Prove a Scientific theory ?

[Estrid]

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.

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.

Whatevs

 

[SelfSim]

... 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.

I think even scientists would have to agree that certain aspects of Physical theory, have in fact, been proven in the case of so-called 'Physics theorems' (ref: see Wiki page here).

Quantum mechanics, Special relativity, Celestial mechanics, Statistical mechanics, Newtonian physics, General relativity, Quantum Field Theory, Thermodynamics and Cosmology have, in various ways, acquired proofs from mathematical theorem developments, (eg: Virial, Noether's, Birkhoff's, Shell, Goldstone, Equipartition theorems), which have then been incorporated back into Physics, yielding other previously unrecognised principles in Physics.

 

[Estrid]

I think even scientists would have to agree that certain aspects of Physical theory, have in fact, been proven in the case of so-called 'Physics theorems' (ref: see Wiki page here).

Quantum mechanics, Special relativity, Celestial mechanics, Statistical mechanics, Newtonian physics, General relativity, Quantum Field Theory, Thermodynamics and Cosmology have, in various ways, acquired proofs from mathematical theorem developments, (eg: Virial, Noether's, Birkhoff's, Shell, Goldstone, Equipartition theorems), which have then been incorporated back into Physics, yielding other previously unrecognised principles in Physics.

I'm inclined to doubt its the position
of physicists to say that it's impossible
for their theories to have any exceptions
anywhere in time or space.

Newton may have thought that about his.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm inclined to doubt its the position of physicists to say that it's impossible for their theories to have any exceptions anywhere in time or space.

.. and yet they are more likely to state, with axiomatically proven confidence that, (for eg), a spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its center.

There's no need for referencing the impossibility of exceptions anywhere in time or space, in stating that proven theorem. One might therefore question the need for, (and the circumstances of), making such an Absolutist statement in the midst of a physical theorem(?)

 

[durangodawood]

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

For example....?

 

[durangodawood]

I think even scientists would have to agree that certain aspects of Physical theory, have in fact, been proven in the case of so-called 'Physics theorems' (ref: see Wiki page here).

Quantum mechanics, Special relativity, Celestial mechanics, Statistical mechanics, Newtonian physics, General relativity, Quantum Field Theory, Thermodynamics and Cosmology have, in various ways, acquired proofs from mathematical theorem developments, (eg: Virial, Noether's, Birkhoff's, Shell, Goldstone, Equipartition theorems), which have then been incorporated back into Physics, yielding other previously unrecognised principles in Physics.

The Forbes guy seems to think brain-in-a-vat or other radical skepticisms (simulation for example) nullify any hope of proof for those^ in the absolute sense. And strictly speaking, it does.

For me, I dont need to hold proof to that strict a standard for it to be a useful idea. For instance, I can say both "this all might be a simulation" AND "its been proven that the earth orbits the sun".

 

[Estrid]

For example....?

Inquiring minds would be fascinated to know.

But this being a forum for links / facts,
there's going to be no tolerance for people
just saying things.

 

[Estrid]

The Forbes guy seems to think brain-in-a-vat or other radical skepticisms (simulation for example) nullify any hope of proof for those^ in the absolute sense. And strictly speaking, it does.

For me, I dont need to hold proof to that strict standard for it to be a useful idea. For instance, I can say both "this all might be a simulation" AND "its been proven that the earth orbits the sun".

Who does apply such to daily life?
Totally impractical.

Earth orbit sun is not a theory.

 

[durangodawood]

....
Earth orbit sun is not a theory.

The Forbes guy claim was There's No Such Thing As Proof In The Scientific World . Its not limited to "theory". Again, he says "You cannot prove anything."

 

[AV1611VET]

For example....?

People tell me that, if a literal creationism is what actually happened, then God deliberately planted fossils and whatnot in the ground to fool us.

 

[SelfSim]

The Forbes guy seems to think brain-in-a-vat or other radical skepticisms (simulation for example) nullify any hope of proof for those^ in the absolute sense. And strictly speaking, it does.

For me, I dont need to hold proof to that strict a standard for it to be a useful idea. For instance, I can say both "this all might be a simulation" AND "its been proven that the earth orbits the sun".

Absolutism is philosophy .. not science. He has shifted gears.

