Empirical Claims are Not Provable??

[Veritas Aequitas]

TS claimed Empirical Claims cannot be proven.

Here is an exchange I wrote earlier;
viewtopic.php?p=524262#p524262

Btw, you have not proven there is a really real thing existing independently out there.

How in the world can you be this far along and still not know that empirical claims are not provable? Are you just not capable or learning or what?

Your above a strawman.

Judging from the posts that followed, you are the one who is ignorant of what "prove" related to empirical claims [not mathematical] mean.

Note,

• Prove: [google dictionary]
  demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
  demonstrate to be the specified thing by evidence or argument.
  
  elsewhere.
  prove = confirmation of act by evidence

If empirical claims cannot be proven, how is it that so many criminals are proven to be guilty of crimes [empirical] in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

If one is to ask to prove the Moon exist [an empirical claim], the process is to bring forth the empirical evidence to prove it exists.

What sort of world are you living in when you claimed empirical claims are not provable.

Note my question;
"Btw, you have not proven there is a really real thing existing independently out there."

Can you confirm, do you believe,
what are things to you exist independently of you out there as Objective Reality independent of individual opinion and beliefs.
Note I stated "a really real thing".

If you do, note Vitruvius highlighted,

You are not hearing me. It is acknowledged that the objective existence of reality is an assumption; but a reasonable assumption - challenged only by the unreason of skeptical doubt.
viewtopic.php?p=524215#p524215

Point is empirical claims can be proven by empirical evidences [as in Science] but they cannot prove the existence of a really-real-thing of Objective Reality which you are presupposing upon the empirical object.

Are Empirical Claims Provable?
Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

TS views.

Veritas asked for proof that reality isn't inaccessible.
I pointed out to him that he should know by now not to ask for proof of any empirical claims, because empirical claims are not provable.

Asking for proof of empirical claims suggests that he never even took phil of science or science methodology 101--which I'm sure he hasn't; as with most people on these boards, he probably has something like a computer science background and he's probably purely self-taught otherwise, including re philosophy, and unfortunately, folks who do that tend to take "things people type on these boards" as sufficient fodder for a significant part of their "education" . . . meanwhile if almost everyone else is self-taught (and has a computer science or engineering etc. background) and is doing the same thing, so that explains how we end up with such a "Hey, we recreated the wheel!" sort of mess.

Of course, he could have taken phil of science or science methodology 101 and wound up philosophically disagreeing with falsificationism, but in that case he'd at least be familiar with the idea and he'd have some sort of argument against it or criticism of it. (Though of course, most criticism of it, such as the Duhem-Quine thesis, which I think has a lot of merit, still doesn't wind up saying that we prove empirical claims.)

At any rate, we believe empirical claims on what we consider good reasons in favor of them, including empirical evidence. We don't believe empirical claims because they've been proven, since they can't be.

Certainty is something that's very silly to worry about in my view. What we should worry about are good reasons to believe one claim over another. That has nothing at all to do with certainty.

I note the above views are dumb.
Jurors will believe in "proven" empirical claims sufficient enough to commit someone to death.

[Terrapin Station]

Judging from the posts that followed, you are the one who is ignorant of what "prove" related to empirical claims [not mathematical] mean.

Note,

• Prove: [google dictionary]
  demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
  demonstrate to be the specified thing by evidence or argument.

You're on a philosophy board. You're not doing a grammar school vocabulary assignment. (Well, or at least that's not what you should be doing on a philosophy board.)

[Terrapin Station]

Aside from that, would you say that you're looking for just any supporting evidence or argument for reality being accessible? And then you'd call that "proof," due to your grammar school vocabulary assignment research?

[Sculptor]

Empirical statements are achieved through induction, not proof as such.
This statement is unproblematic.
Induction is described as a method where one's experiences and observations, including what is learned from others, are synthesized to come up with a general truth.
If Terrapin keeps seeing the Moon, and when he asks Veritas to conform his observations then the exitence of the Moon is shown by inductive reasoning.
This is not a classical proof in the sense of Maths.
Then one day Terrapin sees the the Moon is only a Half a Moon.
Now of course, like all real life stories,
this also begins, once upon a ti-to.
And Veritas Stan, whose life evolved
near a femerald coloured dreamy most,
had his pure existance and his being
in the deep joy and the multi colour of the rainbold.
Oh yes. His home was a victoriana sharowbold,
and this is the fourwheelful of sst sst out the backgrove.
Now as Eaved and his deep approachey,
his eye on the moon, all time some time
deep joy of a full moon scintilating dangly
in the heavenly bode, but now only half.
Oh blow your cool man, he dood this deep thoughcus.
What is the folly of this half disappearing of the moony most.
And as the light did a scintilading change through timely most,
stopped still, and he did a deep thoughcus.
What ! Absloutely smashing flaked he was.
So gathering all behind in the hintermost, he ploddy ploddy forward
into the deep fundemold of the complicading forry to sort this one out matey.
Where at Man he thoucus, where at Man...... oh dear.

