Gaining a testimony

[Jamie123]

Most of the LDS missionaries I've ever spoken to have put great stress on the assumption that they know it's all true. They know Joseph Smith was a prophet. They know Pres. Benson (I'm talking 20 years ago here) was a prophet. They know that the Church is the true church of Jesus Christ. They were bearing witness that these things were true.

But elsewhere I read that one reason young men and women go on missions is to gain a testimony. So the burning question is this: If they don't have a testimony when they start their mission, exactly what are they bearing witness to? Do they let their partners do the talking until whatever point in their 2 years the testimony actually arrives? Or do they (Heaven forbid!) lie and fake it?

(I daresay I'm oversimplifying things here, and I hope no one thinks I'm being insulting. I've a lot of respect for these young people who spend 2 years of their lives to having doors shoved in their faces for little or no earthly reward, to help others to find happiness. I often tell my wife that if the elders/sisters ever come to our door these days, I would like to invite them to have dinner with us. And I'd make sure it was a nice dinner and I wouldn't pester them with questions like the one above during it!)

Edited September 23, 2010 by Jamie123

[Jamie123]

I think they have a testimony of some things, and not yet of other things. Like Math - you can "know" the basics : add/subtract/multiply - just as you can know the basics - prophets/book of Mormon, etc. etc. but there is a lot more to it than just the basics.

For some things, there is no roof - no upper bound - no upper bound to how much you can love, or how deep your testimony can be.

Currently I am learning how to love, does this mean I have never loved? No, it means that I continiue to progress, that I recognize that there is room for growth.

Eternal progression!

Thanks - though in that case the correct wording should be "to improve their testimony" or "to deepen their testimony".

I do remember reading somewhere a former missionary recalling that she only "believed" in the Church before her mission but felt she "knew" afterwards.

(Though now I think about it this may have been an ex-member posting on an anti-Mormon site. Not sure.)

Edited September 23, 2010 by Jamie123

[MarginOfError]

Most of the LDS missionaries I've ever spoken to have put great stress on the assumption that they know it's all true. They know Joseph Smith was a prophet. They know Pres. Benson (I'm talking 20 years ago here) was a prophet. They know that the Church is the true church of Jesus Christ. They were bearing witness that these things were true.

But elsewhere I read that one reason young men and women go on missions is to gain a testimony. So the burning question is this: If they don't have a testimony when they start their mission, exactly what are they bearing witness to? Do they let their partners do the talking until whatever point in their 2 years the testimony actually arrives? Or do they (Heaven forbid!) lie and fake it?

(I daresay I'm oversimplifying things here, and I hope no one thinks I'm being insulting. I've a lot of respect for these young people who spend 2 years of their lives to having doors shoved in their faces for little or no earthly reward, to help others to find happiness. I often tell my wife that if the elders/sisters ever come to our door these days, I would like to invite them to have dinner with us. And I'd make sure it was a nice dinner and I wouldn't pester them with questions like the one above during it!)

To some extent, I think people tend to over stress the use of the word know. Often times, what is really meant by the term is believe, but Mormon culture seems to have had a period (a period that continues today, I think) where believing isn't enough. Somewhere along the way it became trendy to know and substandard to believe. Hopefully we can move out of those days.

In the meantime, I've come to accept and understand that the vast majority of people use the word know to perform a speech act--that is, to say something to the effect of "I am convinced." or perhaps, "I have witnessed sufficient evidence." So when a missionary enters the field to gain a testimony,* they usually already have sufficient belief that in the Gospel that they're willing to commit themselves to strengthening that resolve. They may not know in the sense of irrefutable proof, but they may have sufficient evidence to carry them forward into a more intense experiment.

* No elder should ever enter the mission field to "gain a testimony." That part should be done well in advance. What I noticed more is that elders go and struggle with being a missionary because they can't say "I know...." Going back to that know vs. believe thing, I think you'd find a lot less people "searching for testimonies" as missionaries if they didn't feel pressured to know, and felt that merely believing was a good start.

[Tarnished]

Not all missionaries go on a mission to gain a testimony, many go with their testimony already developed. It is true that some do go on a mission without a testimony but gain one while they are out. I suppose it would really depend on the person and in what way they went out on their mission.

[mnn727]

To some extent, I think people tend to over stress the use of the word know. Often times, what is really meant by the term is believe, but Mormon culture seems to have had a period (a period that continues today, I think) where believing isn't enough. Somewhere along the way it became trendy to know and substandard to believe. Hopefully we can move out of those days.

