From: stumper 

Ray Fischer wrote:
> stumper   wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> stumper   wrote:
>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>> stumper   wrote:
>>>>>> Geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>> Do you know what is society?
>>>>>>>> Can you prove its existence?
>>>>>>> The existence of society is manifest. Once
again, proof is for
mathematics
>>>>>>> and moonshiners. Sorry you can't get that
through your dense skull. You
>>>>>>> probably have difficulty with the middle three
activities I mentioned
above.
>>>>>> Actually you are using a private language.
>>>>> Actually you are in idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are not writing a private journal here.
>>>>>> You need to figure out the usage other people are using.
>>>>> YOu need to stop babbling childish nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>>> When in doubt, just Google "scientific proof."
>>>>>> It gets 828,000 hits.
>>>>> And "alien abduction" gets over a million.
>>>> Are you saying that such phenomena do not exist?
>>> Yep.  There is no evidence that alien abduction actually exists.
>>>
>>>> You have lost this argument long time ago.
>>>> Get over it soon.
>>> You really are quite the arrogant idiot.
>>>
>>>> proof (SHOWING TRUTH)
>>>> noun [C or U]
>>>> a fact or piece of information which shows that something
exists or is
true:
>>>> http://dictionary.cambridge.org
>>>     "Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary"
>>>
>>>     "We publish dictionaries for people learning English
all over the
>>>     world."
>>>
>>>> Do you speak English?
>>> Better than you.  I don't need a learner's dictionary.
>>>
>>> Here's a better definition.  I'm not going to give the defintion from
>>> the OED because I don't feel like typing it in, so this one will have
>>> to suffice.
>>>
>>>     Function:       noun
>>>     Etymology:      Middle English prof, prove, alteration of
preve, from
>>>     Anglo-French preove, from Late Latin proba, from Latin probare to
>>>     prove -- more at PROVE
>>>     1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind
>>>     of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of
>>>     establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation
>>>     from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
>>>     2 obsolete : EXPERIENCE
>>>     3 : something that induces certainty or establishes validity
>>>     4 archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried;
>>>     especially : unyielding hardness
>>>     5 : evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a
>>>     tribunal
>>>     6 a plural proofs or proof : a copy (as of typeset text) made for
>>>     examination or correction b : a test impression of an engraving,
>>>     etching, or lithograph c : a coin that is struck from a highly
>>>     polished die on a polished planchet, is not intended for
>>>     circulation, and sometimes differs in metallic content from coins
>>>     of identical design struck for circulation d : a test photographic
>>>     print made from a negative
>>>     7 : a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether
>>>     they are of standard or satisfactory quality
>>>     8 a : the minimum alcoholic strength of proof spirit b : strength
>>>     with reference to the standard for proof spirit; specifically :
>>>     alcoholic strength indicated by a number that is twice the percent
>>>     by volume of alcohol present >>     alcohol>
>>>
>>> You're trying to apply definition 1b to the fields of science where it
>>> clearly doesn't apply because science depends upon EVIDENCE while your
>>> notion of proof depends upon reason.  Not even 1a applies because
>>> science is always looking for alternate or better explanations for
>>> observed phenomena.
>> Even though it was decades ago,
>> I majored in the philosophy of science
>
> Quelle surprise!
>
>> in the best university of the country, dear.
>
> And I have an BS and and MS, the latter from a better university.
> And still you debate like a college sophomore.
>
>> Your private usage means nothing to me.
>
> Now you're lying.  I didn't provide a "private" usage.
>
>>>> Can science prove that the earth exists?
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>> Can science prove that the universe exists?
>>> Nope.
>> Do you believe the universe exists?
>
> Irrelevant.
>


Philosophy is not science, dear.
Get over it soon.

--
~Stumper

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag