Proof

Clearly there are a handful of words and phrases that are often used to incite arguments or to prove that your own ideas are clearly superior to those of other people. At the GNU Public dictatorship we are nothing if not disapproving of such methods, which is why we would like to take a moment to discuss the use of the word "proof" in such a context.

One of the difficulties in living in a society where we aren't allowed to brainwash people or even simply require that they learn and use newspeak is that different ideas inevitably emerge. People, left to themselves, have an irritating habit of thinking for themselves and coming to conclusions based on their own experiences and beliefs that do not agree with the conclusions of other people. While it would be much simpler to require our supporters to act on our edicts without thinking for themselves, much of the power of the GNU Public Dictatorship is derived from the open source model, which asserts that the community can be a great asset. You can rest assured that the GPD is not going to brainwash you any time soon. Maybe when the technology has improved we can revisit it, but for now you don't have to think about it.

Anyway, the bottom line is that when people disagree about things they often request proof from one other. The problem is that proof has many definitions, ranging from testing the effectiveness of yeast to "a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion." Unfortunately, even in mathematical proofs, the fact that the proof exists only means that the conclusion is valid given the axioms used and assumptions that were made initially. One person's proof is a silly idea from another person's perspective. Take this example of the use of the word "proof." The writer of the article clearly does not believe that the photo is proof of the existence of the Loch Ness monster, but is using the claim that it is proof to make fun of the person making the claim.

At the GPD we recognize that proof that stands independently of people's assumptions is hard to come by (in fact, we know of only a few instances of such proof, and they all involve hole punches and brads), so we suggest that more can be accomplished by sharing and understanding assumptions than by proving things based on your own assumptions.