Is something proven without actual proof?

Question

Is it a matter of how many people believe it? Or which people believe it?

Or is it a matter of direct, tangible proof?

Answer 1

Depends are you a scientist or a politician?

Answer 2

You are likely referring to global warming which has been shown to be a fact as well as a theory (parallels to evolution which is also both fact and theory).

Now it may not be proven in the mathematical sense but in terms of the burden of proof the scientific community sets (one of the highest out there) it has been proven.

Answer 3

A lot of people believe in God, but does that mean there is proof of a God?  No, but they believe it and in their mind their belief in it makes it a fact that God does exist. That is how strong their belief is, with no tangible proof of it they still believe in it.  That is how I would describe environmentalists, they believe in the environment so strongly, they don't need tangible proof, they just know it to be true.  

By the way, I love environmentalists like Ed Begley, Jr. who have been living green and believing in things before there was ever "proof".  He has really done some great things for the planet.    

Answer 4

I guess this depends on the subject.  The orbits of all the planets in the solar system were proven mathematically long before there was any direct tangible (visual) proof.  Since you seem to enjoy making climate scientist's jobs difficult on the subject of global warming the issue is that we only understand a few of the factors involved but even from that work there is a definite trend that shows that CO2 emissions are having a negative effect on global climate.  The problem with demanding a proof as elegant is the mathematics as gravatics  is that we are working with hundreds of variables and we will all have either suffered the consequences of our polluting ways or have survived the phantom menace much to amusement of the skeptics.  The question you should ask is whether a major investment to stop a potential global catastrophe which will also result in a scientific renaissance is preferable to satisfaction of saying i never believed in that c**p to your buddies over the water cooler as you drive your hummer that costs more to fill once than your monthly mortgage payments.

Answer 5

If you believe the hippies, the sheep, the anarchists or the New Luddites, then you don't need proof for a hypothesis, just plenty of hand-wringing, emotional diatribes and "The sky is falling" attitude...

But don't ake my word for it; go look outside. Has the earth exploded? Have all the animals keeled over and died? Long-term global climate change is as inevitable as the sun rising. Arguments otherwise are from those who have an anti-technology or anti-human agenda to push...

Answer 6

Depends on if you want to believe it or not.   There was no proof that Sadddam was helping the terrorists and havd WMD's, but it was (and still is) proven in some peoples minds.

Answer 7

My answer is;

Nothing is proved without supporting evidence.

Answers to a problem question, based on guessing a outcome with little to no fact, is called a hypothesis (I think that's the right word).

As more facts are learned and the Hypothesis is being proved accurate it moves on to Theory.

Fact is Fact. Cut off your head you die. Fact

Like Global Warming is a fact. (what happened after the Ice Age?)

The Question;

Does Man's pollutions effect the "Climate" of this planet?

is still working it's way through Theory.

hope my answer helps.

Answer 8

Things are "proven" all the time without actual proof.  Case in point, all of the drug manufacturers who claim their latest prescription drugs have been tested, and are safe for consumption.  Then people buy the drugs, take them, and die.  Then the drug manufacturers say, "opps, sorry.  We must have been mistaken"  But first, for years they vehemently deny claims that the drug in question is dangerous, and sometimes life-threatening.

That's only ONE example.  There are many, many more...  Follow the money.

Answer 9

The old models used to prove global warming have been found to be wrong. Conclusion: there is no global warming caused by man. These are the facts.

Answer 10

No, it stands as a theory or, a hypothesizes, but not a fact.