How to prove a conspiracy happened. Theory & Praxis.
Proofs need not be verbal. Before Galileo, people took the apparent motion of the Sun across the sky as proof that the Sun went round the Earth. Suitably incriminating evidence left at the scene of a crime may serve as proof of the identity of the perpetrator. Conversely, a verbal entity need not assert a proposition to constitute a proof of that proposition. For example, a signature constitutes direct proof of authorship; less directly, handwriting analysis may be submitted as proof of authorship of a document. Privileged information in a document can serve as proof that the document's author had access to that information; such access might in turn establish the location of the author at certain time, which might then provide the author with an alibi.
http://ift.tt/1ZcNESG
http://ift.tt/1kexp61
One must be careful what is a proof and what is not.
.....................
Example (A)
Claim: "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
Proof (Lord Kelvin ?): Evident, no proof is needed.
Proof (Wright Brothers): Our air-plane flies.
.....................
Example (B)
Claim: "Brothers Kouachi's murdered in the CH office."
Proof (skeptics?): Everybody (CNN incl.) claims it. No further evidence is needed.
Is the proof satisfactory?
No!!!
There could be another couple murdering in the CH office and they could exchange roles while escaping in a car.
.....................
So what is your experience with proving and / or disproving?
Proofs need not be verbal. Before Galileo, people took the apparent motion of the Sun across the sky as proof that the Sun went round the Earth. Suitably incriminating evidence left at the scene of a crime may serve as proof of the identity of the perpetrator. Conversely, a verbal entity need not assert a proposition to constitute a proof of that proposition. For example, a signature constitutes direct proof of authorship; less directly, handwriting analysis may be submitted as proof of authorship of a document. Privileged information in a document can serve as proof that the document's author had access to that information; such access might in turn establish the location of the author at certain time, which might then provide the author with an alibi.
http://ift.tt/1ZcNESG
http://ift.tt/1kexp61
One must be careful what is a proof and what is not.
.....................
Example (A)
Claim: "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
Proof (Lord Kelvin ?): Evident, no proof is needed.
Proof (Wright Brothers): Our air-plane flies.
.....................
Example (B)
Claim: "Brothers Kouachi's murdered in the CH office."
Proof (skeptics?): Everybody (CNN incl.) claims it. No further evidence is needed.
Is the proof satisfactory?
No!!!
There could be another couple murdering in the CH office and they could exchange roles while escaping in a car.
.....................
So what is your experience with proving and / or disproving?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1MhEkUy
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire