How crazy am I to think I actually know where that Malaysia Airlines plane is?

Proof will compel rational systems into agreement. If I submit a proof to a computer, it will consume it and output that-which-was-proved. The correlation between the structure of the inputs and outputs are what the word 'proof' refers to. It's not that complicated.

>You're attempting to deny the validity of my argument by shifting the context into some vague definition of the word proof.

I'm not defining proof, I'm just telling you what it is. Words don't require definition to have meaning.

>Sure applying the scientific method to daily life is stupid

I don't know why you'd say this or why you think I'd agree with it.

You are starting from the assumption that science doesn't proof things (a statement that you no doubt have no proof of) and used it to conclude that proof is meaningless. What a fine conclusion -- it's utterly useless. But rather than imagine that your assumption was wrong, you want to dig in because "so many people" told you it was correct. Well? Give me a proof. Why should anyone believe these things? What rational advantage do you have by claiming proof is impossible?

Furthermore, why would you -- while saying proof is impossible -- ignore the fact that mathematics -- a discipline completely enamored with proof -- be a useful basis for science if science had no need of proof? Does that not strike you as completely absurd? Why would you believe such a thing?

Uhh....so, so much of journalism today is exactly that; to the point that articles that are substantial are the exception.

Rational advantage? You think I'm just stating bullshit for some kind of advantage? Look it up yourself. When did I say "so many people" told me so. Nobody told me shit, You can look this stuff up, it's established academic knowledge. Here's a link to start off with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

>Furthermore, why would you -- while saying proof is impossible -- ignore the fact that mathematics -- a discipline completely enamored with proof -- be a useful basis for science if science had no need of proof? Does that not strike you as completely absurd? Why would you believe such a thing?

Look up the mathematics section on that wikipedia page I just linked. first line: "Many philosophers believe that mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable, and thus not a science"

Now the question you should ask yourself is not why I would believe such a thing but why it strikes you as completely absurd when it's common knowledge in science.

>You are starting from the assumption that science doesn't proof things (a statement that you no doubt have no proof of) and used it to conclude that proof is meaningless. What a fine conclusion -- it's utterly useless. But rather than imagine that your assumption was wrong, you want to dig in because "so many people" told you it was correct. Well? Give me a proof. Why should anyone believe these things?

Have you ever done science? You know the first thing they do after they come up with a hypothesis? I can tell you they don't immediately try to prove the hypothesis. The first thing they do is convert the hypothesis to a NULL hypothesis and then they try to DISPROVE it. It is the central tenant and quest of science to disprove the NULL hypothesis. Why do you think they do this? Does this not strike you as odd?

If you STILL don't believe me then take a look at the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence#Concept_of_...

I found this page on wikipedia searching for "scientific proof." Anyway, to "prove" what I say has legitimacy please read the following:

Under the section "Utility of Scientific Evidence": "Philosophers, such as Karl R. Popper, have provided influential theories of the scientific method within which scientific evidence plays a central role.[6] In summary, Popper provides that a scientist creatively develops a theory which may be falsified by testing the theory against evidence or known facts. Popper's theory presents an asymmetry in that evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory.[7]"

Did you get that? He says "Science cannot prove a theory correct." Read that and understand it. I guarantee your perspective of the world will widen as a result. I know we're a little hostile right now but if you put that aside and try to internalize and understand what he says then this knowledge you gain will represent a paradigm shift in your understanding of the world. It did for me.

Now go to the end of that page and read the last paragraph: "While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[13] many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory,"[14] and Satoshi Kanazawa has argued that "Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science."[15]"

If you understood what you just read then not only should you know why proving things is impossible, you should also know that the nonexistence of proof in reality is established scientific knowledge.

>he first thing they do is convert the hypothesis to a NULL hypothesis and then they try to DISPROVE it.

Yes, you do a straightforward bijective transformation using no new information, and apparently everything is different. That's not important. You're just highlighting a duality between proof and disproof. You're proving invalidity rather than validity. It's still proof.

As for the rest of your post: Appeal to authority is not an argument. Appeal to popularity is not an argument. These people are wrong. That's essentially what I'm arguing.

I'm not claiming that everyone agrees with me. So why would I debate that? Why are you debating that?