Grassblade wrote:
> Ah, the magic of statistics. :-D If it's statistically proven, then you can be
> confident it isn't proven.

Define "proven" then.

I'm pretty sure we've proven the sun comes up reliably every day, and 
that the phases of the moon repeat about once every 4 weeks. If God gave 
proof at that level, I don't think I'd question his existence.

> You seem to be a knowledgeable fellow, surely you know that in logic the
> conclusion is already present in the premises.

In some sense, yes. That's the logical sense of "proven".

> You can't compare that to
> empirical validation, which typically resorts to statistics and therefore makes
> for a qualitatively different statement. 

Exactly. I'm not sure why you're explaining this to me. That's why I 
make the distinction between rational, logical, and scientific.

> In statistics you give up certainty to
> get (possibly) greater insight through inference. It makes no sense to claim
> that you can prove a negative with statistics.

Sure it does. If you can "prove" a positive statement with statistics, 
you can prove a negative statement in the same way.

"This drug cures cancer."
"This drug does *not* fail to cure cancer."

These aren't quite the same statement statistically speaking, I know, 
but it makes the point.

>>> and it's that faith in the impossible not happening
>>> that provides them with the comfort of their beliefs.

>> I have a great deal of faith that the impossible won't happen.

> I guess that begs the question: define "impossible".

Define "proof" first. Or God. Or Faith. Why am I the first person who 
has to nail down exactly what I mean by everyday words?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message