Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Do all true propositions have evidence?

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 2:11:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is it possible to have a true proposition for which evidence cannot be shown?

Can I make a statement and it be true, yet there be no way to find out the truth of this statement?

In other words, if there is a statement for which there is absolutely no evidence, does it follow necessarily, that since there is absolutely no evidence in existence, it is false?

I was recently having a discussion with a fellow who said that *every* true statement had evidence for its truth. Now, I don't have a strong position on the matter either way, but his arguments were mostly equivocating between dictionary terms and his own terms, as well as the both of us using different dictionaries, so I wasn't convinced.

It just struck me as interesting though... Thoughts?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 2:27:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 2:11:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Is it possible to have a true proposition for which evidence cannot be shown?

Can I make a statement and it be true, yet there be no way to find out the truth of this statement?

In other words, if there is a statement for which there is absolutely no evidence, does it follow necessarily, that since there is absolutely no evidence in existence, it is false?

I was recently having a discussion with a fellow who said that *every* true statement had evidence for its truth. Now, I don't have a strong position on the matter either way, but his arguments were mostly equivocating between dictionary terms and his own terms, as well as the both of us using different dictionaries, so I wasn't convinced.

It just struck me as interesting though... Thoughts?

1. Hypothesis: The statement, "All true propositions have evidence," is true.
2. Since it is true, we should have evidence for it.
3. We don't have evidence for it.
4. The hypothesis is disproven (reductio ad absurdum).

Conclusion: Not all true propositions have evidence.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 2:29:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 2:11:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Is it possible to have a true proposition for which evidence cannot be shown?

Can I make a statement and it be true, yet there be no way to find out the truth of this statement?

In other words, if there is a statement for which there is absolutely no evidence, does it follow necessarily, that since there is absolutely no evidence in existence, it is false?

I was recently having a discussion with a fellow who said that *every* true statement had evidence for its truth. Now, I don't have a strong position on the matter either way, but his arguments were mostly equivocating between dictionary terms and his own terms, as well as the both of us using different dictionaries, so I wasn't convinced.

It just struck me as interesting though... Thoughts?

Just use history to answer your question. Go back 1000 years ago and tell the populace that it is possible to create and fly an aircraft (and cross the sea with it). 1000 years ago, there was probably no one on earth that could tell you that your proposition had some evidence to it.

That's just one example. I'm sure there are hundreds you could use to illustrate the point being that a true proposition does not need evidence.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 2:39:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 2:27:15 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/16/2013 2:11:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Is it possible to have a true proposition for which evidence cannot be shown?

Can I make a statement and it be true, yet there be no way to find out the truth of this statement?

In other words, if there is a statement for which there is absolutely no evidence, does it follow necessarily, that since there is absolutely no evidence in existence, it is false?

I was recently having a discussion with a fellow who said that *every* true statement had evidence for its truth. Now, I don't have a strong position on the matter either way, but his arguments were mostly equivocating between dictionary terms and his own terms, as well as the both of us using different dictionaries, so I wasn't convinced.

It just struck me as interesting though... Thoughts?

1. Hypothesis: The statement, "All true propositions have evidence," is true.
2. Since it is true, we should have evidence for it.
3. We don't have evidence for it.
4. The hypothesis is disproven (reductio ad absurdum).

Conclusion: Not all true propositions have evidence.

Excellent point.

I actually did say something very very similar to that, but he ignored it, and proceeded to say that "true" was defined as the same as "fact" which meant it had evidence...

That and a bunch of insults about my being asinine, and a total idiot...

I suppose it's best not to continue at that point, right? :P

Ironically it started with him claiming that "absence of evidence was evidence of absence" since of course, all true things must have evidence that they're true...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 2:42:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 2:29:49 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 11/16/2013 2:11:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Is it possible to have a true proposition for which evidence cannot be shown?

Can I make a statement and it be true, yet there be no way to find out the truth of this statement?

In other words, if there is a statement for which there is absolutely no evidence, does it follow necessarily, that since there is absolutely no evidence in existence, it is false?

I was recently having a discussion with a fellow who said that *every* true statement had evidence for its truth. Now, I don't have a strong position on the matter either way, but his arguments were mostly equivocating between dictionary terms and his own terms, as well as the both of us using different dictionaries, so I wasn't convinced.

It just struck me as interesting though... Thoughts?

Just use history to answer your question. Go back 1000 years ago and tell the populace that it is possible to create and fly an aircraft (and cross the sea with it). 1000 years ago, there was probably no one on earth that could tell you that your proposition had some evidence to it.

That's just one example. I'm sure there are hundreds you could use to illustrate the point being that a true proposition does not need evidence.

