German court ruling rejects logic, scientific method

Post Reply New Topic

Mathematicians and logicians live in the same reality we do, I think it applies to everyone Rhody.
Our perception of the world guides what we "know", not what is actually there.

The point was that the concept of proof is valid and useful in the domains of math and logic, not that people well-versed in those domains should extend the concept of proof to other domains.

Not sufficient for -proof-. All one can say is various occurrences of falling tend to corroborate the hypothetical force of gravitation. What happens when you toss a helium filled balloon of a roof? To account for this you must hypothesize a counter force buoyancy. Scientific laws cannot be proven for sure. they can only be disproved for sure.

Well said.

In some cases, Philosophy as a discipline will also define terms differently than both Law and Science. Which is why I always emphasize to younger people that one must understand the terms that another person is using within the context of the paradigm that that other individual operates within. High level communication ought always to provide operationalized definitions where appropriate.

Good thread!

^ Agreed

To properly comment on the case you need far more information than is available in this article. On the face of it and given the history of the biologist I am happy he has been forced to pay up. The last thing we need are more idiots persuading the ignorant to not vaccinate their kids.

Nothing in the article describes the ruling in detail, eg does the Judge allow for some leeway regarding what "proof" actually is. I think (maybe) in a situation like this "overwhelming evidence" is enough.