I Have Proof

[Twilight Hue]

When making a claim to someone else, is the statement "I have Proof" a valid statement if you cannot share that proof with the other person?

Kind of makes proving something harder then. Wouldn't you think? ;0)

 

[Jeremiahcp]

It's not an example of making a claim, but an example of the appropriateness of the requirement of validity.

All you are doing is restructuring. Valid but only valid to me. Proven but only proven to me. True but only true to me. It is all the same thing. You are trying to address the question by refacing it, but the question involves more than just one person, so the question of validity, proof or truth should also involve the interaction.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

It seems to me you are making a distinction between whether or not one understands the evidence, rather than a distinction between, say, evidence and no evidence, or between weak and strong evidence. Or are you arguing that the quality (e.g. whether it is weak or strong) of the evidence changes depending on whether or not the evidence is understood?

All I am suggesting is that it is not a simple as "John loves his dog."

 

[Willamena]

All you are doing is restructuring. Valid but only valid to me. Proven but only proven to me. True but only true to me. It is all the same thing. You are trying to address the question by refacing it, but the question involves more than just one person, so the question of validity, proof or truth should also involve the interaction.

On the contrary, my example in post #37 upholds an objective validity for the claim of proof. Proof is proof regardless of how many people might share it. It says that sharing does not figure in to how valid the claim of proof is.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

On the contrary, my example in post #37 upholds an objective validity for the claim of proof. Proof is proof regardless of how many people might share it. It says that sharing does not figure in to how valid the claim of proof is.

If you cannot share the proof, then as far as the other person is concerned you don't have valid claim. You are trying to over subjectify things, but the question involves an interaction between people.

I am sorry, but I only play semantical chairs for a few go arounds then I get bored. I don't feel you are fully addressing the question by reducing it to one person.

 

[Willamena]

If you cannot share the proof, then as far as the other person is concerned you don't have valid claim. You are trying to over subjectify things, but the question involves an interaction between people.

I am sorry, but I only play semantical chairs for a few go arounds then I get bored. I don't feel you are fully addressing the question by reducing it to one person.

I'm not reducing it to one person, I'm saying valid is valid despite the number of people.

If that doesn't satisfy your question, though, I'll withdraw.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I'm not reducing it to one person, I'm saying valid is valid despite the number of people.

If that doesn't satisfy your question, though, I'll withdraw.

No need to withdraw. You are fee to make your point as much as you want. I just don't think it fully addresses the question.

 

[Sunstone]

When making a claim to someone else, is the statement "I have Proof" a valid statement if you cannot share that proof with the other person?

Here's how I am interpreting your OP, @Jeremiahcp : "Is the claim, 'I have evidence of X', actual evidence of X if the claimant cannot share his or her evidence with anyone."

Is that a fair paraphrase of the OP?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Here's how I am interpreting your OP, @Jeremiahcp : "Is the claim, 'I have evidence of X', actual evidence of X if the claimant cannot share his or her evidence with anyone."

Is that a fair paraphrase of the OP?

I actually considered using the word evidence, but decided proof was a more fitting word. We could nitpick at the literal definitions, but I think the word evidence carries a more formal weight than the word proof in casual debate. I recognize that when people say, "I have proof", this is not always in the most formal sense and it can mean perhaps a wider scope than evidence. They are essentially saying, "I have something which convinces me of something" and that is not the part I question.

However, I feel when you make a claim with another person (especially in a debate) then the validity of that claim becomes something that no longer pertains just to the individual; instead it is something that is gauged by everyone involved. If you cannot share this proof in some way, either directly, empathetically or some other way, then I feel the validity of the claim is greatly reduced.

The context of where the claim is being made also has an impact. In a bar if someone says, "I met Ozzy Osbourne" I am not going to challenge it. However, in a place like these forums, where even though it is casual, it is still debate I think a claim has more stringent standards to live up to.

Just a side note since you were talking about love and perhaps to give an example:

I actually feel the claim: "I believe in God because I can feel his love." is a valid claim. Now personally I feel they are anthropomorphizing their emotions, but at least I connect with the idea of believing in something because of an emotional reaction. It is something I have done myself and it is something I can relate to. I consider emotions to be a valid base for beliefs.

Now if someone tells me "I believe in God because I had a transcendental enlightening experience ", I am more incline to tell them they are full of it and their supposed "transcendental enlightening experience" proves nothing. There is no way for them to share that experience and there is no way for me to relate to it.

In order for a claim to have validity when you are sharing it with someone else; there has to be a way for that person to share in the proof that convinced you.

 

[Sunstone]

@Jeremiahcp How are you defining the terms "valid" and "validity"? Just trying to understand your thinking.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

@Jeremiahcp How are you defining the terms "valid" and "validity"? Just trying to understand your thinking.

Semantic are never straight forward, and sometimes the more you try to clarify the more you confound the discussion. Definitions, like words, can be pulled out of context and made to express many different things; people also tend to focus on only the aspects of a definition that supports their side of the argument. Then you end up just going back and forth over the wording. It becomes a technical argument rather than a conceptual debate. To understand words we have to look at how people use them and what context they are being used in; a simple definition is not enough.

