If someone asked me to prove COVID is a disease, I wouldn’t because attempting to prove something to someone off the deep end is a waste of my time. But proof could be supplied. Test, excess deaths, symptoms, etc.
Maybe you’re saying that it’s impossible to be 100% sure of something and prove that, which is different and true.
If someone is asking for COVID to be proven to exist, they are likely to be skeptical of the things that counts as evidence. That's the point, people expect proof of certainty and it can never be provided.
You’re conflating demands for absolute certainty, which are impossible to satisfies, which skepticism of certain sources of evidence. The latter could in theory be totally justified.
Sure, but we can do all that back and forth without making demands for "proof". When people demand proof they usually are asking for certainty, and which is silly.
I believe, although I cannot prove it, that when presented with an argument that goes against our perception or our own anectotal evidence, we need, ask for "authority", research, science.
J. Haidt said (but don't take my word for it, I can't prove it) that "when presented with a statement, an argument we tend to ask ourselves either "can I believe it" (am I allowed to believe this, is it corresponding with the view I already hold) or "must I believe it", (am I allowed to disregard this as it goes against my view.)
Changing ones opinion is really demanding (I believe, but I still can't prove it.)
Is it really the case though that people mostly understand “proof” as 100% justified certainty? I feel like colloquially that’s not the case, and that people mostly really mean by “X proved Y to be the case” that they justified it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, those kinds of people (e.g. conspiracy theorists) who are motivated to demand extraordinary standards of evidence for dubious claims don’t strike me as the sort of people who would be moved by the argument made in this article. I imagine most of the people that believe that Covid is not a disease don’t do so because they think you can’t be justified in thinking Covid is real unless you have some analytic proof, but rather because they just think the evidence is really strong for their viewpoint, and thus you would need some extraordinary defeater to persuade them. It’s not that they’re confused about what “proof” means in a logical context or something (and even if they are confused, I don’t think that’s the explanation for their behavior).
P.S I already proved all of the above, so don’t even think about trying to contradict me.
Can you prove that a person shouldn't need to prove the things they believe in?
Don't test me, Adelstein
Can you prove 'don't test me, Adelstein?'
https://images.app.goo.gl/cfpvV1eoGsCbGQmW7
???
If someone asked me to prove COVID is a disease, I wouldn’t because attempting to prove something to someone off the deep end is a waste of my time. But proof could be supplied. Test, excess deaths, symptoms, etc.
Maybe you’re saying that it’s impossible to be 100% sure of something and prove that, which is different and true.
If someone is asking for COVID to be proven to exist, they are likely to be skeptical of the things that counts as evidence. That's the point, people expect proof of certainty and it can never be provided.
You’re conflating demands for absolute certainty, which are impossible to satisfies, which skepticism of certain sources of evidence. The latter could in theory be totally justified.
Sure, but we can do all that back and forth without making demands for "proof". When people demand proof they usually are asking for certainty, and which is silly.
I believe, although I cannot prove it, that when presented with an argument that goes against our perception or our own anectotal evidence, we need, ask for "authority", research, science.
J. Haidt said (but don't take my word for it, I can't prove it) that "when presented with a statement, an argument we tend to ask ourselves either "can I believe it" (am I allowed to believe this, is it corresponding with the view I already hold) or "must I believe it", (am I allowed to disregard this as it goes against my view.)
Changing ones opinion is really demanding (I believe, but I still can't prove it.)
Is it really the case though that people mostly understand “proof” as 100% justified certainty? I feel like colloquially that’s not the case, and that people mostly really mean by “X proved Y to be the case” that they justified it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, those kinds of people (e.g. conspiracy theorists) who are motivated to demand extraordinary standards of evidence for dubious claims don’t strike me as the sort of people who would be moved by the argument made in this article. I imagine most of the people that believe that Covid is not a disease don’t do so because they think you can’t be justified in thinking Covid is real unless you have some analytic proof, but rather because they just think the evidence is really strong for their viewpoint, and thus you would need some extraordinary defeater to persuade them. It’s not that they’re confused about what “proof” means in a logical context or something (and even if they are confused, I don’t think that’s the explanation for their behavior).
P.S I already proved all of the above, so don’t even think about trying to contradict me.
I agree. I think colloquially it usually means: can you provide evidence for that? Which is not an unreasonable ask.
I believe you are correct!
Prove I am!