Ironically, we were literally just discussing this two seconds ago...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 2:50:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 2:42:59 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/16/2013 2:29:49 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 11/16/2013 2:11:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Is it possible to have a true proposition for which evidence cannot be shown?

Can I make a statement and it be true, yet there be no way to find out the truth of this statement?

In other words, if there is a statement for which there is absolutely no evidence, does it follow necessarily, that since there is absolutely no evidence in existence, it is false?

I was recently having a discussion with a fellow who said that *every* true statement had evidence for its truth. Now, I don't have a strong position on the matter either way, but his arguments were mostly equivocating between dictionary terms and his own terms, as well as the both of us using different dictionaries, so I wasn't convinced.

It just struck me as interesting though... Thoughts?

Just use history to answer your question. Go back 1000 years ago and tell the populace that it is possible to create and fly an aircraft (and cross the sea with it). 1000 years ago, there was probably no one on earth that could tell you that your proposition had some evidence to it.

That's just one example. I'm sure there are hundreds you could use to illustrate the point being that a true proposition does not need evidence.

Ironically, we were literally just discussing this two seconds ago...

meaning?
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 2:51:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 2:50:11 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 11/16/2013 2:42:59 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/16/2013 2:29:49 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 11/16/2013 2:11:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Is it possible to have a true proposition for which evidence cannot be shown?

Can I make a statement and it be true, yet there be no way to find out the truth of this statement?

In other words, if there is a statement for which there is absolutely no evidence, does it follow necessarily, that since there is absolutely no evidence in existence, it is false?

I was recently having a discussion with a fellow who said that *every* true statement had evidence for its truth. Now, I don't have a strong position on the matter either way, but his arguments were mostly equivocating between dictionary terms and his own terms, as well as the both of us using different dictionaries, so I wasn't convinced.

It just struck me as interesting though... Thoughts?

Just use history to answer your question. Go back 1000 years ago and tell the populace that it is possible to create and fly an aircraft (and cross the sea with it). 1000 years ago, there was probably no one on earth that could tell you that your proposition had some evidence to it.

That's just one example. I'm sure there are hundreds you could use to illustrate the point being that a true proposition does not need evidence.

Ironically, we were literally just discussing this two seconds ago...

meaning?

Meaning it was ironic that we were just talking about this, and yourself and I literally brought up the same point.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 4:02:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 2:27:15 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/16/2013 2:11:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Is it possible to have a true proposition for which evidence cannot be shown?

Can I make a statement and it be true, yet there be no way to find out the truth of this statement?

In other words, if there is a statement for which there is absolutely no evidence, does it follow necessarily, that since there is absolutely no evidence in existence, it is false?

I was recently having a discussion with a fellow who said that *every* true statement had evidence for its truth. Now, I don't have a strong position on the matter either way, but his arguments were mostly equivocating between dictionary terms and his own terms, as well as the both of us using different dictionaries, so I wasn't convinced.

It just struck me as interesting though... Thoughts?

1. Hypothesis: The statement, "All true propositions have evidence," is true.
2. Since it is true, we should have evidence for it.
3. We don't have evidence for it.
4. The hypothesis is disproven (reductio ad absurdum).

Conclusion: Not all true propositions have evidence.

I disagree with (3), as there's a tense problem in your logic. Consider the following propositions:

(a) I can prove that there is life in the Andromeda Galaxy.

(b) With sufficient technological advances, I will be able to prove that there is life in the Andromeda Galaxy.

The problem is one of tense. It is subtle and not obvious due to the way the English language works, but hopefully the difference is explicit between (a) and (b). The argument would have to be reformed to:

P1 - All true propositions can be shown to be true via evidence.
P2 - If all true propositions have evidence, then (P1) has evidence.
C1 - Therefore, the proposition "all true propositions have evidence" has evidence.
P3 - C1 has evidence.
C2 - The proposition that "the proposition "all true propositions have evidence" has evidence" has evidence.
etc.

This gets absurd, and of course validates the reductio ad absurdium on its face, as it highlights a case of circular reasoning where the conclusion can only be proven by the premises, yet the premises rely on the conclusion to be true.

However, if we hold that there in fact is evidence for P1, then the whole thing is sound (for C2 does have evidence; C1 and P3. And C1 has evidence; P1 and P2).

I do not think it is conceivable to show that there is evidence for the framework that all true propositions have evidence, though, which causes problems. Perhaps it depends, because I see evidence as being either analytic or synthetic (of a word's meaning, or of a word's relation to the world), which causes problems validating logic on the whole.

If by evidence we mean a posteriori justification then the proposition is clearly disproven by the true statement: "All bachelors are male".

