Mill again

On Friday we discussed the definition of proof as proposed by J.S. Mill. I think that Mill has a valid point in terms of proving philosophy, but overall I don't think that this definition of proof holds water. He describes proof as something that cannot be known to be true but only reasons for why something could be true. This definition of proof requires that there be some recipient of the proof in order for the argument to be true. What I mean by this is that without someone to hear the reasons why an argument is true, the truth is unknown. I think, however, that proof must validate an argument without the use of a listener. There must be some other way to validate an argument, rather than just telling a person a bunch of reasons as to why they should change their mind. I do recognize that mathematical proofs cannot be used in other means of rationality. They are too limited in scope to portray the world around us. I do feel that scientific proof, or proving a null hypothesis wrong, can be used outside of science. With Mill's definition of proof, it is very hard to challenge his arguments as all he needs to do is just state another abstract hypothetical situation where his belief is held true. I like the way Mill writes and I think his ideas are valid. We will see how the rest of the book goes.