Or did he not prove the 'I' exist part? — Kranky
In any area of mathematics defined by its assumptions or axioms, a proof is an argument establishing a theorem of that area via accepted rules of inference starting from those axioms and from other previously established theorems.[7] — Wikipedia on the term 'proof'
According to proof theory, Descartes' views do not constitute "proof" in any fashion:
In any area of mathematics defined by its assumptions or axioms, a proof is an argument establishing a theorem of that area via accepted rules of inference starting from those axioms and from other previously established theorems. — alcontali
Or did he not prove the 'I' exist part? — Kranky
Rene's conclusions about the status of the Cogito are the product of a mind limited to a seventeenth-century perspective — Pantagruel
This applies to math, don't it? Yet you said in "any fashion". — god must be atheist
Your dispute is invalid, because you quoted a restrctive definition for math proofs, and you mistakenly and arbitrarily, but at any rate invalidly applied this criteria of proof to apply to all other proofs. This is invalid extension of the restrictions and of the necessities for a valid proof in other areas of human thought but math. — god must be atheist
A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition. — Wikipedia on proof
There are two senses of "proof". In math, a proof is deductive reasoning with no room for error (when performed correctly). In a courtroom or a laboratory, proof is just strong evidence, which could be wrong or misleading. — Is the notion of proof meaningless outside of mathematics?
You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility. — Scientific Proof Is A Myth
Or did he not prove the 'I' exist part? — Kranky
The use of the term "proof" outside the context of mathematical proof is wrong and misleading, because the mere evidence itself could be wrong or misleading. Such evidence is never sufficient for the truth of a proposition, and therefore, does not satisfy the definition mentioned above for the term "proof". — alcontali
What about
"The earth is flat.
Yet I can circumnavigate the earth going in one direction constantly, and arriving at the same spot as from where I started.
Therefore the earth is not flat."
Do you think this is an invalid proof that the Earth is not flat? — god must be atheist
It is an absolutely true proposition, to the person who thinks. When you say to me "I think", I'm not convinced. But when I think, I know I am thinking. Please try to understand that part. Once you got that part, then consider that if I think, then somebody has to be doing the thinking. Could it be somebody else doing the thinking? I hardly think so. I can't mistake my thinking to be done by someone else. Therefore the person who thinks is I. I am doing the thinking. And as long as I am thinking, I can be sure I exist. I really can't convince you, can I. — god must be atheist
I claimed the following things as premises:
1. I am thinking. Is this wrong to claim it, for myself to believe it? I accept that for you it's possible to be false, but to me, it's not false.
2. If I think, I can't not exist.
Which of the two, from MY point of view, can potentially be false or misleading? — god must be atheist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.