If facts by themselves never prove or disprove anything, what else is involved in the proof of a statement?

        The natural sciences are very similar to mathematics as an area of knowledge in that it is perceived to be one of the lesser subjective areas of knowledge in comparison to say perhaps the arts. However, we use deductive proofs more frequently in the natural sciences than in mathematics. For example, in biology, we know that temperature, substrate concentration, and pH are factors that would have an effect upon the rate of reaction in regards to how it affects the enzymes that control that specific pathway. We then would carry out an experiment to using a specific enzyme, such as amylase, and see if a factor, such as temperature, would indeed affect the rate of reaction. However, the use of deductive logic could involve a number of fallacies or faulty logic that at first appears to be sound, although the possibility of arriving at a proof that is entirely foolproof and reliable, is greatly reduced.

        In contrast, the arts are seen as probably the most subjective of all the areas of knowledge. However, we of course introduce standards while critiquing a piece of work. For literature, we often have expectations in regards to the effective use of literary elements and how overall themes, ideas, and situations are communicated, whether it is implicitly or explicitly. But how do we determine whether this piece of work is successful or ‘good’? We resort to the use of emotions, intuition, and the voices of authorities. Frequently we believe that a piece of art is ‘good’ if it provokes thought or triggers a certain feeling within us. For example, in English A1 we studied the fictional novel, The Lovely Bones, and I felt that it was a good book because I felt that it gave insight to a different perspective of a rape victim, that as society as whole is unfamiliar with. I felt like I could relate with the novel’s protagonist, Susie, and although it was emotional to read, it brought a sense of serenity and optimism. I found the novel to be interesting, and I felt like it was a novel that I could reread voluntarily, which I could not say for myself. However, would Candide, a short story written by Voltaire, be an unsuccessful or ‘bad’ piece of work since I did not feel interested or inspired by it? Not necessarily, because Candide, has been considered as one of the most influential and controversial works of literature. Many authorities believe that Candide is a ‘good’ example of literature as it has met their standards and been so significant upon history and the realm of the arts. However, emotion and intuition are not usually seen as favorable ways of knowing as they are highly subjective and what one may consider true, another could argue that they do not feel the same way, therefore the statement is not necessarily true. This of course could be argued. Bhagavad Gita once said, “[Emotion] has the advantage of being open to all, the weak and the lowly, the illiterate and the scholar. It is seen to be as efficacious as any other method and is sometimes said to be stronger than the others, since it is its one fruition, while other methods are means to some other ends.” Authority, as a way of knowing, is considered to be a more unbiased way, although authorities could also argue against each other. Examiners that mark exams frequently argue whether or not a student is deserving of all the marks and what constitutes as deserving, so this would cause several issues to arise. Furthermore, whom we consider as authorities also is subjective to a certain extent, which would undermine the validity and element of truth involved in the proof of a statement.

        If facts could neither prove nor disprove a statement, we would resort to other ways of knowing, such as emotion, intuition, inductive and deductive logic, as well as conferring with authorities. However, we often regard facts as an objective and reliable way of knowing, especially in comparison to emotion and intuition. We could still develop proofs of statements without utilizing or incorporating facts, although creating loophole free proofs would be more tiresome and exerting. There would be an increased need to account for and consider the extent of validity with these different methods of knowledge, although as society our great desire to know and obtain knowledge will prevail and enable us to create proofs by more innovative means.