Now after a little lapse of time,
Veritas Stan became deep hungry in his tumbload.
Oh, after all he struggly tricky out several milode,
and anyone would suffer under this.
So suddenly he dood a deep thoucus,
out with his lunchy bag,
just about to do a little nibbload of his mincy meaty, when......

Here am I
Tiny Terrapin
May I share your Shepherd's Pie?
name is Veritas Stan
I'm on a quest
Take your fill,
Take nothing less

I am that
That am I
And no one needs a living fly

The Journey

Now the fly was overwelmed
by this deep generosity of Veritas,
to give give give of the foodage.
'Cause all life lassk ssk suf of the foodage, ha!
He look at Veritas and said.
Is there anything I can reciprocale,
or do in the joy of return for your generosity,
for giving me food and stuffy?
Veritas says, I'm looking for the other half of the moon and dangly,
This is my folly, show me where the missing half of that moon.
I don't know, said the fly returnly, but I know someone who know,
if only I were big enough to transporty most.
I would take you there myself, I would do this.
And Veritas, having the possey power of the Magicold,
Ah, standed over, roley out the sleevey,
wavely hand, hovery hovery hovery hovery
and out with these magic wordy.
If all the Terrapins were one Terrapin
what a great enormouse fTroorelolifer that would bold, oh.
And there, incredible but oh dear, hovery hovery.
Now the fly recalled with these wordage.
Not only will I transportnum there,
but I will sing it a deep joy of a songload in your eardroves.
That I will Do.

[attofishpi]

..must be happy hr in the local of London academia.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Aside from that, would you say that you're looking for just any supporting evidence or argument for reality being accessible? And then you'd call that "proof," due to your grammar school vocabulary assignment research?

I have already qualified above what I meant by prove is not mathematical proof.

• Judging from the posts that followed, you are the one who is ignorant of what "prove" related to empirical claims [not mathematical] mean.

The alternative to use the term justify.
You are the one who is that dogmatic and do not have to apply the Principle of Charity.

Can you show me references where the term 'prove' [note I did not used the term 'proof'] or even the term 'proof' is not used within Philosophy at all.
If you cannot, that will show how stupid you are.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Empirical statements are achieved through induction, not proof as such.
This statement is unproblematic.
Induction is described as a method where one's experiences and observations, including what is learned from others, are synthesized to come up with a general truth.
If Terrapin keeps seeing the Moon, and when he asks Veritas to conform his observations then the exitence of the Moon is shown by inductive reasoning.
This is not a classical proof in the sense of Maths.
t a deep joy of a songload in your eardroves.
That I will Do.

I have already qualified in the OP what I meant by prove is not mathematical proof.

• Judging from the posts that followed, you are the one who is ignorant of what "prove" related to empirical claims [not mathematical] mean.

[Terrapin Station]

Aside from that, would you say that you're looking for just any supporting evidence or argument for reality being accessible? And then you'd call that "proof," due to your grammar school vocabulary assignment research?

I have already qualified above what I meant by prove is not mathematical proof.

• Judging from the posts that followed, you are the one who is ignorant of what "prove" related to empirical claims [not mathematical] mean.

The alternative to use the term justify.
You are the one who is that dogmatic and do not have to apply the Principle of Charity.

Can you show me references where the term 'prove' [note I did not used the term 'proof'] or even the term 'proof' is not used within Philosophy at all.
If you cannot, that will show how stupid you are.

Did you not see that I asked you a yes or no question? Or do you see it as part of the "principle of charity" to just ignore a yes or no question when you're asked one?

[Sculptor]

Empirical statements are achieved through induction, not proof as such.
This statement is unproblematic.
Induction is described as a method where one's experiences and observations, including what is learned from others, are synthesized to come up with a general truth.
If Terrapin keeps seeing the Moon, and when he asks Veritas to conform his observations then the exitence of the Moon is shown by inductive reasoning.
This is not a classical proof in the sense of Maths.
t a deep joy of a songload in your eardroves.
That I will Do.

I have already qualified in the OP what I meant by prove is not mathematical proof.

• Judging from the posts that followed, you are the one who is ignorant of what "prove" related to empirical claims [not mathematical] mean.

But we all know you are the local village idiot.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Empirical statements are achieved through induction, not proof as such.
This statement is unproblematic.
Induction is described as a method where one's experiences and observations, including what is learned from others, are synthesized to come up with a general truth.
If Terrapin keeps seeing the Moon, and when he asks Veritas to conform his observations then the exitence of the Moon is shown by inductive reasoning.
This is not a classical proof in the sense of Maths.
t a deep joy of a songload in your eardroves.
That I will Do.

I have already qualified in the OP what I meant by prove is not mathematical proof.

• Judging from the posts that followed, you are the one who is ignorant of what "prove" related to empirical claims [not mathematical] mean.

But we all know you are the local village idiot.

It is evident from your posts of ignorance.
So you are transposing what you really are on others.

[Sculptor]

I have already qualified in the OP what I meant by prove is not mathematical proof.

• Judging from the posts that followed, you are the one who is ignorant of what "prove" related to empirical claims [not mathematical] mean.

But we all know you are the local village idiot.

It is evident from your posts of ignorance.
So you are transposing what you really are on others.

But we all know you are the local village idiot.