that can be falsified and any statement that can't be falsified as being non-scientific and should be relegated to the realm of religion.
Replace the word "falsified" with "tested" and it makes more sense.


But the test is, is it false.

[lapis]

I think the problem is a combination of this:



Boils down to "critical thinking" AKA "logic". TPTB methodically removed formal classes by those names from curriculums, as part of their deliberate-dumbing-down social engineering agenda (http://deliberatedumbingdown.com/).

Plus this:




I'd like to add, that the biggest problem we have in our society is that the majority of people do the following

1 - Accept what they see on the news as FACT
2 - Accept what the government says as FACT
3 - What they are taught in school is considered as FACT

Number 1 is critical. Since people's thinking "skills" are already marginal, and watching teevee puts them in a receptive state (by changing brain waves to alpha), they're susceptible to all sorts of propaganda.

Just yesterday I came across a YouTube video in which the narrator takes apart a segment of "The Doctors" featuring San Francisco's circumcision ban. He annoyingly stops and re-plays what they say over and over again, but also names what logical fallacies they use. A bunch were used in just the first five minutes:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-Lm396q8KA
(I couldn't watch the whole thing, because the thought of circumcision, especially of newborns, makes me want to vomit. Literally. I can't believe people still defend the barbaric practice of infant genital mutilation.)


I recall 'Critical Thinking' was still one of the core lower-division requirements in college mid-80s, memorizing & identifying fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies), defining adequate "proofs" etc were the core subject matter. I aced it, thinking it was so easy, but recall what a struggle it was for many if not most in the class-- as though it were trigonometry or something! I didn't have the life perspective to understand the reasons for this then, but since I realize it was my pops' influence: he was a juris-doctorate/systems-analyst/college prof, and a hard headed logic machine, which invariably influenced me, relative to J6P.

I took that in college, and it totally blew me away.

I was one of those people for whom it was like trigonometry or something. But I knew somewhere in my little brain that this was important information, so I would study the fallacies over and over again until they stuck. Even today, decades later, I keep the information around to refresh myself.

Sometimes I feel like my mind was literally dismantled by public schooling. Thinking logically does not come easy at all. When I read novels, it's virtually impossible for me to imagine the scenes as images. I can only read the words as words, divorced from my imagination.

So I can only absorb the "truth" or proof if I read information about a subject many, many, many times.


I was going to start a thread on this article, but this thread will do; a trophy in the NWO's trophy case:

[size=13pt]Study: Many college students not learning to think critically (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html)

I'm sure they're laughing all the way to their banks.

Speaking of difficult subjects, I've found that almost anyone IRL that I try to explain the financial swindle a.k.a. the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) (http://cafr1.com/) dismiss it out of hand, with zero curiosity about the implications. (BTW, there used to be a great thread on CAFR at GIM1, we ought to have one here as well....)