In the meantime, I've come to accept and understand that the vast majority of people use the word know to perform a speech act--that is, to say something to the effect of "I am convinced." or perhaps, "I have witnessed sufficient evidence."

I think you are a 100% right here, I strongly believe, but in order to 'know', Christ would have had to visit me in person and even then I could have been delusional or dreaming.

To me its sad that such an emphasis has been placed on 'knowing' as I believe it leaves a 'bad taste' in some investigators mouths -- and some members too, it did in mine for a long time until I took the same attitude you did towards what they 'really meant'.

There is nothing wrong with believing according to Jesus:

John 20: 29

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Edited September 23, 2010 by mnn727

[Traveler]

Most of the LDS missionaries I've ever spoken to have put great stress on the assumption that they know it's all true. They know Joseph Smith was a prophet. They know Pres. Benson (I'm talking 20 years ago here) was a prophet. They know that the Church is the true church of Jesus Christ. They were bearing witness that these things were true.

But elsewhere I read that one reason young men and women go on missions is to gain a testimony. So the burning question is this: If they don't have a testimony when they start their mission, exactly what are they bearing witness to? Do they let their partners do the talking until whatever point in their 2 years the testimony actually arrives? Or do they (Heaven forbid!) lie and fake it?

(I daresay I'm oversimplifying things here, and I hope no one thinks I'm being insulting. I've a lot of respect for these young people who spend 2 years of their lives to having doors shoved in their faces for little or no earthly reward, to help others to find happiness. I often tell my wife that if the elders/sisters ever come to our door these days, I would like to invite them to have dinner with us. And I'd make sure it was a nice dinner and I wouldn't pester them with questions like the one above during it!)

I have long had a problem with the idea that a testimony is“knowledge” that things are true. What is so different from a “strong belief” that something is true from “knowledge” that it is true? When I was young I wanted to go and a mission and I believed that the Church is true but I felt unworthy to testify that these things were true – mainly because I did not have visions and experiences like Joseph or Moses. What is wrong with saying – to the best of my research, considerations and understanding these things are true?

I have wondered many times as to what constitutes knowledge. I have had experience with a blind friend that has convinced me that they know of things I miss and do not know from my seeing things.

When I got married I thought I loved my wife. I have learned otherwise. I have learned that I really did not know what love is as well as I thought I did growing up in a very loving family. I think a testimony of Jesus Christ, his priesthood and covenants are much the same as love. The more you experience the more your testimony will be defined for you. I also believe that you can have episodes of doubt where if your testimony is not strengthened you will lose it – much the same as when love is not strengthened in some conditions a person will fall out of love.

The Traveler

[mordorbund]

* No elder should ever enter the mission field to "gain a testimony." That part should be done well in advance.

I whole-heartedly agree. I have no problems with a missionary strengthening her testimony through her mission service, but that should be a biproduct of the service and not the endgoal.

It also irks me when people talk about serving as a missionary opportunity. That's fine if it's a biproduct, but if that's the agenda - it's not service.

What I noticed more is that elders go and struggle with being a missionary because they can't say "I know...." Going back to that know vs. believe thing, I think you'd find a lot less people "searching for testimonies" as missionaries if they didn't feel pressured to know, and felt that merely believing was a good start.

I had a companion tell me about an experience he had while testifying. He was bearing testimony in the standard fashion and formulaicly preceded each statement with "I know...". The investigator called him on it and asked why he kept saying that, it made it sound like he was trying to convince himself.

Since he told me that, I've dropped the formula (though I don't fault anyone for using it) and stated my testimony as a series of facts. Joseph saw God. President Monson is a prophet who speaks for God. etc. It also makes it more conversational. Maybe tonight at the dinner table I'll start using "I know" in the way it's used for testimonies. "I know that this meal looks delicious and I'm very grateful that you made it. I also know that I'm looking forward to watching tv with you tonight. The laugh track is a huge distraction for comedies, but I know that we can find programs that do not employ such nuissances."

[Moksha]

Have you ever suspected that the term "know it's all true" when applied to anything metaphysical, really means, that it is believed to be true with some self or group hypnosis added for seemingly greater emphasis?

Belief in and of itself is sufficient.

[Justice]

I think also we can forget. There may be a time when we know, but we fall back because we aren't as dilligent with guarding our testimony. Remembering is very hard without proof. We feel maybe we were mistaken.

I can tell you with all surety that I know the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. I don't know how it was translated, nor do I understand the gifts needed in order to do such a thing, but I do know it's a true book.

