What is proven in science?

[Philosophy Explorer]

I think that science being fluid is its strong suit because it can improve its understanding and expand its field of knowledge.

What do you think?

PhilX

[wtf]

Nothing is proven. Reality is modeled by mathematical theories that approximately conform to the results of experiments.

[wtf]

double post

[Philosophy Explorer]

Are you saying that what is taught in my high school (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.) is unproven so that when I get my diploma based on those sciences, the answers I gave on the tests was unproven science?

Furthermore what do you mean by proven? You must have some idea to say nothing is proven in science. It's possible something is proven, only you're unaware of it. Are you saying you know everything there is to know about science?

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

WTF said

"Reality is modeled by mathematical theories that approximately conform to the results of experiments."

You mean theories using calculus and differential equations? You know that calculus is taught using the concept of the limit. Limits take approximations and give definite results. It seems you're doing some cherry picking as there are experiments not associated with approximations.

PhilX

[Necromancer]

Nothing is proven. Reality is modeled by mathematical theories that approximately conform to the results of experiments.

A whole lot is proven. Some people forget to include Description as part of science. Just think of the Table of Elements in chemistry. It's not proven?

I think we are also closing in on a ceiling in science, toward the end of possible description, mathematical formulas (describing "by and large" a given phenomenon) and so on.

Models too add description, reality by a bigger sphere Venn diagram onto a smaller sphere of reality, at least in terms of certain aspects they are supposed to describe.

[-1-]

Nothing is proven. Reality is modeled by mathematical theories that approximately conform to the results of experiments.

A whole lot is proven. Some people forget to include Description as part of science. Just think of the Table of Elements in chemistry. It's not proven?

I think we are also closing in on a ceiling in science, toward the end of possible description, mathematical formulas (describing "by and large" a given phenomenon) and so on.

Models too add description, reality by a bigger sphere Venn diagram onto a smaller sphere of reality, at least in terms of certain aspects they are supposed to describe.

Since science only accepts tenets that are falsifiable, a small chance always exists that any tenet of science is false.

So yes, science does not prove anything. It will show relationships and reason behind the relationships and movements, but it does not prove, it can't prove. Science itself declares that it denies it can prove something.

Math has proofs, and logic has proofs. But math, while it is a helpful tool in building predictive models for us of the real world, supposedly never completely matches the observations with its formulas. The same could be said about logic.

Not to misconstrue that math, logic and science therefore are useless. They are useful, tremendously useful, in discovering the how the world operates. It is just that as defined for its mechanics of studying nature and drawing conclusions, has been set up so, that it can't prove anything.

------------------

What can falsify the theory of table of elements? Well, if all of a sudden one element changed its chemical behaviour. If you put in a hydrogen gas into a sealed cylinder, together with oxygen gas, and you heat it, it will blow up. But it is falsifiable (not that it happens, but the concept exists) that you can heat the oxygen/hydrogen mix and it will never ignite and explode. That has NOT been observed, but once it has, then we can throw away the table of elements.

That science proves something or not, is more a philosophical issue than an issue of practical consideration. It is conceivable that you step into the path of a speeding locomotive, and the locomotive will split and you survive, unscratched and unscathed. While I know this, I will not test it on myself or on anyone else, as it sounds nonsense that the locomotive splits. However, the possibility exists, at an extremely low probability, that it will split, and that is the basic assumption in science, in its theory.

[-1-]

Are you saying that what is taught in my high school (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.) is unproven so that when I get my diploma based on those sciences, the answers I gave on the tests was unproven science?

PhilX

Yes, all the answers you gave are given assuming the laws that govern the physical phenomenon are falsifiable.

Like I said, this is more an esoterically theory issue, than an issue in practice. That's why they don't emphasize it in high school. In my first year in college, the professor of physics opened his lecture exactly with this statement of theory: that no theory is carved in stone in science, it is a forever developing body of knowledge, because every time we develop a sound-proof theory, that completely explains all hitherto observed phenomena of a certain kind, we do have the chance of a phenomenon to happen that proves our theory wrong.

[-1-]

By the way, I did not make this up. It is the bread-and-butter of the philosophy of science. It has been developed and applied to scientific thinking for hundreds of years.

If you are still skeptical, then why don't you wiki it on the philosophy wiki.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Nothing is proven. Reality is modeled by mathematical theories that approximately conform to the results of experiments.

A whole lot is proven. Some people forget to include Description as part of science. Just think of the Table of Elements in chemistry. It's not proven?

I think we are also closing in on a ceiling in science, toward the end of possible description, mathematical formulas (describing "by and large" a given phenomenon) and so on.

Models too add description, reality by a bigger sphere Venn diagram onto a smaller sphere of reality, at least in terms of certain aspects they are supposed to describe.

Since science only accepts tenets that are falsifiable, a small chance always exists that any tenet of science is false.