Note: all of the above was a massive ramble :P
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2013 5:33:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 2:11:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Is it possible to have a true proposition for which evidence cannot be shown?

Of course, that"s what an axiom is, it what an a priori truth is. In fact, a strong case can be made that it"s impossible to have a true proposition for which evidence can be shown.

Can I make a statement and it be true, yet there be no way to find out the truth of this statement?

Sure you can, there"s no way to know a lot of things, but you can certainly guess and be correct.

In other words, if there is a statement for which there is absolutely no evidence, does it follow necessarily, that since there is absolutely no evidence in existence, it is false?

Nope, if two people make contradictory statements in a in a two-valued logic with absolutely no evidence, they can"t both be false, one must be true. If the law of the excluded middle applies, then one of the other must be true.

I was recently having a discussion with a fellow who said that *every* true statement had evidence for its truth. Now, I don't have a strong position on the matter either way, but his arguments were mostly equivocating between dictionary terms and his own terms, as well as the both of us using different dictionaries, so I wasn't convinced.

It just struck me as interesting though... Thoughts?

My thought is that this fellow you were having a discussion with had an agenda rather than an argument, and he didn"t have clue what he was talking about. It sounds like he was talking about Evidentialism, which is self-refuting; I"m betting the discussion was about God, that"s when you hear this Evidentialism nonsense all the time.

It's a classic argument from ignorance to maintain that if we can't know either way, that means I'm right and you are wrong, pure illogical nonsense.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2013 11:45:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 2:11:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Is it possible to have a true proposition for which evidence cannot be shown?

Can I make a statement and it be true, yet there be no way to find out the truth of this statement?

In other words, if there is a statement for which there is absolutely no evidence, does it follow necessarily, that since there is absolutely no evidence in existence, it is false?

I was recently having a discussion with a fellow who said that *every* true statement had evidence for its truth. Now, I don't have a strong position on the matter either way, but his arguments were mostly equivocating between dictionary terms and his own terms, as well as the both of us using different dictionaries, so I wasn't convinced.

It just struck me as interesting though... Thoughts?

Truth is a consistency between a proposition and the real state it refers to. The existence of that real state is the evidence of the truth of the proposition. Where that real state does not exist, the proposition is false. Where that real state cannot be accessed, the truth of the proposition is indiscernible.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2013 12:46:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 2:11:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Is it possible to have a true proposition for which evidence cannot be shown?
Can I make a statement and it be true, yet there be no way to find out the truth of this statement?

Coincidentally, yes.

In other words, if there is a statement for which there is absolutely no evidence, does it follow necessarily, that since there is absolutely no evidence in existence, it is false?

There is no evidence for the existence/nonexistence of extraterrestrial life, and both possibilities can't be false. I guess one could argue there is more reason to believe aliens exist than don't exist, but the logic of my argument would hold for your criteria.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2013 9:01:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/17/2013 5:33:37 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/16/2013 2:11:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Is it possible to have a true proposition for which evidence cannot be shown?

Of course, that"s what an axiom is, it what an a priori truth is. In fact, a strong case can be made that it"s impossible to have a true proposition for which evidence can be shown.

Can I make a statement and it be true, yet there be no way to find out the truth of this statement?

Sure you can, there"s no way to know a lot of things, but you can certainly guess and be correct.

In other words, if there is a statement for which there is absolutely no evidence, does it follow necessarily, that since there is absolutely no evidence in existence, it is false?

Nope, if two people make contradictory statements in a in a two-valued logic with absolutely no evidence, they can"t both be false, one must be true. If the law of the excluded middle applies, then one of the other must be true.

I was recently having a discussion with a fellow who said that *every* true statement had evidence for its truth. Now, I don't have a strong position on the matter either way, but his arguments were mostly equivocating between dictionary terms and his own terms, as well as the both of us using different dictionaries, so I wasn't convinced.

It just struck me as interesting though... Thoughts?

My thought is that this fellow you were having a discussion with had an agenda rather than an argument, and he didn"t have clue what he was talking about. It sounds like he was talking about Evidentialism, which is self-refuting; I"m betting the discussion was about God, that"s when you hear this Evidentialism nonsense all the time.

It's a classic argument from ignorance to maintain that if we can't know either way, that means I'm right and you are wrong, pure illogical nonsense.

Oh how did you guess that it was about God? Lol.. Sure enough. He was claiming that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" and I was arguing that this is only the case if there should be evidence present which is definitively not there... So I asked him why, if God exists, there would be evidence of this... And well... because everything which exists has evidence that it exists. Look up the definition of the word "true." It pretty much means "factually" correct, and facts mean that something has been proven to be the case.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:09:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
No
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.