But we can take a crack at this:

Here is the dictionary definition (that I did look at before posting the question):

val·id
ˈvaləd/
adjective
adjective: valid

1. (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
   "a valid criticism"
   synonyms: well founded, sound, reasonable, rational, logical, justifiable, defensible, viable, bona fide;More
   • legally binding due to having been executed in compliance with the law.
     "a valid contract"
     synonyms: legally binding, lawful, legal, legitimate, official, signed and sealed, contractual; More
     
     
   • legally or officially acceptable.
     "the visas are valid for thirty days"
     synonyms: legitimate, authentic, authoritative, reliable, bona fide
     "valid information"

We typically say something is valid if it meets some agreed upon (spoken, unspoken, formal, informal) standards. In academic settings these standards are clearly defined, but in an informal setting the standards are typically more of a general agreement between people on what is a good claim (or whatever) and what is a bad claim.

If I say "You have a valid point." I am saying, "I find your point reasonable and I find it applicable: by whatever standards I consider something reasonable. Which may vary some but there will be a normal sense between most people for the basics of reasonable standards.

 

[james bond]

When making a claim to someone else, is the statement "I have Proof" a valid statement if you cannot share that proof with the other person?

When you say proof, I assume you're looking to validate or find the truth of the matter. It could be to gather information to verify that you're on the right path. Another could be to back up a theory, argument or idea that you're proposing.

Generally speaking it's not truth we are looking for, but evidence to use in order to judge someone and what they're saying. I don't think the latter's right unless you are judging someone in order to hire them for a job or they're being tried in court. Here we judge whether some topic is worthwhile commenting on and the "proof" is something that someone has said has a certain ring of truth.

Then we have those times where we do not have proof, so people end up seeing and hearing what they want to see and what they want to hear.

 

[Milton Platt]

When making a claim to someone else, is the statement "I have Proof" a valid statement if you cannot share that proof with the other person?

It isn't a valid claim even if you can share it. Proof applies to mathematics. Evidence would be the correct word.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

It isn't a valid claim even if you can share it. Proof applies to mathematics. Evidence would be the correct word.

That is just silly.

 

[godnotgod]

Proof can come via direct experience where no evidence exists. For example, the prisoner in Plato's Cave who experienced the Sun can only prove its existence to the others when they themselves have the same experience. This is the case in mystical experience. One ultimately must go see for themselves what is being pointed to. In the case of belief, there seems to be a need to prove this to others, whereas in the authentic spiritual experience, no need to prove its authenticity is present, even though there exists a natural desire to share the experience with others. And the reason no proof or trace of the experience exists is simply because such experience is beyond the scope of the rational mind.

 

[Thief]

Proof can come in direct experience where no evidence exists. For example, the prisoner in Plato's Cave who experienced the Sun can only prove its existence to the others when they themselves have the same experience. This is the case in mystical experience. One ultimately must go see for themselves what is being pointed to. In the case of belief, there seems to be a need to prove this to others, whereas in the authentic spiritual experience, no need to prove its authenticity is present, even though there exists a natural desire to share the experience with others. And the reason no proof or trace of the experience exists is simply because such experience is beyond the scope of the rational mind.

you just spoke of people as individuals

and you must be irrational to understand your post?

 

[godnotgod]

you just spoke of people as individuals

nd you must be irrational to understand your post?

People are seen as individuals only when in the state of Identification, which is the state of most of mankind. When Identification is transcended via a radical transformation of consciousness, individuals are now seen as part of the Universal Self, and individual identity is seen as fiction.

"One Light, though the lamps be many"

 

[Skwim]

When making a claim to someone else, is the statement "I have Proof" a valid statement if you cannot share that proof with the other person?

Certainly. What difference would the lack of an ability to share your proof with person X have on the validity of your statement? Of course, this assumes there is such a proof.
If Einstein had made the claim to me that "I have proof that E = MC² " and I, being incapable of understanding the proof, would render his sharing worthless. Yet his statement "I have a . . . ." would remain valid.


.

 

[godnotgod]

Evidence is not proof. Evidence is what is necessary to proof. Evidence consists of clues, data, and facts. Proof is the process by which something is demonstrated to be true, utilizing evidence to do so.

 

[Segev Moran]

When making a claim to someone else, is the statement "I have Proof" a valid statement if you cannot share that proof with the other person?

The short answer is No,
It is not a valid statement to the other person.

Lets put that to the test:

You walk the street and someone runs to you with a cop and claims you just robbed him.
You say you didn't and maybe after some digging, the cop would like a bit of evidence that you indeed tried or did mug him.
Imagine the cop asking the person, "can you prove it somehow?" and the answer is "yes, but i can't show it".
Obviously the "evidence" is not considered evidence until evident by others

Now, From my experience, When you tell someone something, and he asks for a proof, this means he doesn't really believe your word, thus, using the "I Have the proof, count on my word" argument, is not really valid.

If it is a matter of He and She for example, and you are required to present evidence to something you claim, I would say there might be a bit of a trust issue ( Nothing serious though, not suggesting anything )

So to sum it up, a proof is only a proof if it proves something to the other person. Otherwise, it is not valid to claim you have a proof, as a proof.

.