So yes, science does not prove anything. It will show relationships and reason behind the relationships and movements, but it does not prove, it can't prove. Science itself declares that it denies it can prove something.

Math has proofs, and logic has proofs. But math, while it is a helpful tool in building predictive models for us of the real world, supposedly never completely matches the observations with its formulas. The same could be said about logic.

Not to misconstrue that math, logic and science therefore are useless. They are useful, tremendously useful, in discovering the how the world operates. It is just that as defined for its mechanics of studying nature and drawing conclusions, has been set up so, that it can't prove anything.

------------------

What can falsify the theory of table of elements? Well, if all of a sudden one element changed its chemical behaviour. If you put in a hydrogen gas into a sealed cylinder, together with oxygen gas, and you heat it, it will blow up. But it is falsifiable (not that it happens, but the concept exists) that you can heat the oxygen/hydrogen mix and it will never ignite and explode. That has NOT been observed, but once it has, then we can throw away the table of elements.

That science proves something or not, is more a philosophical issue than an issue of practical consideration. It is conceivable that you step into the path of a speeding locomotive, and the locomotive will split and you survive, unscratched and unscathed. While I know this, I will not test it on myself or on anyone else, as it sounds nonsense that the locomotive splits. However, the possibility exists, at an extremely low probability, that it will split, and that is the basic assumption in science, in its theory.

Nicely put.

[Greta]

A whole lot is proven. Some people forget to include Description as part of science. Just think of the Table of Elements in chemistry. It's not proven?

I think we are also closing in on a ceiling in science, toward the end of possible description, mathematical formulas (describing "by and large" a given phenomenon) and so on.

Models too add description, reality by a bigger sphere Venn diagram onto a smaller sphere of reality, at least in terms of certain aspects they are supposed to describe.

Since science only accepts tenets that are falsifiable, a small chance always exists that any tenet of science is false.

So yes, science does not prove anything. It will show relationships and reason behind the relationships and movements, but it does not prove, it can't prove. Science itself declares that it denies it can prove something.

Math has proofs, and logic has proofs. But math, while it is a helpful tool in building predictive models for us of the real world, supposedly never completely matches the observations with its formulas. The same could be said about logic.

Not to misconstrue that math, logic and science therefore are useless. They are useful, tremendously useful, in discovering the how the world operates. It is just that as defined for its mechanics of studying nature and drawing conclusions, has been set up so, that it can't prove anything.

------------------

What can falsify the theory of table of elements? Well, if all of a sudden one element changed its chemical behaviour. If you put in a hydrogen gas into a sealed cylinder, together with oxygen gas, and you heat it, it will blow up. But it is falsifiable (not that it happens, but the concept exists) that you can heat the oxygen/hydrogen mix and it will never ignite and explode. That has NOT been observed, but once it has, then we can throw away the table of elements.

That science proves something or not, is more a philosophical issue than an issue of practical consideration. It is conceivable that you step into the path of a speeding locomotive, and the locomotive will split and you survive, unscratched and unscathed. While I know this, I will not test it on myself or on anyone else, as it sounds nonsense that the locomotive splits. However, the possibility exists, at an extremely low probability, that it will split, and that is the basic assumption in science, in its theory.

Nicely put.

Yes, that's one of the better posts I've read on any forum for a while. Not only is it all relative, the fact that it's all relative is not always important.

[wtf]

Since science only accepts tenets that are falsifiable, a small chance always exists that any tenet of science is false.

So yes, science does not prove anything.

That's all I'm saying. In math, a proof is a proof. If you prove that a given set of axioms proves some theorem, that can never be falsified. It's absolute. In science, all we can do is build a mathematical model and show that it explains the results of experiments, up to our ability to measure those results. It's historically contingent. What's accepted science in one generation is falsified or extended in the next. You never have absolute proof of anything.

I suppose if someone wanted to say that my standard of proof has been warped by too many math classes, I'd have to plead guilty. After all, have we "proved" that the sun will rise tomorrow morning? By my logic, no. But I'd be a fool to try to make a big deal out of it. I'd say we do know the sun will rise.

[Necromancer]

Since science only accepts tenets that are falsifiable, a small chance always exists that any tenet of science is false.

So yes, science does not prove anything. It will show relationships and reason behind the relationships and movements, but it does not prove, it can't prove. Science itself declares that it denies it can prove something.

Math has proofs, and logic has proofs. But math, while it is a helpful tool in building predictive models for us of the real world, supposedly never completely matches the observations with its formulas. The same could be said about logic.

Not to misconstrue that math, logic and science therefore are useless. They are useful, tremendously useful, in discovering the how the world operates. It is just that as defined for its mechanics of studying nature and drawing conclusions, has been set up so, that it can't prove anything.

------------------

What can falsify the theory of table of elements? Well, if all of a sudden one element changed its chemical behaviour. If you put in a hydrogen gas into a sealed cylinder, together with oxygen gas, and you heat it, it will blow up. But it is falsifiable (not that it happens, but the concept exists) that you can heat the oxygen/hydrogen mix and it will never ignite and explode. That has NOT been observed, but once it has, then we can throw away the table of elements.

That science proves something or not, is more a philosophical issue than an issue of practical consideration. It is conceivable that you step into the path of a speeding locomotive, and the locomotive will split and you survive, unscratched and unscathed. While I know this, I will not test it on myself or on anyone else, as it sounds nonsense that the locomotive splits. However, the possibility exists, at an extremely low probability, that it will split, and that is the basic assumption in science, in its theory.

You seem to ignore that as science is tested time and time again, it may very well be that it has been tested such that one hits upon a fundamental fact that stands forever. If something can be said to be refuted, it must be clear that likewise something can be said to be proven for always. In this way, for some people, the corroboration of what has been proven will only be psychological, a play for the public and the backward scientists.

No matter how "freakish" nature behaves, there is always the general mode of science, the normal science, that ceteris paribus, the train never splits in front of a person on the railroad. If there is such event, one that there is no reason for either way, the science would go through revision. But since it has not happened, due to consistency of nature, that animals stay in one piece likewise and can, by ways of nature, reliably look forward to its life into the future, that revision has not been mandated and we have "the history of the planet Earth and the Universe for that!"

It seems like "real philosophy" to say that one is such a hardened skeptic that nothing is proven, but that's simply not how science develops! See one account of history here: https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/20 ... kuhns.html. We are indeed looking up at the same Outer Space through the ages because life is not possible without it. Thus there is no such thing as a train that splits in front of a person on a railroad track! Said in its smallest sense, to live at all, is to experience the consistency of nature as your experience grows as memory by the earliest times through to the recorded science of modern times.

That's all I'm saying. In math, a proof is a proof. If you prove that a given set of axioms proves some theorem, that can never be falsified. It's absolute. In science, all we can do is build a mathematical model and show that it explains the results of experiments, up to our ability to measure those results. It's historically contingent. What's accepted science in one generation is falsified or extended in the next. You never have absolute proof of anything.

I suppose if someone wanted to say that my standard of proof has been warped by too many math classes, I'd have to plead guilty. After all, have we "proved" that the sun will rise tomorrow morning? By my logic, no. But I'd be a fool to try to make a big deal out of it. I'd say we do know the sun will rise.

wtf, this stands on you! The vast body of science, also as "indirect" observations by the people on the other side of the planet proves that the sun will rise tomorrow! Otherwise, one will have to face charges of being unscientific, I think. You get laughed at, straight, not exalting philosophy (of science) at all! As a consequence, it seems fair that many philosophers of science are indeed Scientific Realists! Thanks.

[Eodnhoj7]

Proof is merely perception of order.

In these respects it is entirely subjective because of the depth of structure some people desire over others.

Structure exists regardless, we can observe this in space...which I probably said a hundred time by now.


Science claims the world acts a certain way, we perceive it as such, and in turn form the world according to those perceptions. Seeing may be believing, but most of the time believing is seeing.

How many times has a "fact" been taught, the child could not grasp that fact, only for the child to suffer because of it and the fact to eventually change? Look in history books from the 1940's.


The simple and ugly truth is that human being's synthesize the majority of truths.

[Eodnhoj7]

Since science only accepts tenets that are falsifiable, a small chance always exists that any tenet of science is false.

So yes, science does not prove anything.

That's all I'm saying. In math, a proof is a proof. If you prove that a given set of axioms proves some theorem, that can never be falsified. It's absolute. In science, all we can do is build a mathematical model and show that it explains the results of experiments, up to our ability to measure those results. It's historically contingent. What's accepted science in one generation is falsified or extended in the next. You never have absolute proof of anything.

I suppose if someone wanted to say that my standard of proof has been warped by too many math classes, I'd have to plead guilty. After all, have we "proved" that the sun will rise tomorrow morning? By my logic, no. But I'd be a fool to try to make a big deal out of it. I'd say we do know the sun will rise.

I second this point, the abstractness of mathematics and logic provide a deeper nature of consistency in regards to absolute claims. Ultimately the most axiomatic system is the observation of space, hence geometry.

In reality, as I argue, I do not believe number and space are separate and a metaphysics based upon this unification would provide a logical foundation from which religion, science and ethics may have a strong foundational point.

The deeper the observation of symmetry, the more solid, and less prone to flux, one's view of reality becomes, hence it reflects through their moral character, practical decisions, etc.

Some researchers have made claim geometry has been used for strict psychological therapy in ancient cultures, Egypt specifically comes to mind. In all truth I believe we should be looking both backwards and forwards.