Position:Home>Philosophy> Is it possible to disprove fact? Or is it in reality proving something false?

The answer is neither yes or no!. To say yes to this question I would have to make an assumption, an assumption that there are facts – which would mean that no assumptions were involved anywhere in the process of discovering that fact!. Since I made an assumption, that act of assuming would contradict my license to answer this question with a yes!. And I can not answer no, because it would also make the assumption that there are innate facts!.

I would like to say that you can not prove anything, which is not related to numbers!. But, we get all our supposed facts about numbers from postulates!. A postulate is a law that you assume to be true, and from which other things follow: such as much of physics, for example, from that particular postulate!. You cannot derive postulates!. How do you prove that one plus one equals two!? The answer is, you don't!. You assume that abstract numbers work that way, and then derive other properties of addition from that basic assumption!.

The problem is that when you deal with assumptions you are always making an ‘if then’ statement, if a = 1 then a + a = 2, since there is an ‘if’ there is something not proven!.

Everything we know is a theory, we speculate, and we assume!. Much of what we claim is true is based upon multiple experiences and strong supporting evidence!. But strong evidence only supports a theory, does not make it an absolute truth (something we know is correct beyond a shadow of a doubt)!. The way we prove something exists in the common sense of the word is through deduction which is Observance of an event occurring on a repeated basis that leads one to believe that a certain probability is attached to the occurrence of that event!. Note the word believe, it is something we can not know beyond a shadow of a doubt!.

The facts most widely believed are facts proved through inductive reasoning!. Induction is sometimes framed as reasoning about the future from the past, but in its broadest sense it involves reaching conclusions about unobserved things on the basis of what has been observed!. The classic philosophical treatment of the problem of induction, was David Hume!. Hume highlighted the fact that our everyday reasoning depends on patterns of repeated experience rather than deductively valid arguments!. For example, we believe that bread will nourish us because it has done so in the past, but this is not a guarantee that it will always do so!. As Hume said, someone who insisted on sound deductive justifications for everything would starve to death!. Instead of approaching everything with unproductive skepticism, Hume advocated a practical skepticism based on common sense, where the inevitability of induction is accepted!.

All observed crows are black!.
therefore,
All crows are black!.

This exemplifies the nature of induction: inducing the universal from the particular!. However, the conclusion is not certain!. Unless we can systematically falsify the possibility of crows of another color, the statement (conclusion) may actually be false!. For example, one could examine the bird's genome and learn whether it's capable of producing a differently colored bird without mutation or a long set of breeding changes!. In doing so, we could discover that albinism is possible, resulting in light-colored crows!. Even if you change the definition of "crow" to require blackness, the original question of the color possibilities for a bird of that species would stand, only semantically hidden!. A strong induction is thus an argument in which the truth of the premises would make the truth of the conclusion probable, but not definite!.

The same argument is used to prove gravity, and to prove “the sun rises each morning!.” Since we base our proof of the sun rising each morning on the fact that we have experienced it rising each morning, we cannot know, but we can assume that it will rise again next morning – but then again it’s just an illusion caused by the world spinning round!.

Once you disprove something, in the absolute, it can no longer be considered fact – thus you are arguing something is false!.

A man is wise with the wisdom of his time only, and ignorant with its ignorance!. - Henry David Thoreau

In answer to “Uh Yeah” you can not prove that something will not happen, or that something does not exist – the problem is that you can not prove the sun will rise each morning!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Your assertion that reality is concrete is questionable, and not as 'concrete' in itself as you may think!. It raises central questions in epistemology, metaphysics, perception in the philosophy of psychology, etc!.

However, granting this were true (which it may not be, but lets go along with it); it is still possible to disprove a fact!. This is of course bound by generalised perception and knowledge!.
Using emperical evidence directly translates to an example like;
Should agent A say that water is black, agent B can assert that it is colourless given that A can perceive colour arbitrarily as well as B AND given A knows what he's talking about and is open to a better explanation from B!.

However emperics is not everything!. Look at mathematics, the height of abstractions!. Propositions are either proven or disproven within a set of logical axioms regularly!.

A useful logical tool is reductio ad absurdum!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Can you disprove the fact that the sun rises each morning!? Or from the east!?

The only way to disprove them is to redefine the terms like 'morning' and 'east'!. I'm sure semantics can be used to "disprove" them but it doesn't change the facts that the sun rises each morning and in the east!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

you can have a fact and it not be true or completely true!. so it is possible to disprove fact, but reality can also prove something false!. it depends on what the time is, what the conditions are ect!. get the idea!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Facts in what epistemological sense!?
Empirical "facts" are the same for any observer!.
This is what would qualify it as a fact!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

For the longest time it was fact that the sun revolved around the earth!. simply open your eyes and you can disprove fact!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

facts are only husk of something else!. one can prove anything by logic and also the opposite of it using same logicWww@QuestionHome@Com

---

---