Chatterbox => Extraneous exchanges => Topic started by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on May 15, 2018, 07:33:29 AM

Title: Standards of proof
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on May 15, 2018, 07:33:29 AM
Randy Jacobson said (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?topic=2005.msg42387;topicseen#new), "Absolute proof requires extraordinary evidence and that is always in short supply."

The claim that "absolute proof requires extraordinary evidence" is an unproven assertion.

It is not the way logic works.

A sufficient proof is proof, even if it leaves unanswered questions for future thinkers to explore.  The folks who recognized the helical structure of DNA knew nothing about protein folding, but their discovery laid the groundwork for countless subsequent discoveries about the contributions that DNA and RNA make to life. 

"Extraordinary evidence ... is always in short supply" is a sweeping generalization.  To me, it is just rhetoric, not a self-evident truth.  It certainly can't be proven empirically.  To know what happens "always" and everywhere, some method other than observation and quantification must be employed--unless, of course, Randy is God, in which case, I cover my mouth and withdraw my case (Job 40:4-5).