The Forbes guy claim was There's No Such Thing As Proof In The Scientific World . Its not limited to "theory". Again, he says "You cannot prove anything."

His claim is falsified by physical theorems.
Perhaps he was just unaware of them .. which raises the interesting question of the impact of knowledge on proofs (Absolutist ones or otherwise) .. IOW we are continually referencing truth and proofs against human knowledge (and its supposed correctness).

Here's an open challenge for the willing:
Define 'knowledge' operationally.
(Ie: show the test for 'What we know' or; 'What is the means by which we establish what we know?')

 

[Larniavc]

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.

Definitely. But if one has a faith position it kind of immune to anything less than 100% proof (and even that is certain to sway some folks).

 

[Estrid]

The Forbes guy claim was There's No Such Thing As Proof In The Scientific World . Its not limited to "theory". Again, he says "You cannot prove anything."

I guess what I said re earth/ sun was pointless.

Maybe instead of "proof" you'd want to look at
degree of certainty. The way American courts do.

 

[Estrid]

Definitely. But if one has a faith position it kind of immune to anything less than 100% proof (and even that is certain to sway some folks).

Faith equals proof for some.Thiers only.

It may of course be that any reading of all religious texts is 100% True. Nobody can say it's impossible for
an omnipotent being to arrange that.

I suspect that nobody here would find that
a reasonable proposition.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

You are equivocating. If scientists say that one cannot prove a scientific theory , they mean that new evidence may be found that means that the theory will have to be abandoned and replaced by another naturalistic theory that explains the facts better and that makes more accurate predictions. You are treating the statement as meaning that if a naturalistic scientific theory cannot be proven, a supernatural explanation is just as probable, if not more so.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are equivocating.

I'm not surprised.

I really don't understand the OP.

If scientists say that one cannot prove a scientific theory, they mean that new evidence may be found that means that the theory will have to be abandoned and replaced by another naturalistic theory that explains the facts better and that makes more accurate predictions.

Fair enough.

Okay if I critique it ahead of time then?

Instead of having to wait for another discovery to modify it?

As long, of course, as I critique it properly -- (i.e., with the Bible)?

You are treating the statement as meaning that if a naturalistic scientific theory cannot be proven, a supernatural explanation is just as probable, if not more so.

Given that they claim that no theory can be proven -- (not just a naturalistic scientific one) -- I applaud their honesty.

And if they can't prove themselves, then they can stand aside and let the Bible prove it.

And if the Bible doesn't prove it -- (since the Bible isn't a scientific Book) -- then I submit the following checks & balances should apply:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[Estrid]

You are equivocating. If scientists say that one cannot prove a scientific theory , they mean that new evidence may be found that means that the theory will have to be abandoned and replaced by another naturalistic theory that explains the facts better and that makes more accurate predictions. You are treating the statement as meaning that if a naturalistic scientific theory cannot be proven, a supernatural explanation is just as probable, if not more so.

I see who you responded to.

Supernatural " explanations" are irrelevant to the
topic, and as such, I'd prefer they receive no response.

There was such a plague of such posts on the "proof of evolution" thread that I had the thread closed.

 

[Ophiolite]

I see who you responded to.

Supernatural " explanations" are irrelevant to the
topic, and as such, I'd prefer they receive no response.

There was such a plague of such posts on the "proof of evolution" thread that I had the thread closed.

Coventry is a vey nice place to visit as evidenced by this website. Perhaps we could encourage those who wish to talk about the supernatural, to go there voluntarily, rather than being sent there.

 

[AV1611VET]

I see who you responded to.

Supernatural " explanations" are irrelevant to the topic, and as such, I'd prefer they receive no response.

There was such a plague of such posts on the "proof of evolution" thread that I had the thread closed.

You're overprotective of yourself.

Putting people on IGNORE, having threads closed down.

NEI is worse than TMI.

 

[Estrid]

Coventry is a vey nice place to visit as evidenced by this website. Perhaps we could encourage those who wish to talk about the supernatural, to go there voluntarily, rather than being sent there.

Looks like a perfect place to aimlessly
wander about.

It's less than 10,000 km from here though.
Is that far enough?

On topic more, I do understand promoting
one's own pov, but the compulsion to seek
out threads that don't promote one's faith and
then try to poison the well strikes me as quite
unseemly, and entirely unworthy of response.