Gear 5: ‘Now we have the proof...”
In an age where belief in god is tricky, proof is really what we have. Perhaps stating to form maths, proof as become the acme of answerability. If I roof a thing in maths, then that proof is their answerable, in black and white for all o see and for all of time. You might not like the proof but here is really nothing that you can do about it. It is so. Proof then becomes a litmus test for sense. It is what one must accept or be revealed as daffy or nonsensical. Or perhaps just not a mathematician.
Is far so good. Proof has a slightly more troubled life when applied to hard science. Proof here s less a matter of logic, than inference from reasoned argument. A thing is then proofed if it has an explanation form which a series of repeatable action ( experiments can be inferred, and if these actions are repeatable regardless of time and place. Truth becomes therefore an ac of collective witnessing, and acceptance that a series of occurrence and an explication are ought up in and inter related with one another.
Truths are then held to be better, or sounder, if they stand up not merely to one wave of experiments but also too subsequent action and thought. That is it the belief in the truth I its allows one to act in the light on the knowledge and the experiments that demonstrate it, in such a way that one become able to do more or think more in and about the world. The theory o atomic structure was to merely proofed by sequence of experiments back in the seventeenth and eighteen centuries, but also is demonstrated in t uses in chemistry and physicist today. That is, as a theory is additionally proofed in I use. Indeed the proof gradually strengthened as it is used again and again. The truth slowly transforms into a paradigm or a base level assumption to a whole plethora or processes and knowing. It becomes increasingly ‘G Given’ and assumed.
Social science proof are even more difficult aging. In a sense one never can ‘proof’ anything I social sine. All on can say is that at a certain level of abstraction a certain series on interrelated events are seen. There in anthropology, certain themes are repeated such a certain realigns in matrilineal societies or the position of women in matrilineal. These repletion so not’ proof anything, as such. That is they do not go anywhere beyond themselves. Or perhaps better the proof that these relations are true then becomes itself the fact to be explained. Explication are then formed to explain this fact, and a discipline found. The proofs therefore in Anthropology often enough about the matter to analyse is or it not the incest taboo inversely, or what is the importance of this or that myth).the explanation that then follow themselves remain distinct.
This distinction between proofs thereafter to what to study and explication in a sense is the fig eave that allows social science to be a science. The world of truth requires a deep rigour that is rather hard to have in the world of human realign, which re necessarily shifting. To meet the challenge of this rigor, social sciences looks to statistics for their proofs. The problem (or the discipline) of social science is then formed in the light of the fact that a lone set of figures in effect meaningless. The game o social science is then to cloth he number sin meaning. It is to invent a reason or a series of reasons for otherwise rather empty social fact.
The difference then between the hard science and the social is the position of the proof. Both (unlike maths) have recourse to popular opinion, both will allow old established proofs to become paradigms. Where they different though is that in the harder science these proofs are the start do series of experiment. A good proof leads to more action and more proofs, while for the social sciences the faces are merely there, and the explication are what follows. So are, so good. The problem then comes though when one attempts to more the idea of proof out of this territory of maths and scientific rigour. What is a proof in a world beyond science/How does one proof things?
The problem of course is what once one moves beyond the statistical or evident based (and therefore stats based) option on truth and experiment, then what exactly is one left with the worrying point here is that one is left which surprising a lot. One is left first and foremost with the idea that there is out their something like a proof. That is their is some external reality that nice accepted warps the world in a certain direction. If one finds then this holy nuggets one has prove a case. But one is also left with the idea that all proofs ought to be collective. It is never enough to proof a thing to myself alone. That proof but somehow be take-up and accepted by others. This move of course involves two interrelated moves. One the one hand the proof ought to carry weight in a mind. . that is its material fact ought itself to lead those who witness that fact to infer a certain series of argument’s of truths. On the other hand a good proof is also collective. That is there is really no value in proofing a thing for myself and to myself alone. To proof a case is to appeal to the rest of the world to accept hat case. A proof therefore involve a collective action, a collective take on reality, and what in the world is really real about that reality.
The real trouble though is that there is no real order or discrimination between these different elements. He our of public opinion is therefore thought to hold the same weight as the action world of material acts, or the power of an argument (or its mere durability). All independent fixing of these points is then kicked away. What is left are two rather sinister elements. On the one hand there is the appeal to a proof. That is there is the demand that somewhere out their must be proof, with this proof being underhand as a nugget or a fact that stream option one way rather than the other. The game then becomes first to find this nugget but also secondly o arrange all arguments in the light of how the respondent is responding to this belief in what is true and the value of that truth. By which I mean proof in the hands of the modern media or popular usage becomes a circle of virtue and light. Those who accept or support the truth, those who re fellow seeker for the proof, are seen in a positive manner, They and their worlds are listened to fairly and with pen ear. In contrast those who are attempting to proof another truth or fighting for a different reality reviewed with suspicion, their words are twisted or ignores, the nuance lost or re invented by the modern machines of proof.
The self confessed inquisitorial media then become very much he modern witch finder generals. They might not drown the victim but the methods are the same. That is the witch craze is a sense needs always to be understood as the first attempt a social science. That is it was the first attempt to use the ideas and concept of nascent science to analyse the population, a d to infer from a certain series of material actions and a certain set of collective prejudices a series of truths. Where then the craze became a madness (and ultimately a very bloody and wicked one) was that it could not then separate the ’fact that it unearthed form the weight of public opinion. The public belief in witches, and the witch finders job was to invent a series of tests and process to discover them . roof becomes at this point very easily aligned to social prejudice and facts are gently warped to support this view.
