All Proofs are person relative (A concept discovered by George Mavrodes)
BUT1. Truth is not person relative.
2. Validity is not person relative.
Truth is a property of Propositions. Definition of a proposition: a use of language that communicates information.
Validity is a property of Argument. Definition of Argument: 2 or more propositions that are related in some way.
Example:
Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal. (All of these are propositions)
Socrates is mortal.
Put in the right sequence, they form an argument.
An argument is Valid if it satisfies the rules of logic.
An argument is Sound if its Valid, AND the propositions are true.
Example:
Tuna are mammals.
All mammals are warm blooded.
Tuna are warm blooded.
This argument is technically valid because the sequencing allows it to produce a conclusion- BUT, it is not Sound because two of the propositions (one of which doubles as the conclusion) are false.
Validity, Soundness, and Cogency are properties of Argument.
Definition of Cogent: An argument is cogent if it is Sound, Valid, and Persuasive.
Arguments are NOT person relative. Proof's are.
In order for an argument to become a Proof, someone must be persuaded.
Personally, I find fault in Nash saying that Arguments are not person relative. He implies that an argument becomes a proof if it is cogent- but then contradicts himself when he says that one is person relative, and one is not. Does that mean that a non-cogent argument is not person relative? and that a cogent one is? I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. I think Nash has some sort of genius reasoning behind this, but so far I don't see it. In my book, an argument and a proof would both be person relative, because based on the premises, each person's conclusion could be different. Then again, maybe Nash is implying that in an argument, cogency is left out- only the truth and validity of an argument remain. Therefore, when an argument has cogency (a conclusion drawn from it), it becomes a proof, and also person relative. I suppose you could look at it either way.
So, Why are proofs person relative??
2 parts to a proof:1. Logical
2. Persuasive
(Again, think Cogent).
Arguments are tools for building proofs.
(Its basically a pyramid. At the base are propositions. Put a few of those together to make an argument. Several arguments together make a proof. But, remember that an argument in itself can also be a proof. The part of the proof that can be relative is the conclusion).
Nash's point: Don't be discouraged when one tool in your tool box doesn't fix the problem. Some people won't respond to certain arguments. It can take several arguments before a person finds one that resonates with them personally.
An Example of a Proof for God's Existence:
Q: What is a number? Or more specifically, what is the number 1?
1. The number one is an idea or concept. It's an arbitrary metaphor to help us understand an immeasurable concept.
2. Ideas can only exist in minds. (You don't find them floating around like clouds...)
3. The number 1 is eternal. It has always been there, regardless of when we discovered it. It's the same with the idea of a circle. It's not like we came up with it, we just discovered it.
4. 1 is immutable. It can't, and won't ever change. If it did, it wouldn't be the number 1 anymore.
5. It must exist independently of human minds. 1 is eternal, and human minds are not, therefore, it exists outside of our minds.
6. There must exist an eternal and immutable mind....God. If ideas can only exist in the mind, and 1 is an eternal idea, it must exist in an eternal mind.
No such thing as a perfect coercive proof that suits everyone. Why? Because proofs are person relative, and we're all different. We can each interpret the conclusion of a proof differently.
Another spiel:
Now comes some application. When it comes to arguments for God's existence, often sound and valid (true basically) proofs are shot down by non-believers. Yes, on a logical level it has to do with a difference in interpretation of the conclusion, but on a real-world level, the thing standing between them and the truth is sin. Ultimately, that's how we all were at one point. Blinded by our own sin, wallowing in our own selfishness, unable to see our God. If you're a believer, then you've overcome that by God's grace, but for non-believers, sin is still blocking the way. It's a worldview thing, and it's a heart thing. That's why even though this logic stuff is great, it still comes down to a person's heart, and being able to accept the truth before them.
More to come on the existence of God tomorrow. Stay tuned. :)
'One' can't both be an 'idea' and 'eternal'. I disagree with his premises. 'Ideas are models that are created by the human mind'. Who says 'one' is eternal? it is a model and a representation.
ReplyDeleteJust like the electron. The electron is a model that a human made up to explain certain phenomenon. It explains them very well, and in fact, there has been no experiment that has disproven the existence of the electron. But . . . It still is an idea, a model, and doesn't really exist.
The electron doesn't have to actually exist for our model or representation to work well.
I would agree with you too. I left out my opinion on the post (as far as his "one" argument goes) because I wasn't sure how to word it, and I figured that since he was a professor, he knew better than I did. I guess I do have a right to question it though. He doesn't explain why one can be eternal. I think that in itself needs premises. I mean, I sort of think that the number one is eternal, but I don't really know why I think that.
ReplyDelete