The Blog Of Dysfunction

What is Proof: A Lay Apologist’s Guide.

By: Dr. Johnson C Philip

Download for free

Quoted With Permission

The question of “what is proof” becomes more Involved when one realizes that each field of Knowledge has its own set of methods, tools, and canons of proof. So much so that what works in one case might be totally worthless in the other.

Proof does not mean the same thing in logic, mathematics, physical science, and historical science or in legal investigation. Nor are proofs arrived at in these fields with the help of same tools or canons of proof. Similarly, disproving an assertion is also not done in the same way in these fields. Further it is not possible to disprove some kinds of assertions, especially when one handles historical and archaeological data.

While the common man can easily manage his life with total disregard to proof, and while he can get away with flouting the canons of proof, a student if Bible does not have that luxury. Any one who is even remotely interested in any aspect of Apologetics needs to familiarize himself with the basic principles of proof, evidence, and illogic. He should know the various criteria for proof used in different topics because those who attack the Bible often use proof that are legitimate in one field for supporting their arguments in another field where they might be inadmissible and totally invalid. Not recognizing this, or not recognizing this early enough in a discussion has sent many Christian apologists in the wrong direction, leading to a pitiful conclusion in an otherwise strong case.

What is not Proof

Many people, even scientifically trained ones, entertain strange ideas about proof. They think that a thesis is proved just by stating it, comparing it, or by refuting another thesis. Proofs do not happen this way. If a person is able to refute all the proofs advance by another person (say, for the existence of God), he does not disprove the opponent’s thesis. He only disproves the opponent’s arguments.

Proof for any subject, (including the proof needed to disprove a claim) has to come in specific ways. In empirical matters the proof needs to be empirical and in historical matters the proof needs to be historical.

Refuting The Opponent Does Not Prove One As Right

Possibility Does Not Mean Proof or Even Probability

An Appeal To An Authority

Proof From Silence Is Not Proof At All

Analogy Is Not Proof

———————————————————————————————

There is lots more in the 20 page PDf so go ahead and download, ignore the rare typo’s and be enriched enlightened and en-proofed. ( that was a dumb line)

Ciao

Schizo