Oh my, looks like Chinese to me...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

I will stand by my belief that anyone smart enough to get here from somewhere else in this galaxy is either smart enough to stay well away from us or will have hostile intentions. Knowing what I know about human nature it would totally surprise me if we get a visit from friendly aliens any time soon. It just wouldn't be the smart thing to do.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

You cannot prove that something doesn't exist, A single example will, conversely, prove that it does exist.

So, yes, people, please, keep telling me you cannot prove a negative.

In the abstract world of mathematics, it is quite possible to show proof, prove a negative, and have absolute proofs. This isn't always reflective of reality, however.

You can prove a negative using a system of deductive reasoning. A collection of entities and operations is defined (via axioms), and from those definitions, other conclusions are derived.

It is inevitable that there will be true things in that system that cannot be proven. Also, anything that is proven is true under the rules of the system.

Science does not use deduction. It uses induction. We do not know what system of logic, if any, can be used to derive all known properties of the universe. (And even if we did, thanks to the Incompleteness Theorem, there would *still* be true things we couldn't prove.)

We do not know the axioms of the universe. Induction is a way to use observations rather than derivations to conclude things about the system. Assuming that all things cannot be observed, observation cannot prove general statements. Fortunately for science, the complementary operation, disproving general statements, does not need a exhaustively complete set of observations, it only needs one.

You can prove a negative using a system of deductive reasoning. A collection of entities and operations is defined (via axioms), and from those definitions, other conclusions are derived.

It is inevitable that there will be true things in that system that cannot be proven. Also, anything that is proven is true under the rules of the system.

Science does not use deduction. It uses induction. We do not know what system of logic, if any, can be used to derive all known properties of the universe. (And even if we did, thanks to the Incompleteness Theorem, there would *still* be true things we couldn't prove.)

We do not know the axioms of the universe. Induction is a way to use observations rather than derivations to conclude things about the system. Assuming that all things cannot be observed, observation cannot prove general statements. Fortunately for science, the complementary operation, disproving general statements, does not need a exhaustively complete set of observations, it only needs one.

Thank you, cov_route. You've echoed statements I've made here 6 and 7 years ago.

Unfortunately, these are the types of responses received:

1) Looks like Chinese to me. (No effort to find out a little about it?)
2) You don't know what you're talking about.
3) Extremists at either end cherry picking what they need from statements like these and slamming the contest (and poster of the content) for the rest they don't want.
(A) Primary in this is, as you said, that science uses inductive reasoning, thus does not "prove" in the way we do proofs in mathematics. Once again, we have people of mathematical/scientific background making claims they should know better than to make or science enthusiasts who act as if certain things in science have been 100% "proved".
The extremists at the other end, somehow sensing/knowing that in science we do not have the type of proof in mathematics, try to use this against science. What they do not understand, apparently, in some cases it is not just replication of a study in one area that makes a point, but also evidence from multiple areas/lines of reasoning. Take climate change, whether it is real and whether humanity has been a significant contributor since the Industrial Revolution. Scientists haven't just been looking at temperatures, but also things such as changes in migration patterns, etc. ... . When there are multiple lines of evidence/reasoning, it is not just a strong case being made, but a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very strong case being made. A 10% probability of being wrong goes down to 5%, to 1%, to below 1%. There can still be a mistake, but the chance of that has been reduced enormously.
4) Now a new response. Yes, of course proof in mathematics is different than elsewhere. I've pointed out it several times. But, to completely separate mathematics from "reality" is folly. If you want our practical results, you are bound by the axiomatic reasoning that produced them.

No wonder extended breaks from this place are necessary.

Good post.

---

If you want our practical results, you are bound by the axiomatic reasoning that produced them.

No wonder extended breaks from this place are necessary.

Yes, People Do Need Breaks from Forums. To Actually Do Something. You Know, USE THE SCIENCE to Create, Manufacture, Build Something. Maybe Use Hands, Body, To Sweat.

Must Be What You Are Doing. Has to be.

Btw. Thanks For The Use of YOUR Practical Results. Appreciate It Broheim.

Now, Pay The Toll.

fO shO thO

'it' Prove it.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

There are actually three types of reasoning: Inductive, deductive and adductive. Adductive reasoning is what you see in Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. Our system of Mathematics is based on Axiomatic logic; specifically the Zermelo/Frankel axiomatic system with choice.

In logic you can actually prove things without using the deduction theorem but it is a long way around the block.

If you accept the premises of a logical statement then you must accept the conclusion. This truism is blatantly absent in most of the contentious discussions here on the Seti-boards. People can agree by looking around that a certain premise is a fact; and yet, they won't accept the conclusions or implications that follow from logic or clear thinking.

4) Now a new response. Yes, of course proof in mathematics is different than elsewhere. I've pointed out it several times. But, to completely separate mathematics from "reality" is folly. If you want our practical results, you are bound by the axiomatic reasoning that produced them.

Agreed, mathematics is intricately part of our reality, even if mathematical results are always not reflective of reality.

No wonder extended breaks from this place are necessary.

Welcome back Sarge. Hopefully you'll be less cranky for at least a little while?

What causes all the trouble, are the people that do believe in them getting all uptight about people that don't, and trying to browbeat them down to their point of view. Substitute God for UFO, and you have a similar problem.

The main thing is to respect each others opinions and beliefs I'd say...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

You can't compare humanities with science. It's studies are on a totally different level. Beliefs can't be proven scientifically, UFO's and the study of alien life forms on the other hand could scientifically be refuted one day...

Humanities is a science...why not?

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

According to wiki the humanities is an academic discipline referred to as a social science, not an empirical science like biology, chemistry or physics.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

You can't compare humanities with science. It's studies are on a totally different level. Beliefs can't be proven scientifically, UFO's and the study of alien life forms on the other hand could scientifically be refuted one day...

Humanities is a science...why not?

World English Dictionary
humanity (hjuːˈmænɪtɪ)

— n , pl -ties
1. the human race
2. the quality of being human
3. kindness or mercy
4. ( plural ) the humanities the study of literature, philosophy, and the arts
5. the study of Ancient Greek and Roman language, literature, etc

---

Then I'd reckon math isn't a science either? Humanities uses math as part of their science. I'll compare humanities with science and correctly so.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

tangible really?

tan·gi·ble
/ˈtanjəbəl/Adjective
Perceptible by touch.


Noun
A thing that is perceptible by touch.


Synonyms
palpable - concrete - touchable - real - tactile

hardly

Did you happen to note my photo of Bush? By touch....., ...and a photo, and 10 or so people to back it up. The word fits correctly.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

The reason that UFO's are being observed and sometimes recorded is that we are supposed to believe or assume that there are other things going on that we otherwise think is happening.

Or maybe the reason is that we are not getting the whole picture of nature.

In many instances repors of UFO's (or Unidentified Flying Objects) are not being trusted or believed. In more recent times apparently skepticism has apparently diminished and is now being replaced by a general belief that these mysterious objects are in fact real.

But we apparently are not detecting any radio signal from these objects. We are only trying to detect an intelligent signal coming from another star system in space.

I thought that I saw a U.F.O., but then I realised that it was only I.D. :-(

Cheers.

More direct evidence for Intelligent Design the for UFO's. It's just a fact. Yet you place blind faith in UFO's. WoW!

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

More direct evidence for Intelligent Design the for UFO's. It's just a fact. Yet you place blind faith in UFO's. WoW!

If it is unidentified and you think it flies you say it must be evidence for intelligent design. That somehow must make sense to you.

---

More direct evidence for Intelligent Design the for UFO's. It's just a fact. Yet you place blind faith in UFO's. WoW!

If it is unidentified and you think it flies you say it must be evidence for intelligent design. That somehow must make sense to you.

This post is too conflicted to make sense of. Wanna try again?

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...