Prove a Scientific theory ?

[Estrid]

Quick answer: impossible even if theory is correct.
Quick reason; it's impossible to gather all possible
data- so disproof could lurk somewhere.

Purpose- to, hopefully, avoid some of the diversions
resulting from the endless creationist objections
to " unproven theories".

There's No Such Thing As Proof In The Scientific World - There's Only Evidence

What do you think is the most counterintuitive yet relevant result in physics? This question was originally answered on Quora by Jack Fraser.

www.forbes.com

 

[Estrid]

Dr. Richard Feynman's physics lectures
are well worth watching.
In this case to enlarge / explain my above
comments.

 

[AV1611VET]

Prove a Scientific theory ?

Quick answer: impossible even if theory is correct.

Quick reason; it's impossible to gather all possible data - so disproof could lurk somewhere.

Purpose - to, hopefully, avoid some of the diversions resulting from the endless creationist
objections to "unproven theories".

I'm not familiar with creationists who object to theories being "unproven."

Even scientists agree that you can't prove a scientific theory.

Yes, I object to "unproven theories" myself; but it's because I agree that theories can't be proven.

Evolution, for example, is an "unproven theory," and therefore subject to objection.

I guess I don't understand what it is you're saying.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dr. Richard Feynman's physics lectures are well worth watching.

In this case to enlarge / explain my above comments.

What "above comments"?

That theories can't be proven?

I agree.

Theories can't be proven.

In fact, they fail right, left, and center.

They even line up to fail.

How we got our moon, for instance, has a whole queue of theories (some seven of them) pending failure as we speak.

You have a backlog of theories just waiting to fail.

Here are some examples of past failures:

ETA: In the case of evolution, I don't believe evolution is going TO FAIL under its own weight.

Rather, I believe evolution is going TO BE FAILED, by a single Individual.

 

[sfs]

Quick answer: impossible even if theory is correct.
Quick reason; it's impossible to gather all possible
data- so disproof could lurk somewhere.

When did 'prove' start to mean 'demonstrate without any possibility of error', outside of mathematics or formal logic?

 

[Larniavc]

When did 'prove' start to mean 'demonstrate without any possibility of error', outside of mathematics or formal logic?

When theory began to mean wild guess.

 

[durangodawood]

Quick answer: impossible even if theory is correct.
Quick reason; it's impossible to gather all possible
data- so disproof could lurk somewhere.

Purpose- to, hopefully, avoid some of the diversions
resulting from the endless creationist objections
to " unproven theories".

There's No Such Thing As Proof In The Scientific World - There's Only Evidence

What do you think is the most counterintuitive yet relevant result in physics? This question was originally answered on Quora by Jack Fraser.

www.forbes.com

"Prove" is a fussy word so I thought Id acquire a little background...

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
1.
demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
"the concept is difficult to prove"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition

So, yeah, by those standards, Science can prove things. Or am I thinking about this wrong?

 

[Estrid]

When theory began to mean wild guess.

Inspired by satan like as not

 

[Estrid]

"Prove" is a fussy word so I thought Id acquire a little background...

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
1.
demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
"the concept is difficult to prove"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition

So, yeah, by those standards, Science can prove things. Or am I thinking about this wrong?

You are.
Did you regard the links?

 

[durangodawood]

You are.
Did you regard the links?

I regarded the Forbes link.

The scientist there asserts that '“Proof” implies that there is no room for error'. So I thought Id check to see if he was right. And it looks like he was not right per the sources I quoted.

I do enjoy a round of "brain in a vat" radical skepticism now and then, like the Forbes guy provided. But thats just because its fun. Its not actually very useful.

 

[AV1611VET]

'“Proof” implies that there is no room for error'.

Love that definition!

 

[SelfSim]

I regarded the Forbes link.

The scientist there asserts that '“Proof” implies that there is no room for error'. So I thought Id check to see if he was right. And it looks like he was not right per the sources I quoted.

The sources you quoted there, (Oxford Languages and Wiki), make use of the 'truth' concept as their criteria, without carefully explaining what they mean by that).
The Forbes article however, uses the 'error' criteria .. where 'error' is about an individual's ability to replicate their thoughts, (ie: 'what that person is talking about'), with 100% accuracy. The argument then becomes about whether such accurate replication exists in the real world or not, (he says it doesn't).

So, why would you regard an unexplained 'truth' criteria, over a reasoned 'error' criteria?
Surely that's just your (perhaps biased) preference at play there?

 

[durangodawood]

The sources you quoted there, (Oxford Languages and Wiki), make use of the 'truth' concept as their criteria, without carefully explaining what they mean by that).
The Forbes article however, uses the 'error' criteria .. where 'error' is about an individual's ability to replicate their thoughts, (ie: 'what that person is talking about'), with 100% accuracy. The argument then becomes about whether such accurate replication exists in the real world or not, (he says it doesn't).

So, why would you regard an unexplained 'truth' criteria, over a reasoned 'error' criteria?
Surely that's just your (perhaps biased) preference at play there?

Definitions of words emerge from accumulated usage by everyone. Therefore, on average Id give greater weight to collective efforts at explaining what humans mean by the words they use. Dictionaries and encyclopedia typically are reviewed by lots of editors. So I'm inclined to trust that over what just one guy asserts.

Otoh, Its possible that I happened upon two carelessly edited definitions. As for their use of "truth", I'm ok with a pragmatic sense of the term. As I mentioned, I dont have a lot of use for radical skepticism like brain in a vat, except as entertainment.

 

[Larniavc]

Definitions of words emerge from accumulated usage by everyone.

Except formally. For example the formal use of the word ‘worry’ does not include rumination but informally people often use worry to include rumination.

 

[durangodawood]

Except formally. For example the formal use of the word ‘worry’ does not include rumination but informally people often use worry to include rumination.

It is kind of telling that he says

• You can never have 100% proof of anything. There will always be doubt.

As if theres other notions of proof aside from the 100% type. I agree that 100% proof is always defeatable by "brain in a vat" radical skepticism. But I also think theres useful notions of proof short of that. Even in science. Id point to something like heliocentrism* as a scientific notion thats been "proven" by any useful sense of the word.

(Earth and other planets orbit sun. Not sun as center of universe.)

 

[Estrid]

I regarded the Forbes link.

The scientist there asserts that '“Proof” implies that there is no room for error'. So I thought Id check to see if he was right. And it looks like he was not right per the sources I quoted.

I do enjoy a round of "brain in a vat" radical skepticism now and then, like the Forbes guy provided. But thats just because its fun. Its not actually very useful.

A frog can be part of a violin, a bayonet thing, a
Frenchie, an adjective for sore throat, among other things.

In biology " frog" is a happy amohibisn

There are no frogs in glass blowing or aviation.

There is no proof of scientific theories.

Regardless of what can be equivocated out of Merriam' Webster

 

[durangodawood]

A frog can be part of a violin, a bayonet thing, a
Frenchie, an adjective for sore throat, among other things.

Gosh why arent people arent writing essays to explain to the rest of us how you dont need to kill an amphibian to make a violin? Well, aside from nobody really caring how violins get made, its because violin-frog is a completely different sense of the word from hopping-frog.

Not so with "proof". We're all talking about the same basic idea..... until someone brings up whisky.

Regardless of what can be equivocated out of Merriam' Webster

If theres no specific scientific notion of proof, then the Merriam Webster notion stands - and the Forbes guy is simply strawmanning up some notion of proof that neither science nor the dictionary observes.

 

[Larniavc]

I agree that 100% proof is always defeatable by "brain in a vat" radical skepticism.

Which is why I guess one should only use proof accordingly for maths and logic. Not empiricism.

 

[durangodawood]

Which is why I guess one should only use proof accordingly for maths and logic. Not empiricism.

I actually like the guys use of "100% proof". Assuming he's not being uselessly redundant, hes implying a scale of proof.

100% proof being like for mathematical proofs.
"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" for American legal purposes.
An ordinary usage notion of "proven" for something like I think its proven the earth orbits the sun.

I would agree there is no formal scientific notion of proof. But science definitely has produced various findings which should satisfy the creationists everyday notion of proof if they took the time to understand how well they've been demonstrated.

Otoh creationists have their own version of "brain in a vat" radical skepticism, which is: "the miraculous" wherein any evidence we observe could have been deliberately arranged to appear to strongly support certain conclusions, when in fact reality is utterly different.

 

[AV1611VET]

Otoh creationists have their own version of "brain in a vat" radical skepticism, which is: "the miraculous" wherein any evidence we observe could have been deliberately arranged to appear to strongly support certain conclusions, when in fact reality is utterly different.

What do you do when we claim our "brains in a vat miracle" REMOVES what you call "deliberately arranged evidence"?

Such as my claim that God cleaned up after the Flood and terraformed the earth back to a pristine condition to help Noah recover from this huge bottleneck event?

It seems if we say there is evidence, then academia says it was "deliberately planted."

If we say there is no evidence, then academia says it was removed to fool us.

Either way, academia works hard to make God out to be a liar, and they just end up making themselves look foolish.