From: stumper 

Ray Fischer wrote:
> stumper   wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It's not as useful and it has the effect of convincing morons that
> they might have some ability to think.
>

Philosophy is necessary to put mad scientists in their proper position of ignorance.

--
~Stumper

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag