This conversation is closed.

How to confirm/prove an abstract/verbal claim ?

For example, I KNOW WHAT KNOWLEDGE MEANS. This is a verbal claim. But, the scientific method requires every claims to be confirmed, tested and duplicated before they can be verified and proven as a fact. But how can i do that with my verbal claim ? How can i test it ? I How can somebody
duplicate my verbal claims ? I can describe how i arrived at that claim, but will that be a proof ? Somebody else might have arrived at a different conclusion and a different claim ? It might make sense to him ? Its easy to validate a physical claim, but what about a verbal claim ? Abstract claim, like i mentioned above ?

Thanks.

  • thumb
    Jun 9 2012: The word "abstract" means removed, or separated from. To confirm, or prove something you must operate within the realm of material substance, observability and measurability. So long as you stay removed from proof-by-analysis you are simply talking theory. If a claim is proven, it is not abstract. My answer to your question is: you cannot.
    • Jun 9 2012: Hey there ! Thanks for your answer !

      I have another question if you don't mind. How do you think, one can confirm a no longer existing data, captured in an information ?
      Also, does the confirmation (validation) of any data, happens only by the human sensors ? Like, smelling, touching, hearing, seeing, tasting etc. ?

      For example, how can a third person confirm, or obtain data, that some other person was born ? If he wasn't witnessing the event itself, and therefore observing it, how could he confirm that data ? Obviously the data of the event is written in a paper, making it information, but if the event has already passed, and you haven't witnessed it, how can you confirm that information ? It seems to me that it cannot be confirmed by something other than a verbal evidence. Which cannot be validated because science is based only on solid evidence. Anyway, i was wondering what you think about that ?

      Thanks.
      • thumb
        Jun 9 2012: I think Mr. Seremonia answers your question above. JTB (Justified True Belief) is the result of first-hand, personal experience, e.g. "I saw the apple fall from the tree to the ground." Or, JTB is the result of logical analysis, e.g. "Even though I didn't see them fall, I know, from the application of Natural Laws that these apples on the ground under this apple tree fell from this apple tree." Or, JTB is the result of trust in reported information, e.g. " I know the apples fell from the tree to ground beneath because I read numerous accounts of the incident written by trusted, objective people." Thank you!
  • thumb
    Jun 9 2012: There are three ways to confirm:

    1. Empirical observation
    2. Logical thinking
    3. Trust

    Although one of them needed each other, but mostly, this distinction is sufficient to explain this problem.

    That typical request fall into number 3. But this trust shouldn't be conducted very easily. Before we go to trust, we should pass preliminary process strictly. There should be connection between what we doubt and other subject that verified correctly (whether through empirical observation nor logical thinking).

    It's like fall onto strange area, where we don't know how to act properly to any of verbal claims. What should we do? As mentioned, we look for someone or something we trust and it should have connection to verbal claims, and see whether a verbal claim being denied or not.

    Actually we did already this procedure in everyday life, whether based on urgency or not, and it's good enough to handle our life. It's "from certainty down to probability for efficiency".

    Outside this, there is no further to provide such request.
  • thumb
    Jun 8 2012: Science is about explanations, not proving or disproving facts.
    So if you claim to know what knowledge means, a scientifically minded person might ask that you explain why you think you know what knowledge means. Or better yet, ask you to give an explanation of what knowledge is. There is no perfect explanation of what things are, so you'd only be asked to provide a decent one.
    Whether an explanation is decent is not up to personnal taste and values : dialectic is universal (I eat an apple, there is sugar in it, therefore I eat sugar).