The blog post attempts imply that proofs rely on assumptions which are subjective. However, assumptions are definitions that are should be agreed upon before discussion for deeper understanding is engaged. In this context proof is the epitome of creativity and discovery. It consists of the creation of new tricks and observations that heighten the awareness of others about reality. The substance that is created is an irrefutable argument that anyone from any background will understand, agree upon, and be able to use given enough time and effort. Proof is a discovery of reality that can be shared by others; it's a delicate creation and is subject to the most objective scrutiny that humans can offer. What is rather amazing is that if assumptions imposed in a proof is observed in a particular context of reality, then all of the results known in the abstract follow for free in that context of reality. Because of this, it is reasonable that people should seek proofs to observe and/or distill truth. More importantly, a proof should be viewed higher than the specific truth it validates because it is proofs rather than specific truths that tend to lead to the discovery of other truths.
It is true that most scientists do not offer proofs, but the goal of science is not truth. Science attempts to create explanatory and predictive power that is consistent with itself and observed reality. The assumptions in science are constraints that humans' collective observations have imposed on reality. If you accept those constraints and that the proofs that use those constraints are without error, the you should accept the conclusion of those proofs.
|