> > Many people in the real world are absolutely convinced
> > that they have real proof that their religious beliefs are true.
> I'm afraid this is going to get into the objective/subjective territory.
> You can believe any old bollocks, what gives it a stronger case if you are
> able to prove your beliefs to others.
Indeed. In the Hard Sciences we call these exponents of beliefs- -for-proven-facts "Biologists", or in extreme cases, "Philosophers". Flamebaiting aside, my basic point is that 'standard of proof' is not some Objectively Ordained thing that enables one to determine what's a Belief and what's a Proven Fact by application of sheer logic. What constitutes a 'proof' is most definitely, if not in the eye of the beholder, at least within a particular framework for determining such.
(The most rigorous standards for proof are a little like being able to prove more and more about less and less, until our friend Goedel kicks in, whereupon it becomes being able to prove less and less about less and less...)
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail