Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?

ave1@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Common descent evolution is said to be a fact. Is a fact something
that has been proven?

Steve
---
Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind?
Chapters 1 and 2 have your answer:
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/Intro.html

Yes, proof is important becuase proof is falsification. But do we need
to wait for proof before we consider something a fact? I argue, no.

I view "Fact" as a tenuous assumption necessary for us to carry out the
application of knowledge. Tenuous in the sense that "facts" are merely
substantiated opinions just as vulnerable to falsification as any other
evidence. "Assumption" in the sense that knowledge can never be known
with absolute certainty lest we forget that in order to have confidence
in the first place genuine knowledge must be subject to falsification!
Thus how well a new theory or a new piece of evidence fits within our
"model of our universe" directly corresponds to the level of confidence
we award it.

When you start demanding proof, what precisely are you demanding?
Clearly, even within the strict boundaries of science, evidence does
not need (nor should it need) to be derived from direct observation.
Laboratory experiments are not necessary in order for us to claim a
high level of confidence when indirect observation and logical
inference will suffice. And the reason that it will suffice is the
reason that I gave above. It is impossible for us as a society (or
even as curious individuals) to ignore the application of knowledge
before all knowledge has been gained. Maybe our knowledge is correct,
or maybe a better theory will come to replace it in the years to come.
But this is the theory that best fits the information we have today.
And at the time which it was successfully applied there was no arguing
that it was a Fact.

Scientifically I think we would like to avoid sweeping generalizations
regarding individual pieces of evidence. But despite the explosion of
progress over the past 200 years our knolwedge still advances too
slowly for us not to risk broad assumptions.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... >>> is not to say that I believe that there is an inherent meaning in life. ... Matter is not an entity with a mind. ... >> overwhelmingly hostile universe. ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Lets get this straight - Mudbrain is a moron.
    ... Ah, right, you don't depend on evidence, you insist that we depend on ... A universe is born entirely thru natural processes (from previous ... probably many, planets led to life. ... there was no matter to start with - it was all energy. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Can the Special Theory of Relativity be "explained"
    ... Nature such as Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity might be implied. ... Just don't think there is a fixed matter, ... spacetime can expand and even how the entire universe can ... creation is caused by a mind. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Stack Overflow
    ... Let's say we try to understand the mind. ... imagine a universe full of people, who have minds, etc, etc. ... maybe our understanding of matter is incomplete? ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Stack Overflow
    ... Let's say we try to understand the mind. ... imagine a universe full of people, who have minds, etc, etc. ... maybe our understanding of matter is incomplete? ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading