Yes, I think it's fair to say that the whole thing reduces down to our uncontrollable, still-increasing, consumption. :scream:

what's more certain is that man is responsible for the destruction of the ecosystem regardless of global warming, and we continue destroying it while everyone is getting alarmed over global warming. — leo

In this case, divide-and-conquer is a recipe for disaster. All human damage to our environment is connected, and mainly down to the burning of fossil fuels and other pollution. We need to address it all, not neglect one thing (global warming) in favour of another (e.g. plastic pollution). All of them will kill us, but perhaps global warming will do it the fastest? :chin:

many of the people who criticize man-made global warming or the theory of evolution are not ignorant and that the evidence is not overwhelming, it's rather the people pushing them who are overwhelming :wink: — leo

Those who have investigated the matter, as thoroughly as human scientists are able, are convinced that global warming is real, is happening, and is the direct result of human activity (i.e. burning fossil fuels). 99% of scientists agree with this. Proof it ain't, but convincing? Yes, it is.

The ("overwhelming") people who are pushing are frightened. They see it's almost too late for our species. So they push those who don't seem to want to help; those who don't seem to care. :chin:

This isn't a matter for objective certainty, and nothing less will do, because the consequences are so serious. A mere 99% convincing-rate among scientists should be enough for us all to think very carefully about what to do, and then do it.

I am trying to understand thinking behind Plato's reasoning. — Sameer

Then I think you should consider the possibility that Plato was one of those poor unfortunates that think beauty is an objective attribute that inheres in every object*. Myself, I favour the notion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as @Terrapin Station says.

* - This is speculation on my part. Does anyone understand this stuff well enough to say whether Plato is an advocate of objective beauty?

I think you should consider the possibility that Plato was mistaken, and would've done better if he'd talked to you first? :up:

You appeared to be saying this problem is specific to negatives. — AJJ

I started off thinking it was, but it isn't. Nevertheless the old saying - you can't prove a negative - still stands. It's just that other things also can't be proven, for similar reasons. :up:

But then there doesn’t appear to be anything about negatives qua negatives that makes them impossible to prove — AJJ

Well, this would seem to apply (only) to negatives with unconstrained contexts. Specifically, it applies to statements for which empirical verification (or falsification) is impossible in practice (even if it might be possible in principle).

Interesting.

You acknowledged that all of science does not show this property. — Coben

I remember acknowledging that proof is often difficult to achieve in practice. But the problem, I think, is not positives or negatives but "proof".

If we (briefly) consider "objective", we get absolute and dilute meanings, and people say it meaning it in its absolute version ("corresponding to that which actually is"), but - eventually, after interminable discussion - admit that only the dilute version ("impartial; unbiased") actually applies. [Correct use of the absolute meaning is much more difficult to justify.]

"Proof" is easier, as its definition holds it close to its absolute meaning: an unambiguous demonstration of the correctness of something. And this is very difficult to achieve, it seems to me. :chin:

Well, let's find out together. — Coben

:up: Works for me. :smile:

“The cat is not on the mat” - why is that statement impossible to prove? — AJJ

I don't think it is ... because it is clarified and focussed by the context you provide. "The mat" is a small thing, small enough to be examined in sufficient detail that we can positively confirm the absence of a cat on the mat. A (much) bigger mat would make proof much more difficult. An even less constrained description might render it impossible.

And the general point is that both positive and negative statements cannot be proved. So to keep saying negative statements cannot be proved implies something specific about negative statements. — Coben

There is something specific about negatives: it is impractical (as in 'impossible in practice') to prove them. That some positives also show this property does not affect the truth of this, does it?

The specific thing about negatives is that they are framed in such a way that proof becomes impossible because of the way they're framed. This only applies to some positives, I think?

in philosophical discussions the lack of clarity leads to much semantic wrangling — Marchesk

Yes, semantic misunderstandings are common, and I think the reasons for this are obvious. ( :chin: ) But there is also the paralysing effect of people holding up the discussion by demanding definitions, sometimes of the most commonly-used and -understood terms. I think there is room for a middle-path compromise here? :chin:

Maybe they started calling them "laws" as a metaphor because they thought they were established by God. — T Clark

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. Plausible too.... :chin:

:up:

natural laws operate the universe — BrianW

I think the natural 'laws' simply describe the universe. The universe operates without the need for outside help. It just does it. Only if the universe changes can these natural 'laws' change. For the universe is the master, and the 'laws' merely description (of the master, or some aspect thereof).

Can I say there are no swans without fur instead of feathers? — Coben

We could begin by telling the absolute truth, as we understand it, and see where we can go from there?

We have never seen or heard of a swan with fur, so we believe there are no furry swans.

There, a belief and its justification, simply presented. No claims to proof. :up:

So what's with the negative? — Coben

you still can't prove a negative. Just like you can't prove some positives. :up: — Pattern-chaser

===============================================

Which is a negative claim and thus unprovable. yet, you seemed to intend to prove it. — Coben

No, I stated it without proof, as proof is impossible. Where there can be no proof, we can only trade (what we think are) possibilities, n'est ce pas? :wink:

So what are these positives that we can prove? — Coben

Well, if we take "prove" to be more or less absolute in its meaning, then I suspect there's nothing we can prove. And if we dilute its meaning to avoid this problem, what we are left with is 'proof' that is sort of probable or likely, rather than, er, proof.

Well, the verb 'is' eliminates the time jumping. — Coben

OK, so to prove that "no swan is black", you would need to examine all currently-living swans. No matter where they're hiding. Impossible, in practice (which is all that matters). It can't be done, in the real world we live in.

Each time you focus on the negative, it seems to me you think it has a special problem. — Coben

No...

But again 1) all swans are white is the positive formulation of that and has exactly the same problems. — Coben

...yes, it does. But you still can't prove a negative. Just like you can't prove some positives. :up:

No bachelors are married. — Coben

The proof here refers to the definition of the term "bachelor", which is "unmarried male". Thus it is disproved by definition, which is a somewhat trivial case, don't you think? :razz:

That's just what your gut tells you. :razz: — Coben

To prove that "no swan is black", you would need to examine all currently-living swans, all swans that have lived in the past, and (if you want to be properly thorough) all swans that will ever live in the future. Impossible. You can't prove a negative. — Pattern-chaser

To prove that "no swan is black", you would need to examine all currently-living swans, all swans that have lived in the past, and (if you want to be properly thorough) all swans that will ever live in the future. Impossible. You can't prove a negative.

...so your conclusion is?

[Mine is that debating proof is almost certainly a waste of time.]

[Edited to add: and you can't prove a negative.]

Then perhaps we might try the reasonable interchange of ideas? :razz:

The scientific method is metaphysics. — T Clark

Whatever it is, it isn't metaphysics!

For example, all of science is not proved... — Coben

Exactly. So why this focus on proof? There is rarely proof of anything, especially when such a proof would prove ( :wink: ) useful! :wink:

What's to stop anyone from effectively arbitrarily saying that something is or isn't an explanation in that case? — Terrapin Station

Awkwardness?

it is possible to prove a negative. At least in the sense of proof outside of math and symbolic logic. — Coben

And what sense would that be? :chin:

And a lot of positive assertions can be transformed into negative formulations. — Coben

Yes, but so what?

The grammatical interpretation is that induction is defined directly in terms of observed repetition. In which case, 'induction is habit' is a deflationist assertion, i.e an analytic a priori definition of induction without empirical implications... — sime

Induction is saying "That swan is white, therefore all swans are white", isn't it? How much more complicated must we get?

[It] is perfectly possible to prove a negative — Filipe

No, it isn't.

I think that we can prove that there exists a timeless Power maintaining the universe in being. — Dfpolis

And I think there is very little we can prove if you mean "prove" in a scientific sort of way? I'm pretty sure we can't prove what you said above, though.

However, I was reminded of it when trying to think of what explanation means, and not having a good answer come to mind without consulting a dictionary. Or at least, not one which didn't lead to murky waters. — Marchesk

Yes, too much reliance on definition can do that to you. Not everything can be precisely defined. ... Not everything should be precisely defined.

Some things are intrinsically vague. Or at least the terms we use to describe them are. We all know well enough what an explanation is. There is no need to be more precise than this:

One conventional dictionary definition of "explanation" is "a statement or account that makes something clear." — Terrapin Station

Isn't that more than sufficient for our needs? If not, what does it lack? :chin:

You just repeated what I said, but phrased it as though you were disagreeing. :chin:

There are 'laws', as you say, that we invent, and we get punished if we break them. And there are 'natural laws' that describe how the universe works, according to our understanding of it, of course! These are opposites. The first type of laws bind us to behave in a particular way. The second type of law is bound by the universe, and if the universe should change, the laws must change to reflect it. Be careful not to confuse the two, or misunderstanding is sure to result! :wink:

What about a snow flake? — Razorback kitten

Just the same as for atoms:

Atoms just are. — Noah Te Stroete

[My underlining.]

Of course there is an objective definition of perfection - it just depends on what you mean. — tim wood

So you're fine with the concept of "something perfectly imperfect", and yet you think there's an objective definition of "perfection"? Does that make sense? :chin:

That's how many (most?) English words work. — Pattern-chaser

And English - all languages I reckon - is a creature that can chase its own tail and if not careful, bite hard (to their great surprise, if they're kittens or puppies). Simple example: something perfectly imperfect. The perfection of an imperfection. — tim wood

OK, but how does that relate to whether there is "an objective definition of perfection"? :chin:

So, is there really an objective definition of perfection or could this word be used in different contexts with different meanings? — Patulia

The problem with that is, according to Hume, there's no reason to think that induction, or any other rules of thumb, would be better, for example, than consulting a psychic, or any other attempt to predict the future. — Purple Pond

I can't really disagree with that. Deduction is the ideal-world tool, but cannot always be correctly applied. The obvious example of this is when there is simply insufficient evidence to derive the things we're after. So, if deduction can't be used, we look for alternatives. Because we have no real choice. And induction is one of those alternatives. But deduction it ain't, and it does not carry with it the authority of deduction, any more than Occam's Razor does. But I agree with Hume on the difficulty of rating the efficacy of these lesser alternatives to deduction. I believe it to be next to impossible. So what do we do? We guess, as we always do. :blush:

I suggest you think about the 'meaning' of that one key word ...'context'.
You might find that discussion of 'meaning' without that is as vacuous as trying to play tennis with no tennis court and no other player. — fresco

Yes, of course, but this is a more or less universal truism; it's not confined to this discussion of "meaning". I said as much, and more.

As a designer, I was always a little bit annoyed by the word "design", and how it meant quite a few different things ... but those things were closer in meaning to each other than the easy ones we just mentioned. So they cannot always be distinguished from context. — Pattern-chaser

My point is that there are some words whose meanings are closer together than the easier examples, and that, for this reason, it is much more difficult to distinguish them purely from context. Words like "mean", "good" and "quality", to offer but three good examples.

Thoughts? :chin:

So, is there really an objective definition of perfection or could this word be used in different contexts with different meanings? — Patulia

The latter, definitely. :up: That's how many (most?) English words work.

I want to try this again. What does "meaning" mean?

Meaning is a mental relationship, connection between a phenomenon (the referent I guess) and a symbol or symbols such that the symbols represent the referent, e.g. the meaning/definition of a word.
Meaning is a mental relationship, connection between a system of related symbols and a system of related phenomena such that the symbols represent the phenomena, e.g. the meaning of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity. This is a bit clunky. Needs work.
Meaning is used metaphorically to refer to a mental connection between two phenomena which is similar to the connection between a symbol and a referent, e.g. the meaning of life. Clunky too. — T Clark

There are many words that carry multiple meanings. Many of these carry meanings that can be distinguished easily from the context in which they are used. And some don't; these are the difficult ones. As a designer, I was always a little bit annoyed by the word "design", and how it meant quite a few different things ... but those things were closer in meaning to each other than the easy ones we just mentioned. So they cannot always be distinguished from context.

I think quality (cf. Pirsig's Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance), and good, are (examples of) such words. The multiple meanings they carry are too close together to separate easily. Maybe this is what gives rise to confusion? These words carry all of the meanings they carry, often simultaneously (or so it seems). So when it comes to defining these terms precisely, we encounter problems.

Thoughts? :chin:

I guess an alternative is to do nothing and wait for the uniformity of nature to cease. — Purple Pond

I'm not quite sure how this corresponds to what I said. :chin: What's the point you're making?

We're just back to what does "mean" mean. — T Clark

I think we all know what it means. ... But describing and defining it in words, with any sort of precision? Not so easy. And yet it remains the case that we all know what "mean" means. You see? :wink: