"Proof": The most abused word on this forum

"Prove it!"... or "show the proof"... or any similar response, says two things about the person demanding such a thing: That they have no arguments to counter, and that they don't know how logic works.

Nobody is required... and it's not even possible... to prove anything in a Political Forum (or any type of forum). You could have Einstein here, and if you ask him to prove that a mass cannot move faster than the speed of light, he wouldn't be able to. And it's not just because of your lack of understanding of physics. Which if you had, you wouldn't be asking the question. But that's besides the point. You can't "prove" that Charles Mason ordered Sharon Tate killed. You can't "prove" that men walked on the Moon and not on a Hollywood set... It's just not possible. So it's ridiculous to demand "proof"... of anything.

What you do is show that what you state is based on facts, logic and basic human reasoning. The response "you can't prove it" is a strawman argument. "Show your arguments and your logic" is the correct challenge. Which refers to evidence. Not "proof"

Another strawman argument is: "you are not required to prove a negative". That is inaccurate in logic. In a court of law, you are not required to prove that you're innocent (i.e.: that you didn't commit the crime). But that's a different thing. This is not a court of law.

If you make a statement, you are required to show evidence (not proof). Which means: "show an inference based on facts and logic that inevitably leads to your conclusion". But we all need to stop abusing and misusing the word "proof" And it makes no difference whatsoever if the statement you make is a negative. Stating that you cannot prove a negative indicates a complete misunderstanding of logic. You are not required to make a "negative" statement. But if you make it, you need to prove it just like any other statement.

BTW, the only thing you are not required to show evidence of is of a statement you didn't make. And that's a whole new topic.

 

I will now prove you wrong with evidence.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/evidence

Synonyms for evidence

• attestation,
• confirmation,
• corroboration,
• documentation,
• proof,
• substantiation,
• testament,
• testimonial,
• testimony,
• validation,
• voucher,
• witness

 

Wrong. Einstein could show the math to prove it. The problem is not many would understand the math.

 

Proof is evidence or a chain of logic showing the support for the proposition you stated. Proofs do not contain phrases like I heard or I think or I assume.

 

Gibberish is not evidence.

 

This thread is PROOF that someone wants attention.

 

Evidence can be proof. But opinion is NOT. For example, claiming you think Trump did something wrong because you heard someone else thought he did something, is NOT evidence or proof. It’s hearsay.

You can call Trump a racist because you think he is. But if you can’t show actual evidence of thinking one race is lesser than another through years actions, then what you think means very little. Opinions are like aholes.

 

Math is not proof! All mathematical inferences have to be proven experimentally. Theoretical physics is pointless without observation and experimentation.

 

But to the political Left when they state, "This must be what Trump was thinking," that . . . is . . . proof. It was all the 'proof' they had to justify an impeachment.

 

GRANNY SAYS, "Dat's right...

... all dis crime we got...

... is proof we got too many Hispexicans."

 

Of course! That is obvious.

But you also can't say "prove to me on this political forum that Trump did..." this or that. That's nonsense. What you can demand is for the person making the claim to show a line of reasoning, that must be different from what you describe above, from which his doing something wrong can be inferred.

Right. You would be required to show actions in reality that any rational person would infer to be racist, and in a large enough number that it would be incongruous to deny that he's a racist. I do agree that to base the statement on opinions.... while valid as an opinion, does not rise to the level of reasonable evidence.

 

Do you have much evidence to support this opinion?

 

You mean because of those who post only because they like to see themselves on the board, but don't actually have the mental capacity to contribute anything of interest to the topic? Yeah... I noticed that too.

 

Definition of synonym
1: one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synonym

Nearly the same meaning is not THE same meaning. And evidence is not proof.

 

So OP, did the house "prove" Trump guilty?

 

You just read it.

Actually... your response is evidence that you didn't read it.

 

You offered opinion. Then you said this.

You just contradicted the premises of the OP in the OP. I’m supposed to take you seriously?

 

Webster’s is now gibberish? Wow

 

Bwhahaha!

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence
evidence

1a: an outward sign : INDICATION

By God! Looks like what you proved is that all that was needed to prove that Trump was guilty was an "indication".

(NB: The above is only meant to show that using a dictionary to prove anything is... idiotic... To put it mildly)

 

Nope! I presented the evidence. The evidence was your post. It is a clear inference that you didn't read it. Because the whole post is evidence that the use of the word "proof" is used on this forum gratuitously. Q.E.D.

The question is am I supposed to take you seriously when I have shown adequate evidence that you comment on posts that you haven't even bothered to read?

 

Posting an unrelated and irrelevant quote from a dictionary is "gibberish". Pay attention!

 

Dude. I read it. I quoted the part where you advocated for people to do what you’re advocating against in the OP. You directly contradict yourself. Maybe you should read your own post. You don’t even know what’s in it. I’m literally laughing as I write....

 

Oh! How that applies to climate change deniers!!

 

Further evidence to support my inference that you didn't read it. Because you didn't quote "the part where..." anything. You quoted the whole OP!

Evidence: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ed-word-on-this-forum.567837/#post-1071407292

See? That's how it works! Stick around. I'm sure you'll get the hang of it. Eventually...