Scientific proof doesn't exist (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Friday, April 17, 2015, 22:29 (3297 days ago)

There are some mathematical laws, the rest is still theory:-http://www.livescience.com/50521-wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none.html?cmpid=NL_LS_weekly_2015-04-17- "I think it is best to leave the last word to one of the greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, on what being a scientist is all about:-
"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything."

Scientific proof doesn't exist

by romansh ⌂ @, Sunday, November 08, 2015, 22:04 (3092 days ago) @ David Turell

There are some mathematical laws, the rest is still theory:
> 
> http://www.livescience.com/50521-wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none.html?cmpid=N... 
> "I think it is best to leave the last word to one of the greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, on what being a scientist is all about:
> 
> 
> "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything."-And this is why I bring you to task when you talk about proof ... other than strong alcoholic beverages

Scientific proof doesn't exist

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 08, 2015, 22:44 (3092 days ago) @ romansh

Romansh: There are some mathematical laws, the rest is still theory:
> > 
> > http://www.livescience.com/50521-wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none.html?cmpid=N... > 
> > "I think it is best to leave the last word to one of the greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, on what being a scientist is all about:
> > 
> > 
> > "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything."
> 
> And this is why I bring you to task when you talk about proof ... other than strong alcoholic beverages-Actually at this level of discourse, I fully agree with you. Remember I follow Adler: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. When I reach that point, I have faith that I am right. Do I recognize that I am fallible? Of course. Absolute proof of anything does not exist, except in math.

Scientific proof doesn't exist

by dhw, Monday, November 09, 2015, 13:16 (3091 days ago) @ David Turell

Romansh: There are some mathematical laws, the rest is still theory:

http://www.livescience.com/50521-wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none.html?cmpid=N...
"I think it is best to leave the last word to one of the greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, on what being a scientist is all about:-"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything."-And this is why I bring you to task when you talk about proof ... other than strong alcoholic beverages-DAVID: Actually at this level of discourse, I fully agree with you. Remember I follow Adler: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. When I reach that point, I have faith that I am right. Do I recognize that I am fallible? Of course. Absolute proof of anything does not exist, except in math.-And I agree almost completely with both of you. By coincidence, we covered this a couple of days ago on the “brain complexity” thread. David agreed when I wrote: “On our epistemology thread ages ago, I suggested that the nearest we can get to objective truth is some kind of general*** consensus, but I agree with you that when this consensus is achieved, and especially when science and technology confirm the accuracy of our perceptions, it is absurd to assume that none of them are accurate. In fact, our daily lives would turn to sheer chaos if our perceptions did not correspond to reality.” -However, in the context of origins, relating to God, life and the universe, David's “beyond a reasonable doubt” depends totally on his subjective understanding of “reasonable”, and is not confirmed by a general consensus, or by science or technology. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is therefore far too authoritative in my view, and so I am on Romansh's side - for a change! - and would argue that the word "proof" should be avoided other than when referred to negatively, as in the heading of this thread. -***I inadvertently left out “general” in my original post. There could of course be a consensus among members of the Flat Earth Society that the Earth is flat, but most of us would hesitate to say that gets us anywhere near the objective truth.

Scientific proof doesn't exist: another essay on point

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 25, 2017, 20:10 (2344 days ago) @ dhw

Absolute proof doesn't exist in scientific theories. w know nothing absolutely:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/#481...

"You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories.

***

"Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.

"Reality is a complicated place. All we have to guide us, from an empirical point of view, are the quantities we can measure and observe. Even at that, those quantities are only as good as the tools and equipment we use to make those observations and measurements. Distances and sizes are only as good as the measuring sticks you have access to; brightness measurements are only as good as your ability to count and quantify photons; even time itself is only known as well as the clock you have to measure its passage. No matter how good our measurements and observations are, there's a limit to how good they are.

"We also can't observe or measure everything. Even if the Universe weren't subject to the fundamental quantum rules that govern it, along with all its inherent uncertainty, it wouldn't be possible to measure every state of every particle under every condition all the time. At some point, we have to extrapolate. This is incredibly powerful and incredibly useful, but it's also incredibly limiting.

***

"Our best theories, like the aforementioned theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, and Einstein's General Relativity, cover all of these bases. They have an underlying quantitative framework, enabling us to predict what will happen under a variety of situations, and to then go out and test those predictions empirically. So far, these theories have demonstrated themselves to be eminently valid. Where their predictions can be described by mathematical expressions, we can tell not only what should happen, but by how much. For these theories in particular, among many others, measurements and observations that have been performed to test these theories have been supremely successful.

"But as validating as that is — and as powerful as it is to falsify alternatives — it's completely impossible to prove anything in science.

***

"Even in theoretical physics, the most mathematical of all the sciences, our "proofs" aren't on entirely solid ground. If the assumptions we make about the underlying physical theory (or its mathematical structure) no longer apply — if we step outside the theory's range of validity — we'll "prove" something that turns out not to be true. If someone tells you a scientific theory has been proven, you should ask what they mean by that. Normally, they mean "they've convinced themselves that this thing is true," or they have overwhelming evidence that a specific idea is valid over a specific range. But nothing in science can ever truly be proven. It's always subject to revision.

***

"But in science, nothing is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. As Einstein himself once said:

"The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"—most theories, soon after conception.

"So don't try to prove things; try to convince yourself. And be your own harshest critic and your own greatest skeptic. Every scientific theory will someday fail, and when it does, that will herald a new era of scientific inquiry and discovery. And of all the scientific theories we've ever come up with, the best ones succeed for the longest amounts of time and over the greatest ranges possible. In some sense, it's better than a proof: it's the most correct description of the physical world humanity has ever imagined."

Comment: A great reminder. And should put to rest ridiculous theories like multiverse.

