A statement that is believed to be true but has not yet been proven is called a?
Conjecture.In statistics, a hypothesis is never technically "proved" or "disproved"; evidence is simply found for or against it. Whether this evidence is deemed "significant" or not depends on a predetermined "significance level". A "p-value" is the probability of obtaining the results of a given test (or results "more extreme" than those generated) on the assumption that the null hypothesis is true. For example, suppose our null hypothesis was: "There is no correlation between height and weight." We may test this hypothesis with the significance level of 0.05. Suppose then, from a sample of, say, 10,000 people, a strong correlation between height and weight was found, giving a p-value of less than 0.05. In this instance we have sufficient reason to reject the null hypothesis; there is a lack of evidence to support the view that there is not, generally speaking, a correlation between height and weight. Notice, however, that this doesn't "prove" any kind of general rule. It does not prove that tall people are always heavy and heavy people are always tall. It simply indicates a common relationship.The word "proof", then, is often reserved for pure mathematics where, in the "cosmos of abstract ideas", generalisations CAN be made. Theorems are mathematical statements that have been proved. Lemmas are, if you like, "sub-theorems"; less significant statements whose proofs aid the proof of a more significant theorem. A conjecture is a mathematical statement that has not been proved but is believed to be true (e.g. Goldbach's conjecture).As an aside, there are interesting philosophical ramifications of this rhetoric. One may question what can, in real life, really be "proved". Even scientists are guilty of misusing the word "proof". Perhaps the best we can do in most cases (rather like in a court of law) is to try to find "enough" evidence to support our convictions. It seems faith is necessary after all.
How do I prove that plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is NOT UNJUST?
I can give you at least one argument. In our system of justice, the defense attorney gets to confront and cross examine each and every witness (the defendant having the right, under the 6th Amendment to confront the witnesses against him/her). The fact that a person got a deal in exchange for their testimony is information a good defense attorney SHOULD and WILL cross examine the witness about. As such, it is not unjust for them to be able to plea bargain in exchange for their testimony. The prosecution is required to turn the information about the deal over to defense counsel, and defense counsel gets to use it to impeach the witness's testimony. As a defense attorney, I actually like having a witness on the stand, who got a good deal in exchange for their testimony. A defense attorney can use that information to make the witness look like the biggest liar on the face of the earth.
Jehovah's Witnesses, Have you ever researched what the scripture means that says Jesus is "firsborn"?
Here is what I found when I did my research. regarding firstborn.. That word does not mean "first created". the greek:protokos means"first in rank, preeminent one, heir". Christ is the firstborn of creation in the sense that He is positionally preeminent over creation and is supreme over all things. He is also the "heir" of all creation in the sense that all that is the fathers is also the Son's. Just as David was the youngest (last born) son of Jesse, Psalm 83:27 says " I also shall make him My first-born , the hightest of the kings of the earth". Thought David was the last born in Jesse's family, David is the firstborn because of the preeminent position God was placing him in. For Colossians 1:15 to mean "first created", Paul would not have called Christ the "firstborn", (protokos) but the "first created" (protoktisis) a term that is never uses of Christ in the NT. The fact that the Apostle writers used not protktisis (first created), but prototokos (firstborn) means that Christ is preeminent over all creation. What are your thoughts on this? Have you ever considered what this means..since Jesus was not created?
Why do people say "you can't prove a negative" when it's actually very easy to prove some negatives?
It's possible to prove a negative, just that in many cases it's an order of magnitude more difficult.Consider this situation: I want to prove that the person A is a liar (for a very strict definition of this word). In order to do that it's enough that I show just an one occasion when A was lying. If, on the other hand, I want to vouch that A is NOT a liar (meaning that he has never lied), I basically have to know the whole history of A's life.In contrast, proving that A is lying about something in particular is approximately as hard as proving that A is not lying. In this case both statements are symmetrical.When dealing with search problems in general, one usually can greatly reduce the time required by applying search heuristics and starting by looking in the most likely places, so to say. However, if one is searching for an item that's NOT there (such as a case of lies in the history of the imaginary, perfectly-honest human being), one has to go through the whole search space to be sure.Interestingly, the same also applies to pure mathematics. For some famous examples consider Fermat's Last Theorem (there are NO integers above 2 such that...) and the P vs. NP problem. Fermat's Last Theorem states a negative result that was eventually (after centuries of laborious research) proven to be true. The complexity classes P and NP are widely believed to be NOT equivalent (but no proof yet, despite the large attention this question receives). The thing is that if these were positive results instead, mathematicians merely would have to show that there are some particular integers that satisfy the theorem / that there is some particular algorithm that allows reduction from NP to P, respectively. For negative results, their task looks more difficult, as it requires thinking in a higher level of abstraction. It requires giving general results why there cannot be such integers / such an algorithm. Of course, this is not the only reason why these problems are hard, but it might be one of the contributing factors.
In debates, what's it called when someone uses an example to try to prove a point, rather than show data?
First, let’s be clear: all data is examples. Data by definition is a set of systematic observations meant to exemplify a particular theorem or proposition. If we ask whether pigs fly, and someone shows us a pig that flies, that example is most certainly data that speaks to the proposition “pigs fly.”There are many ways that exemplification can go wrong, but they all boil down to subtly or grossly changing the nature of the proposition being investigated. They are all, in effect, category errors, in that they change the category of objects or events being discussed without signaling — or perhaps even being aware of — that change.The particular problem the question is asking about could be a ‘restricted domain’ error. This includes things like:Cherry picking: choosing examples that are advantageous to one’s argument, while ignoring other examplesLow-hanging fruit and straw men: choosing examples that are easy to get at, and ignoring more difficult, informative casesSampling bias: choosing a small or misaligned group: e.g. using Pegasus — a unique creature that is unlike other horses — as an example showing that horses can fly. ( I suppose in our example that would be Pigasus…)It could also be a narrative error, something where the ‘evidence’ being presented is not actually evidence at all, but rather a completely different proposition wrapped up by an implicit narrative. This includes things like:Anecdotalism: stories meant to engage sentiments by appealing to the sincerity and respectability of the speaker:.testimonials, hearsay, “It seems to me that…” or “I’ve heard it said that…” type arguments…Normativism: stories meant to engage group norms or group knowledge as though they were evidence: “People are saying…”, “everyone knows that…”Circular arguments: stories created with a particularly conclusion in mind, that are then presented as evidence of that conclusionOf course, give the ‘pigs fly’ example used, this might just be a sarcastic response to a sarcastic statement. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing to do about it except stick out your tongue or roll your eyes.
What is the difference between a valid and a sound argument?
An argument is valid if true premises always leads to true conclusions. An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and all of the premises are true.Consider the following two arguments.P1: Socrates is a man.P2: All men are green.Conclusion: Socrates is green.P1: Socrates is a man.P2: All men are mortal.Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.Both argument share the form:A is B.All B are C.Therefore, A is C.All arguments with this form are valid. Hence, both of the example arguments are valid. However, the first example is unsound because the second premise is false, while the second example is sound because both of its premises are true.It is possible for the conclusion of an invalid argument to be true by coincidence. For example consider the following argument.P1: All popes reside at the Vatican. P2: Pope Francis resides at the Vatican. Therefore, Francis is a pope.Both premises and the conclusion are true but the argument is invalid. The truth of the premises do not imply the truth of the conclusion. To see this consider the following argument.P1: All basketballs are round. P2: The Earth is round. Therefore, the Earth is a basketball.Both of these arguments have the form:All A's are F;X is F;Therefore, X is an A.Arguments with this form are invalid because true premises do not necessarily imply a true conclusion. This is easy to see with the second example but the first example is also invalid. Since all invalid arguments are unsound, both of these examples are unsound.
Is it true that only a fool would deal with absolutes?
Well if that is true, that means both parties of arguing are wrong. However, regardless of the outcome that the parties' resolution arrives at, truth will always be truth and lie will always be a lie. That means that essentially, if a fact is true, it will be disputed by the parties who are inclined to prove to it false. However the parties who were trying to prove truth wrong, have already proven to self-condemn themselves for not understanding that the implication of truth will always be greater than the implication of lie. In other words, Truth is, and lie is an ongoing unsuccessful and impossible attempt to obstruct truth. A lie will never obstruct the truth in its final application because lie does not carry the capacity to do so Reason/proof: All things we know have either or both tendency for destruction and/or death. So that means, if order and harmony would exist (and they do), God and truth would have to also.