Anything that requires experience to prove is not objectively true, and cannot be proven to be so.

Author: Intelligence_06 ,

Posts

Total: 33
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,645
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
--> @zedvictor4
I doubt therefore I am.  

He should doubt that he has the ability to doubt.  He proves himself wrong. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,645
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
--> @Intelligence_06
Our science and morality is built upon one "fact": That experience matters, and that what you see is true. That simply isn't true, as we cannot prove anything based on experience: How do we know that invisible aliens aren't pushing all these objects to create the illusion of Gravity? We do not know. Even though the current physics may not be "true", it is plausible, or that we think it is true, or that it is subjectively true. There is nothing preventing someone with what we call schizophrenia to actually see objects "with mass" to float upwards without seemingly any force exerted on it. In fact, we cannot conclude that those ones with schizophrenia are seeing the real world as it is, and we just have the same symptom of schizophrenia. How do we determine normal vision and abnormal vision? By social categorization, or what we "think" is right versus what we think isn't. Even how we see the world cannot be proven to be true, let alone speculation based on it.

You cannot prove that the next time you push a shopping cart "forward" and nothing else, it won't push back at you and smash you to the walls. You cannot prove that the next time an apple grows ripe, it won't fall endlessly to the sky. Even though we tend to believe our experiences and more often times than not, you see the objects behave exactly like how the old people tell you through the physic textbook that they are going to behave, it is through YOUR vision. You can only prove that this time it worked, subjectively, but never that it WILL work next time, objectively.

Objective truth based on experience is equal to nonsense because objective experience is impossible and experience is not objective. Anything we consider true, based on experience, are, at most, subjective truths.
This is an excellent topic.  

I would disagree though with your first statement.  Science is not built on experience. It is built on a premise. A premise which is inconsistent with current scientific thought. This presumption is that logic is true.  How does one prove logic is correct? By further logic or by experience.  Nevertheless, why should experience be able to prove logic or reason? What makes something repeatable - a proof?  Just because I repeat something over and over again - doesn't suddenly make it true.  Unicorns are true. Unicorns are true. Unicorns are true.  Even if I repeat that ad finitem, does not make it true. 

It is interesting watching advocates of different positions here. Reason v Experience.  Where is the pragmatist who says  - who cares about this reasoning, let's just see what works to discover what works?

Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,200
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
--> @Intelligence_06
You cannot prove that the next time you push a shopping cart "forward" and nothing else, it won't push back at you and smash you to the walls. You cannot prove that the next time an apple grows ripe, it won't fall endlessly to the sky.
Why do you need to be absolutely certain about something in order to consider it proven?

And the objective truth of a proposition is in no way impacted whether it was proven or not, so your title is false.

ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,733
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
--> @Intelligence_06
... You cannot prove that the next time you push a shopping cart "forward" and nothing else, ....

All seeming pushing phenomena of our finite Universe, is a resultant of pulling-inward phenomena.

The cart is pushed for one or two reasons;

1} our body weight leans into ergo gravity pulls inward on the mass of body,

2} whenever we push, lift etc for ex in 60's we see strong man pulls ---pulls toward himself--   a train box-car with his hands, teeth whatever, this is a resultant of his muscles { myosin } contracting inward i. the brain only sends one kind of signal to the brain, and that is for the muscle { myosin } to contract. Once that signal stops, the muscle just relaxes ergo resultant is to expand outward to its at rest positioning,

3} all thoughts { concepts } are resultant of experience ex I think about something { occupied space something } ---ex my finger with my brain---  ergo I exist as a something { occupied space } that  has access to Meta-space{ Metaphysical-1 } mind/intellect/concepts occupied space has associated numerical sets, geometry patterns etc,

4} a resultant of our experience of occupied space is that we discover absolute truths aka physical laws/ cosmic principles ex, the can only exist five regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe and the word Universe is inclusive of the sub-catagorical concept of multiverse's.




384 days later

Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 751
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
I Kant believe it.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,587
3
3
2
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
2
--> @Username
I Kant believe it.
You mean cannot believe it.

Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 751
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
--> @Shila
It was an Immanuel Kant joke.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,587
3
3
2
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
2
--> @Username
--> @Shila
It was an Immanuel Kant joke.
You moved further away from your joke.