Or to put it a little differently proof becomes always problematic when that proof is made to bow first to collective pressure to that court of public opinion. The problem here I of course the classic one. This court is notoriously bias and problematic it tends to sway on argument and sentiment’ and not really listen or better it selectively listens to the ‘faces’ .
At this point the trouble with truth is in effect fourfold. On the one hand in being demanded it sets a stands or a hoop through which fact must jump . That is papers are assed not for what they say or even for the context within which they are written, but rather for whether o not they conform to the rigour of a supposed proof. The rigour of the e proof needed the varies by the strength of opinion. A proof for an argument that people like to make or that once head they can repeat with a clear conscience is of course an awful lot lower than the proof for an argument that flied in the face of public option. To proof the at the MMR vaccine was harmful was very low, as that proof ‘supported; a collective fear that he medial industry had lost sight of individuals. The counter proof that he vaccine is fine (and always better that the alternative is then set impossibly high. The first proof becomes the truth and the second. Can barely, if ever undermine it.
More than this, it is possible to argue that a ‘proof’ desire to crate proof or the proving this or that point becomes then a way to pull segregate a population. It divides the sheep form the goats, the proofers from the doubter from the apostates, and was such serves a vital social role in a society where such markers are all too often hidden. The fate then of politicians or movements are then caught up n an access of proofs. At any one Tim certain figures are set in certain roles; Current in Britain Cameron is clear the deputy angel of light. His role is to mimic what the media wants and call on the government to accept the truth of whatever proof they are pedalling, an act accordingly (and then to least them as some how disingenuous when they do not). Brown on the other hand is early the antichrist to modern media truths. The man whose world by definition one cannot accept or believe. The antidote to all proving.
Secondly, the role of the inquisitor general is rather tricky. The problem is that the true inquisitor related to a world of external truth and internal proof. The inquisitor is then the one who find the facts that proof a s case an make a suspect cough up the truth or the proof or merely blood And yet s a series of events where there are many conflicting options and almost on possible hard or even verifiable facts, merely inference and infernal, the came of what is and is not seen as proof is rather more trick. Here the game is really one of orbit. He proof that the world of the media accepts as is own (the ones it finds out) will be subtly different (as the audience is different) for the truth of politicians or the truth of the public. He media are then always looking out for certain sets of truths. What is more why they want these truths is it’s a little suspect. These truths are needed because, again from experience, the media rather assuming that it they are endlessly repeated across 24 broadcasting, then will have an effect upon the public. That is the media what those proofs that endless repeating and endless clips will support and make look as real. The media scout out then for truth that will proof a case b clip. The court of pubic opinion becomes a group for supposing truth inquisitor to woo. They connive with it to produce in repetition and acceptance of their peers, those truth that all might com to accept.
Thirdly and leading on form the last point, there is a real problem of orbit in this proof. The world of theological lobby and porous lines between journalists and politicians means that at any one point the media is very likely to know an other set of facts to the ones they can report. The result is that they will endlessly be looking to proofs or parallel stories and held reflecting narrative to illustrate that other set of faces, the ones they cannot repeat (and keep their sources). To listen to he howl for proof is therefore to listen to many narratives some of which are being spoken but many of which are endlessly being occluded or expressed within an apparently senseless howl for a proof.
Finally, faced with the need o proof stories or lines which actually have not proof the media perforce have recourse to history If a political situation is tricky therefore they endlessly rummage around the past or travel across the world (on freeholder packages) looking for a paradigm or narrative. Or proof becomes then in a sense a cheap story or cheaper holiday where the dresses up the history for another time or place as some how significant and a \proof’ from which someone somewhere needs to learn the lesson (whatever that might be or even mean). If proof becomes as much about carrying the court of public by selective and careful use of nuggets of external information, the this power cheap story carries a lot of power The nugget of history is a powerful one, and the idea that history repeats attractive. Expectation and predicating of proofs to come are then endlessly peeled off as the proof questors truth.
Underpinning al these moves the same basic demand. The trouble with the abolition of certainty I that it makes the world too damn difficult. One is faced with the fact that it is either all rather too depression or pointless or complex. The game of proof is then one o t games we use to fill this apparent void. The reward here is simple. It one roofs a thing one can move one. The game is over, and the world or at least that bit of it is finished and solved. The game of proof is therefore the game about how an argument or a complex torrent of fast resolve one way to other. T is the came after which we can be lazily or at least relax in the knowledge. We want then to fin those proofs to make a world simple and are prepared to take fairly desperate or merely duplicable methods to find them. The implication o course her eyes very simple. To runs against this proof to say something different is to say something difficult and therefore to stand accused of making everything confusing again. A proof as then with it the urgency for a solution and the unwillingess to move beyond those little nuggets of truth one has.
The great of proof is the gar that raised up the standard for an argument. It becomes the rallying point for the mob for the media., the point everyone flocks to and agrees around. A series of arbitrary facts or half thought out arguments is thereby transformed into a semi holy truth. This truth configures on the mind what so many mind apparently need – certainty. It has then a deep power for good or ill to transform reality, or better to warp it in the manner of collective (manufactured) desires.
