Are Known Without Being Taught

Exist Only As Records

Legitimize Knowledge

Need A Receipt

Verify

proof

impossible

possible

theory

one-liner

is a simple mechanism operating on one law only. If the thinker, for example, thinks that all jews are rich, the prover will prove it.

As psychiatrist and psychologist have often observed (much to the chagrin of their medical colleagues), the Thinker can think itself sick, and can even think itself well again. The Prover is a much simpler mechanism. It operates on one law only: Whatever the Thinker thinks, the Prover proves. To cite a notorious example which unleashed incredible horrors earlier in this century, if the Thinker thinks that all Jews are rich, the Prover will prove it. It will find evidence that the (Wilson 'prometheus' : 27)

is but a fallacy invented by man to justify to himself and his fellows his own crass lust and folly.

It is not proof that I sought. I, of all men, know that proof is but a fallacy invented by man to justify to himself and his fellows his own crass lust and folly.

is evidence having a shade more of plausibility than of unlikelihood. The testimony of two credible witnesses as opposed to that of only one.

PROOF, n. Evidence having a shade more of plausibility than of unlikelihood. The testimony of two credible witnesses as opposed to that of only one.

is not something which needs to be approached rationally, but rather, proof collapses as soon as enough light is shed on what an assertion says.

. . . It remains strage, and seems presumptuous, to assert that what is most thought-provoking in our thought-provoking time is that we are still not thinking. Accordingly, we must prove the assertion. Even more advisable is first to explain it. For it could be that the demand for a proof collapses as soon as enough light is shed on what the assertion says. It runs: . . . .' ((Heidegger 1954: 6-7)

is not constant --- its criteria changes over time.

It is important to note that despite Schibuzawa's inability to prove his claims at the time, they were proved (with the exception of the amino acid composition) ten years later. This was not so much becasue of his failure but rather because in the meantime the definition of a proof had drastically changed' (Latour 1979:120)

is never enough. One also has to seduce or elevate people to a thing.

It is not enough to prove something, one also has to seduce or elevate people to it. That is why the man of knowledge should learns how to speak his wisdom: and often in such a way that it sounds like folly! Friedrich Nietzsche

is required only in matters that are not worth much.

That which needs to be proved cannot be worth much. Friedrich Nietzsche

is not required to attack any argument that was not supported by proof. That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

'... What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. ...'

proof, n.All

proof