Staky, this thread is for you--Law of multiple arguments

[Guest]

Please discuss this law:

If any proposition is true, it can be validated in many ways.

Corollary:
If any proposition is false, it can be proven false through multiple arguments.

Has any philosopher already stated this law of logic in a more cogent fashion?

[_Quasimodo]

Hey MCB,

This was not as difficult a question in the past as it is today (only my opinion).

Socrates may have been the first to go into this in depth (as per Plato), but we know so much more now (at least we think we do). Truth (or truthiness, for Sarah Palin) is still easier to prove than falseness (the old saying that you can't prove a negative) because finding a single instance of some proposition will often be enough (though not always) to prove it true.

However, finding multiple instances of falseness doesn't preclude something that you aren't aware of proving it true (but not always).

It becomes a real can of worms when you start adding quantum theory in to the mix. An example: My coffee table is solid matter. I can see that it is and I can rap my knuckles on it and feel that it is. The trouble is that matter is made of atoms, which in turn are made of spinning energy (not really solid at all).

If you ad to that the theory that noting happens, can be measured or is truly real until it's observed, it's almost a pointless question.

Sorry, I just reread this and realized that I have been no help to you at all.

[_TAO]

Please discuss this law:

If any proposition is true, it can be validated in many ways.

This law is incorrect, it is assuming there is multiple ways to validate an argument. This cannot be assumed for all statements (no I don't have an example, but I'm sure one could be made).

EDIT: I suppose I could use my colliding black holes example.

There's only one way to determine if black holes truly exist - that's if they collide and release a unique gravity wave signature.

[_Quasimodo]

EDIT: I suppose I could use my colliding black holes example.

There's only one way to determine if black holes truly exist - that's if they collide and release a unique gravity wave signature.

Forgive me if I'm splitting hairs, but I do beleve that science has proved the exixtence of black holes.

Just one of many articles on the web:

Astronomers have found convincing evidence for a supermassive black hole in the center of the giant elliptical galaxy M87, as well as in several other galaxies. The discovery is based on velocity measurements of a whirlpool of hot gas orbiting the black hole. In 1994, Hubble Space Telescope data produced an unprecedented measurement of the mass of an unseen object at the center of M87. Based on the kinetic energy of the material whirling about the center (as in Wheeler's dance, see Question 4 above), the object is about 3 billion times the mass of our Sun and appears to be concentrated into a space smaller than our solar system.

For many years x-ray emission from the double-star system Cygnus X-1 convinced many astronomers that the system contains a black hole. With more precise measurements available recently, the evidence for a black hole in Cygnus X-1 is very strong.

Maybe a different example?

[_MCB]

However, finding multiple instances of falseness doesn't preclude something that you aren't aware of proving it true (but not always).

As a hypothetical example, if you wish to prove the proposition that "The Book of Mormon is a product of the early nineteenth century," and you can prove it many multiple ways, is that proposition, then, true? Of course, with the important caveat, unless one can come up with gold plates containing the same charachters submitted to Charles Anthon.

[_TAO]

Forgive me if I'm splitting hairs, but I do beleve that science has proved the exixtence of black holes.

Just one of many articles on the web:

Maybe a different example?

Uh Quasi, that's strong evidence - but it isn't absolute... it ends up being about 98-99% chance ratio if I remember right. However, there is still a very small possibility of another type of object causing a black-hole like effect. The only absolute way to determine black holes is by listening using gravity wave detectors for a specific signature unique to colliding black holes.

If you do a Google search for 'absolute proof for black holes', it'll come up with some good sites - although they won't mention the gravity waves detector, I had to do some advance reading for that.

by the way, the gravity wave detector they are currently using is at CalTech, I believe.

[_TAO]

As a hypothetical example, if you wish to prove the proposition that "The Book of Mormon is a product of the early nineteenth century," and you can prove it many multiple ways, is that proposition, then, true?

No, this wouldn't be correct either (not to mention that it is nearly impossible to 'prove' history, as it is not based on math - there is only high probability). For example, in math, there was a certain proof I saw once which showed that 0 was equal to 1 (it used imaginary numbers). This isn't very correct of course, though I could devise multiple ways to show the proof (of course, I don't remember how to do it exactly at this point).

Of course, with the important caveat, unless one can come up with gold plates containing the same charachters submitted to Charles Anthon.

As said, proving history is kinda futile. How do we know that George Washington was the one who crossed the Delaware River, and that he wasn't some other general that looked preciesly like him? We don't. There is just a very high likeliness of it being not the case. But it's still not proof, it's only high-likeliness. Proof only exists in math, that it does, and unless you are using math, you cannot 'prove' something. You can only make another person give up their alternatives. If you cannot make the other person does not give up their alternatives, your points don't really help much.

[_Quasimodo]

However, finding multiple instances of falseness doesn't preclude something that you aren't aware of proving it true (but not always).

As a hypothetical example, if you wish to prove the proposition that "The Book of Mormon is a product of the early nineteenth century," and you can prove it many multiple ways, is that proposition, then, true? Of course, with the important caveat, unless one can come up with gold plates containing the same charachters submitted to Charles Anthon.

For me, that's an excellent example! :). The way that science works (I love this) is that nothing is true without verifiable proof of some sort (note that science is often couched in the term "theory").

Clearly, the Book of Mormon was published in the early nineteenth century (a truth). The question is, was it the result of fabrication or of translating ancient texts? Since there is not a single verifiable proof that it was a translation from the ancient (let alone multiple proofs) one has to assume that it was a fabrication. If you add to that the "less than reputable" nature of the author and the total lack of evidence that there existed, in the new world, a semitic civilization, good science demands that you proclaim it NOT TRUE.

Proclaiming it false is a little trickier (although, since you've already established that there is no proof that it is true, you can assume that it's not). To verify something is false, you must preclude any chance that evidence will someday prove it true. A hard thing to do. All you can do is say that it probably isn't true.

I know, it's a little confusing.

[_MCB]

Well, lets wait until Staky gets here, and see what he says.

[_moksha]

Has any philosopher already stated this law of logic [multiple arguments] in a more cogent fashion?

Yes, Apologetics Law #2: Use denial, personal attack and obfuscation all in the same post.