For example, the acceleration due to gravity is a physical reality. Its definition of “9.8 m/sec/sec” is not. The actual physical law is expressed in terms of of a measurement of distance and time, and the measurement itself is invented by man. A meter does not exist as such in reality, nor does a second. Only distance and time exist as such; the actual units of them are abstractions created by men. The physical property of gravity itself is not expressed, but the acceleration due to it is measured in terms of already established abstractions to form an abstraction description of what gravity is.

In order to state that “proof exists”, you must first presuppose that anything can exist, that existence is apart from consciousness, that consciousness is the means by which we perceive the universe, and that something is knowable to that consciousness. You must first acknolwedge what proof is, and it involves consciousness.

The similiarity between geometry and rhethoric exists because geometry is an invention of man — it does not exist in the universe as such. It is a mental construct just as much as rhetoric is. There is a reason that many physical laws involve integers and whole exponents, and the reason is that science is based on the same premises — premises such as the axiom of existence and the law of identity (which are the basis for all arithmetic). The only difference is that physical science uses arithmetic to measure the physical world, whereas rhetoric is used to describe abstractions and concepts of consciousness, which have no physical existence and cannot be physically measured.

But if you study epistemology it will become clear to you that the process of human conceptualization is itself an arithmetic one, and that the way in which abstractions are formed is by setting aside measurements in order to classify groups of existence into a concept.

The problem with your argument is that you wish to set consciousness aside when discussing “proof” and say that proof exists outside of consciousness — which is ridiculous. The very word “proof” presupposes a consciousness capable of grasping the evidence, and that means that the relationship between existence and consciousness — clearly the realm of philosophy — is necessarily antecedant to any idea of “proof”.

“As far as proof, science alone cannot prove anything. The concept of proof itself rests upon the foundation of an array of philosophic conclusions, such as consciousness and the fact that knowledge of the truth is possible. Without philosophy, there could be no such thing as “proof”, and science would have no purpose.”

Something cannot exist in a vaccuum. In order for philosophy to explain the rules of proof, proofs must exist. When Aristotle started, he noticed that geometry and rhetoric had something in common. He explained this commonality in order the others would be able to act in a consistent manner. This is the nature of proving proof. Proofs have, and will always exist were there are philosophers to explain why they work.

They must, in fact, exist, otherwise there would be no way for philosophy to describe them. The problem in your argument is that it is platonic in nature. You take proof as something special that exists only when a philosopher is able to tap into it. You have ignored the historical events leading up to a consistent set of rules to explain which proofs are valid and which are not.

Good article Tom! I liked your series on introspection, too.