There are other principles of the Gospel I can tell you with a surety are true.

I do not know all things, but I do know some things.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I think some people don't know, and some even don't believe. Some are on missions for social/cultural reasons, and say what is expected. Others have had spiritual experiences that convince them something is true to the point they feel they can say 'know' when still, they haven't had first hand knowledge.

As a missionary, I avoided saying "I know its true" that I can remember. It's always been a shop-worn phrase to me.... I always testified about why I believed a certain principle is true by citing personal and spiritual experiences.

However, you can't get away from that phrase -- it's embedded in Moroni 10:3-5, Moroni's promise.

Now, I believe there are SHADES OF BELIEF and if someone says they "Know" they are simply expressing firm belief.

I've had people come up to me at Church (investigators) saying that they think everyone is saying "they know it's true" because they are just trying to convince themselves it's that way. I've had to throw my own interpretation on it -- saying that they probably think they are strengthening other people who may be struggling with believing everything the Church teaches.

[skippy740]

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Candle of the Lord

Where to Start

It is not unusual to have a missionary say, “How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony, would that not be dishonest?”

Oh, if I could teach you this one principle. A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it! Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that “leap of faith,” as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and stepped into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two. “The spirit of man,” is as the scripture says, indeed “is the candle of the Lord.” (Prov. 20:27.)

[Traveler]

I think some people don't know, and some even don't believe. Some are on missions for social/cultural reasons, and say what is expected. Others have had spiritual experiences that convince them something is true to the point they feel they can say 'know' when still, they haven't had first hand knowledge.

As a missionary, I avoided saying "I know its true" that I can remember. It's always been a shop-worn phrase to me.... I always testified about why I believed a certain principle is true by citing personal and spiritual experiences.

However, you can't get away from that phrase -- it's embedded in Moroni 10:3-5, Moroni's promise.

Now, I believe there are SHADES OF BELIEF and if someone says they "Know" they are simply expressing firm belief.

I've had people come up to me at Church (investigators) saying that they think everyone is saying "they know it's true" because they are just trying to convince themselves it's that way. I've had to throw my own interpretation on it -- saying that they probably think they are strengthening other people who may be struggling with believing everything the Church teaches.

There is a story that my son related to me from many years ago when he was in the MTC in Provo. It seems that there was a missionary that was making a point of telling everyone that the only reason he was on a mission was because his father want him to go. He was somewhat arrogant and not well focused on being a missionary.

One night the missionary’s companion came to their room to find the missionary deep in thoughts and with many tears with his scriptures open in before him. His companion asked him what the problem was and the missionary answered, “I just come to the realization that the reason Jesus went on his mission was because his father wanted him to.

The Traveler

[mordorbund]

From Elder Oaks April 2008 conference address on Testimony:

What do we mean when we testify and say that we know the gospel is true? Contrast that kind of knowledge with “I know it is cold outside” or “I know I love my wife.” These are three different kinds of knowledge, each learned in a different way. Knowledge of outside temperature can be verified by scientific proof. Knowledge that we love our spouse is personal and subjective. While not capable of scientific proof, it is still important.

[EandLDOW]

Actually it is possible to "know" for a certainty of the truthfullness of the gosple. When the Holy ghost testifies to your soul, your spirit, that it is true, then you know, nothing doubting. Receiving a visitation of Christ in person will not make that knowledge any more certain, receiving such a visitation without that testimony of the Holy Ghost will not instill that knowledge. Many of the prophets have testified that their experience is so.

Not everyone does know, many believe. Many put forth the effort and faith to find out, many fear or doubt and so don't find out. It's really up to you, according to the good time and will of the Lord.

I, for one, do know.

[Misshalfway]

To some extent, I think people tend to over stress the use of the word know. Often times, what is really meant by the term is believe, but Mormon culture seems to have had a period (a period that continues today, I think) where believing isn't enough. Somewhere along the way it became trendy to know and substandard to believe. Hopefully we can move out of those days.

In the meantime, I've come to accept and understand that the vast majority of people use the word know to perform a speech act--that is, to say something to the effect of "I am convinced." or perhaps, "I have witnessed sufficient evidence." So when a missionary enters the field to gain a testimony,* they usually already have sufficient belief that in the Gospel that they're willing to commit themselves to strengthening that resolve. They may not know in the sense of irrefutable proof, but they may have sufficient evidence to carry them forward into a more intense experiment.

* No elder should ever enter the mission field to "gain a testimony." That part should be done well in advance. What I noticed more is that elders go and struggle with being a missionary because they can't say "I know...." Going back to that know vs. believe thing, I think you'd find a lot less people "searching for testimonies" as missionaries if they didn't feel pressured to know, and felt that merely believing was a good start.

Couldn't have said it better. Like always, you see things so clearly.

[Misshalfway]

Actually it is possible to "know" for a certainty of the truthfullness of the gosple. When the Holy ghost testifies to your soul, your spirit, that it is true, then you know, nothing doubting. Receiving a visitation of Christ in person will not make that knowledge any more certain, receiving such a visitation without that testimony of the Holy Ghost will not instill that knowledge. Many of the prophets have testified that their experience is so.

Not everyone does know, many believe. Many put forth the effort and faith to find out, many fear or doubt and so don't find out. It's really up to you, according to the good time and will of the Lord.

I, for one, do know.

I agree with MOE that we sometimes throw around the word "know" too generally. But I see what you are saying here too. I am reminded of Alma 32 that teaches that one can move beyond faith (faith becomes dormant) to a place of knowing. But as the chapter teaches, that usually means that we come to know one thing at a time....or maybe we come to know a principle or a truth one aspect at a time. And I do think that all of our scattered "knowings" integrate into the fabric of what we call a testimony.

I can't know all things, but God has worked convincingly in my life to show me enough to keep going in faith. Does that mean I know? Well, the answer is yes and no.

I still think we throw around the language of knowing improperly and I think it waters down the concept and does the church and the world a disservice. In short, its a bad habit.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Misshalfway

[Guest]

Dunno about you guys, but I KNOW the church is true.

It's the same as I KNOW that 1 plus 1 equals 2.

The reason I say I know instead of I believe is because I can take one stick and another stick and put them together and I get 2 sticks. I have proof.

Same with the church. I take it's teachings apply it to my life and it falls into place. Proof.

When a time comes that I put one of something and one of another thing and I don't get two, then I'm going to have to adjust my knowledge. Same with the church, if I find something that doesn't fall into place, then I'm going to have to study that so that I can KNOW.

[MarginOfError]

Dunno about you guys, but I KNOW the church is true.

It's the same as I KNOW that 1 plus 1 equals 2.

The reason I say I know instead of I believe is because I can take one stick and another stick and put them together and I get 2 sticks. I have proof.

Same with the church. I take it's teachings apply it to my life and it falls into place. Proof.

When a time comes that I put one of something and one of another thing and I don't get two, then I'm going to have to adjust my knowledge. Same with the church, if I find something that doesn't fall into place, then I'm going to have to study that so that I can KNOW.

Well, that actually isn't proof. That's evidence. There aren't many people on this board that know 1 + 1 = 2 (myself included). Most of us just accept it. And that was my larger point, was many people don't fully understand the difference between proof and evidence and consider one to be the same as the other.

[jayanna]

I know that the church is true. I know that the book of Mormon is true. I know that Joseph Smith and Pres. Monson are the Lord's prophets. I know these things not because I read some things and decided to believe them. I know these things because I prayed and asked and received an answer. The answer was a still, small voice, one that I recognize, one that has never lied to me or led me astray, has only encourage me to do good, and led me closer to my Savior. I know because I have acted on these facts, and it has born good fruits. If I decided one day to say it's not true, I know that I would be lying.

I know these things better than I know what the couch I'm sitting on is made of...I know them better than I know most anything...

Do the missionaries know it? I don't know, but to assume I know what they think/feel would be arrogant on my part, so I just worry about me.

[Dravin]

To some extent, I think people tend to over stress the use of the word know. Often times, what is really meant by the term is believe, but Mormon culture seems to have had a period (a period that continues today, I think) where believing isn't enough.

I wonder how much this is influenced by General Conference talks. There is a tendency to follow the lead of the leadership, particularly when it comes to speaking. One of the 'ultimate' compliments you can get for a talk is (in my experience), "You sounded like a GA." Also when one reads the manuals and hears quotes from prophets they use the word know, generally. I think this creates an expectation that such is the proper way to express oneself. Much like how Elder leaders on my mission would 'affect' a GA tone (mostly a matter of cadence) and manner when trying to act in a leadership capacity.

[Misshalfway]

For me, I have knowledge inside of me that the gospel is true. The church is an earthly instrument that is often run by humans. It does a lot of good but it also has its problems and shortsightedness too on occasion. That isn't a criticism. It's just the nature of the telestial state we live in now. And even though I know some things....things that are profound and things that enrich my life in amazing ways....the longer I live the more I realize about how limited my understanding is.

When others from outside our faith hear our sintax on these things, I don't think they understand the dynamics of how the knowledge and faith and the unknown all work together to form religious devotion. They may see it as arrogance or even brainwashing. And I think for some who do pray and who don't see the parting of the red sea sort of answers miss the more subtle revelations that may be given to them.

I am not diminishing what some of you feel and the surety with which you feel it. What I hope to say is that changing the words we use would help others understand how we came to our beloved understanding.

[Guest]

Well, that actually isn't proof. That's evidence. There aren't many people on this board that know 1 + 1 = 2 (myself included). Most of us just accept it. And that was my larger point, was many people don't fully understand the difference between proof and evidence and consider one to be the same as the other.

You lost me on this one.

From Webster (bold mine):

PROOF

a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

And from wikipedia (bold mine):

Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject; (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information; or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. Philosophical debates in general start with Plato's formulation of knowledge as "justified true belief." There is however no single agreed definition of knowledge presently, nor any prospect of one, and there remain numerous competing theories. Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, learning, communication, association and reasoning. The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject with the ability to use it for a specific purpose if appropriate.

Now, tell me again why it is not PROOF and why you don't think the word KNOW is applicable to 1+1=2.

Because, if you don't think understanding 1+1=2 is not good enough to say "I KNOW 1 plus 1 equals 2." Then heck, you can't know anything!

[Faded]

But elsewhere I read that one reason young men and women go on missions is to gain a testimony.

It is far from ideal when a young man or woman goes on their mission and doesn't have a solid testimony. I know I did many, many years before going on my mission. I always found tales of missionaries actually gaining their testimony while on their mission to be ... strange.

Some people grow up living on borrowed light. Their parents have solid testimonies and their children take it for granted that since their parents know it's right, then it must be right. My parents were very good at impressing upon each of their children the necessity of going and getting your own witness. The Church is no slouch there either. It is possibly one of the greatest focuses of weekly services: To ensure that everyone has their own witness of the truth. One Sunday a month is dedicated to the sharing of personal witnesses of the truth. There's really no good excuse. The only reason that people can make it all the way through childhood and adolescence without gaining their own testimony of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel is laziness. Which brings us back to "living on borrowed light."

Every missionary should have a burning witness of the truth BEFORE they go on their mission. The way the Missionary Training Center operates, it should be an extreme rarity to actually get all the way to the mission field without a testimony. The MTC tries very hard to be sure you've got it before you go and that what you've already got is greatly strengthened. But ultimately it is 100% on the individual to pray and find out. No amount of coaxing can guarantee they'll actually do it.

Those that do get all the way to the field run into the very crisis you mention: "How can I be telling these people to get a witness of their own if I don't have one myself?" So for those that get all the way to the mission field without, the problem tends to be rectified via panic in fairly short order.

[MarginOfError]

You lost me on this one.

From Webster (bold mine):

PROOF

a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

And from wikipedia (bold mine):

Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject; (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information; or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. Philosophical debates in general start with Plato's formulation of knowledge as "justified true belief." There is however no single agreed definition of knowledge presently, nor any prospect of one, and there remain numerous competing theories. Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, learning, communication, association and reasoning. The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject with the ability to use it for a specific purpose if appropriate.

Now, tell me again why it is not PROOF and why you don't think the word KNOW is applicable to 1+1=2.

Because, if you don't think understanding 1+1=2 is not good enough to say "I KNOW 1 plus 1 equals 2." Then heck, you can't know anything!

You're operating on a very different understanding of what knowledge and proof are. Technically speaking, when you say you "know" 1+1=2, you're making all sorts of assumptions you aren't aware of. You're making assumptions about the closure of real numbers under addition, the meaning of addition, the meaning of 1, etc. You're taking a whole composite of very precisely defined concepts and saying you know it must all be true because it matches what you've observed. But if I were to ever observe a counter example--a case where 1 + 1 = -2--then your entire body of 'knowledge' would be entirely destroyed.

So there are two approaches to creating the 'knowledge' that 1+1=2. First, you can take every object that represents a 1, put it next to every other object that represents a 1, and make sure that every possible combination of these combines to become a 2. This would be tedious and is, in fact, impossible to accomplish because the set of objects that can represent 1 is easily beyond infinite.

The other approach is to make a logical and generalize argument that shows that there is no combination of 1 objects that combine to create anything other than a 2. Such a proof does exist, and it is about 3 pages long, if I recall correctly. That's right...it takes 3 pages to prove that 1 + 1 = 2.