Scientific proof doesn't exist: another essay on point

by dhw, Sunday, November 26, 2017, 14:06 (2343 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "So don't try to prove things; try to convince yourself. And be your own harshest critic and your own greatest skeptic. Every scientific theory will someday fail, and when it does, that will herald a new era of scientific inquiry and discovery. [...]

DAVID’s comment: A great reminder. And should put to rest ridiculous theories like multiverse.

You could hardly have more solid support for agnosticism, or scepticism concerning all theories purporting to explain the origin of the universe and life. These include the big bang, multiverse, string theory, abiogenesis, monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, panpsychism, chance. I must confess, though, I am reluctant to include “common descent” in the list. Tony would certainly shake his head at me!

Scientific proof doesn't exist: another essay on point

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 26, 2017, 19:35 (2343 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "So don't try to prove things; try to convince yourself. And be your own harshest critic and your own greatest skeptic. Every scientific theory will someday fail, and when it does, that will herald a new era of scientific inquiry and discovery. [...]

DAVID’s comment: A great reminder. And should put to rest ridiculous theories like multiverse.

dhw: You could hardly have more solid support for agnosticism, or scepticism concerning all theories purporting to explain the origin of the universe and life. These include the big bang, multiverse, string theory, abiogenesis, monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, panpsychism, chance. I must confess, though, I am reluctant to include “common descent” in the list. Tony would certainly shake his head at me!

Recent discoveries I've provided suggest that common descent is from several beginnings of life, not one type cell!!

Scientific proof doesn't exist: another essay on point

by dhw, Monday, November 27, 2017, 14:31 (2342 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "So don't try to prove things; try to convince yourself. And be your own harshest critic and your own greatest skeptic. Every scientific theory will someday fail, and when it does, that will herald a new era of scientific inquiry and discovery. [...]

DAVID’s comment: A great reminder. And should put to rest ridiculous theories like multiverse.

dhw: You could hardly have more solid support for agnosticism, or scepticism concerning all theories purporting to explain the origin of the universe and life. These include the big bang, multiverse, string theory, abiogenesis, monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, panpsychism, chance. I must confess, though, I am reluctant to include “common descent” in the list. Tony would certainly shake his head at me!

DAVID: Recent discoveries I've provided suggest that common descent is from several beginnings of life, not one type cell!!

What difference does that make? The article tells us to be sceptical of all the theories. I agree. But not even your arch enemy Darwin claimed that all life necessarily descended from one type cell: “...this view of life…having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one”.

Scientific proof doesn't exist: another essay on point

by David Turell @, Monday, November 27, 2017, 18:11 (2342 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "So don't try to prove things; try to convince yourself. And be your own harshest critic and your own greatest skeptic. Every scientific theory will someday fail, and when it does, that will herald a new era of scientific inquiry and discovery. [...]

DAVID’s comment: A great reminder. And should put to rest ridiculous theories like multiverse.

dhw: You could hardly have more solid support for agnosticism, or scepticism concerning all theories purporting to explain the origin of the universe and life. These include the big bang, multiverse, string theory, abiogenesis, monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, panpsychism, chance. I must confess, though, I am reluctant to include “common descent” in the list. Tony would certainly shake his head at me!

DAVID: Recent discoveries I've provided suggest that common descent is from several beginnings of life, not one type cell!!

dhw: What difference does that make? The article tells us to be sceptical of all the theories. I agree. But not even your arch enemy Darwin claimed that all life necessarily descended from one type cell: “...this view of life…having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one”.

Why drag Darwin's late comment in later editions into this thread? I was simply pointing out new evidence that the pyramid of life may have more than one top.

Scientific proof doesn't exist: another essay on point

by dhw, Tuesday, November 28, 2017, 14:37 (2341 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "So don't try to prove things; try to convince yourself. And be your own harshest critic and your own greatest skeptic. Every scientific theory will someday fail, and when it does, that will herald a new era of scientific inquiry and discovery. [...]

DAVID’s comment: A great reminder. And should put to rest ridiculous theories like multiverse.

dhw: You could hardly have more solid support for agnosticism, or scepticism concerning all theories purporting to explain the origin of the universe and life. These include the big bang, multiverse, string theory, abiogenesis, monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, panpsychism, chance. I must confess, though, I am reluctant to include “common descent” in the list. Tony would certainly shake his head at me!

DAVID: Recent discoveries I've provided suggest that common descent is from several beginnings of life, not one type cell!!

dhw: What difference does that make? The article tells us to be sceptical of all the theories. I agree. But not even your arch enemy Darwin claimed that all life necessarily descended from one type cell: “...this view of life…having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one”.

DAVID: Why drag Darwin's late comment in later editions into this thread? I was simply pointing out new evidence that the pyramid of life may have more than one top.

I thought you were pointing out that it may have had more than one bottom (as I thought you thought that humans were the top) – but why did you drag that, with double exclamation marks, into an article advising scepticism towards all the different scientific theories? I was merely responding to your (irrelevant) remark that recent discoveries suggested more than one original form of life, to show that it is NOT a recent discovery. Let’s drop it.

Scientific proof doesn't exist: another essay on point

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 28, 2017, 18:02 (2341 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: Why drag Darwin's late comment in later editions into this thread? I was simply pointing out new evidence that the pyramid of life may have more than one top.

dhw: I thought you were pointing out that it may have had more than one bottom (as I thought you thought that humans were the top) – but why did you drag that, with double exclamation marks, into an article advising scepticism towards all the different scientific theories? I was merely responding to your (irrelevant) remark that recent discoveries suggested more than one original form of life, to show that it is NOT a recent discovery. Let’s drop it.

Dropped. Yes, humans are the pinnacle of creation, but at a huge bottom of a bush of life, starting at a small point/points 3.8 billion years ago.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum