Turn on thread page Beta

Can we know something that has not been proven true? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    hey all

    i've got a tok essay to do, and i need some ideas...

    can we know something that has not been proven true?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by icy)
    hey all

    i've got a tok essay to do, and i need some ideas...

    can we know something that has not been proven true?
    I think you need to refer to the knowledge tripartite here: "justified true belief", which is is the standard definition of knowledge (even though there are some problems with this definition). There, that's something to start you off. If you have any further queries, do ask.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by icy)
    hey all

    i've got a tok essay to do, and i need some ideas...

    can we know something that has not been proven true?
    Yes, there are lot's of examples in physics where something has not been experimentally proven, it is just theoretical but we know (or are pretty sure) that it is true because the theories it is based on have been proven.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NikNak)
    Yes, there are lot's of examples in physics where something has not been experimentally proven, it is just theoretical but we know (or are pretty sure) that it is true because the theories it is based on have been proven.
    "truth is what stands the test of time" --Einstein

    we cannot know with 100% certainty that the teories which have been proven is TRUE....not until it has been falsified, then we know that it is NOT true
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by icy)
    hey all

    i've got a tok essay to do, and i need some ideas...

    can we know something that has not been proven true?
    proven how?

    through experience or reason?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    proven how?

    through experience or reason?
    there are multiple approaches to this question.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by icy)
    there are multiple approaches to this question.
    your asking, you tell me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    All science is theoretical, its just that theres a tonne of evidence to help support the arguments, theorys and "facts".

    eg No one knows what atoms actually consist of but evidence collected supports the idea they have neutrons, protons and electrons.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    yeah and there's String Theory and stuff like that.

    and they think there's 11 dimensions (apparently) and the only reason they can think so is because the calculations for that fit in with all the results they know... quite how they prove a number of dimensions I have no idea

    the nearest to "sure" we can be is if it fits with all the data we have to test it with. that's what science is about
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    how can we be sure the sun will rise tomorrow just because it always has...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well, how can anyone be sure that they'll still be alive in the next 10 seconds? anything could happen... i could die before I get the chance to post this...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NickNack)
    Well, how can anyone be sure that they'll still be alive in the next 10 seconds? anything could happen... i could die before I get the chance to post this...
    how do you prove that you are alive?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well your not, this is all part of my dream, ill wake up in a minute
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Prove to me god exists.

    Prove to me there is WMDs in iraq.

    Prove to me there is a brain in Bush.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elpaw)
    how do you prove that you are alive?
    cognito ergo sum.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Prove to me there is a brain in Bush.
    if we were to say that Bush lacked a human brain, we would have to assume that he some lesser animal brain capacity due to the very fact he was alive. taking this premise, we would expect him to adapt himself to the environment around him, taking into consideration the hostility and problems raised by his actions, a primitive cognitive assertion would mean he would change policy to please and benefit his immediate position. since this is in fact the opposite case, we must therefore assume he has a higher capacity of cognitive functionality and is displaying rational reasoning to reach his own decisions based on the human concepts of experience and thought.

    it would be fair to assume George Bush had a human brain.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    if we were to say that Bush lacked a human brain, we would have to assume that he some lesser animal brain capacity due to the very fact he was alive. taking this premise, we would expect him to adapt himself to the environment around him, taking into consideration the hostility and problems raised by his actions, a primitive cognitive assertion would mean he would change policy to please and benefit his immediate position. since this is in fact the opposite case, we must therefore assume he has a higher capacity of cognitive functionality and is displaying rational reasoning to reach his own decisions based on the human concepts of experience and thought.

    it would be fair to assume George Bush had a human brain.
    ....over the top but yet effective...lol
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    how can we be sure the sun will rise tomorrow just because it always has...
    repetition...
    we assume that it will rise tomorrow, simply because it has always done so, but we cannot know for sure. repetition is not a plausible definition for truth.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Prove to me god exists.

    Prove to me there is WMDs in iraq.

    Prove to me there is a brain in Bush.
    rhetorical questions...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    if we were to say that Bush lacked a human brain, we would have to assume that he some lesser animal brain capacity due to the very fact he was alive. taking this premise, we would expect him to adapt himself to the environment around him, taking into consideration the hostility and problems raised by his actions, a primitive cognitive assertion would mean he would change policy to please and benefit his immediate position. since this is in fact the opposite case, we must therefore assume he has a higher capacity of cognitive functionality and is displaying rational reasoning to reach his own decisions based on the human concepts of experience and thought.

    it would be fair to assume George Bush had a human brain.
    not really he always acts like a monkey have'nt ou seen that tread tutut
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 8, 2004
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.