A simpler example might be the expression x * 0 = 0. You can ask a lot of people if this is true, and they'll say yes. But ask them to prove it and you'll get a lot of incomprehensible mumbling about "it just is" and "you can't multiply anything by zero and have something left!" But neither of those constitute proof.

The formal proof for x * 0 = 0 would go something like this:

1. x * 0 = x * (0 + 0) [additive identity]

2. AND x * 0 = x * 0 + 0 [also, additive identity]

3. x * 0 = x * (0 + 0) = x * 0 + 0 [transitivity of equality]

4. x * (0 + 0) = x * 0 + 0 [focus on the right two parts of line 3]

5. x * 0 + x * 0 = x * 0 + 0 [distributive property {on left side}]

6. x * 0 = 0 [left cancellation]

QED!

There, anatess, you know know that x * 0 = 0! That there is irrefutable proof, provided we assume the additive identity, transitivity of equality, distributive property, and left cancellation.

So, to recap, before, you might have thought you knew that 1 + 1 = 2, but at best, all you could say was that you hadn't experienced anything to convince you otherwise. You had seen the result in practice so much, that you were comfortable behaving as if it were knowledge. But you didn't actually know it was true, you just hadn't experienced anything to contradict your experience.

Also, you relied on the word of expert mathematicians that assured you that, indeed, 1 + 1 = 2. This isn't unlike how we rely on the word of prophets like Joseph Smith. He saw irrefutable proof that God exists. I haven't seen that proof, but with the word of someone that has, and with the experiences I've had, I'm comfortable operating on the assumption that He does. But I don't really know that he does.

Is that more or less confusing?

[Guest]

You're operating on a very different understanding of what knowledge and proof are. Technically speaking, when you say you "know" 1+1=2, you're making all sorts of assumptions you aren't aware of. You're making assumptions about the closure of real numbers under addition, the meaning of addition, the meaning of 1, etc. You're taking a whole composite of very precisely defined concepts and saying you know it must all be true because it matches what you've observed. But if I were to ever observe a counter example--a case where 1 + 1 = -2--then your entire body of 'knowledge' would be entirely destroyed.

So there are two approaches to creating the 'knowledge' that 1+1=2. First, you can take every object that represents a 1, put it next to every other object that represents a 1, and make sure that every possible combination of these combines to become a 2. This would be tedious and is, in fact, impossible to accomplish because the set of objects that can represent 1 is easily beyond infinite.

The other approach is to make a logical and generalize argument that shows that there is no combination of 1 objects that combine to create anything other than a 2. Such a proof does exist, and it is about 3 pages long, if I recall correctly. That's right...it takes 3 pages to prove that 1 + 1 = 2.

A simpler example might be the expression x * 0 = 0. You can ask a lot of people if this is true, and they'll say yes. But ask them to prove it and you'll get a lot of incomprehensible mumbling about "it just is" and "you can't multiply anything by zero and have something left!" But neither of those constitute proof.

The formal proof for x * 0 = 0 would go something like this:

1. x * 0 = x * (0 + 0) [additive identity]

2. AND x * 0 = x * 0 + 0 [also, additive identity]

3. x * 0 = x * (0 + 0) = x * 0 + 0 [transitivity of equality]

4. x * (0 + 0) = x * 0 + 0 [focus on the right two parts of line 3]

5. x * 0 + x * 0 = x * 0 + 0 [distributive property {on left side}]

6. x * 0 = 0 [left cancellation]

QED!

There, anatess, you know know that x * 0 = 0! That there is irrefutable proof, provided we assume the additive identity, transitivity of equality, distributive property, and left cancellation.

So, to recap, before, you might have thought you knew that 1 + 1 = 2, but at best, all you could say was that you hadn't experienced anything to convince you otherwise. You had seen the result in practice so much, that you were comfortable behaving as if it were knowledge. But you didn't actually know it was true, you just hadn't experienced anything to contradict your experience.

Also, you relied on the word of expert mathematicians that assured you that, indeed, 1 + 1 = 2. This isn't unlike how we rely on the word of prophets like Joseph Smith. He saw irrefutable proof that God exists. I haven't seen that proof, but with the word of someone that has, and with the experiences I've had, I'm comfortable operating on the assumption that He does. But I don't really know that he does.

Is that more or less confusing?

That's more or less making a big insurmountable mountain out of a little dinky molehill just so you can say somebody is wrong/stupid/ignorant when they say "I KNOW because I can PROVE it".

Whatever.

Even engineers don't get this anal.