-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can Science Prove Anything?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
Under any useful definition of proof, yes. Science proves lots of things.
To the second bit, yes.
The doctor breaks your other arm. Is the pain the same? If yes, then your other arm is broken. Still not convinced? The doctor can continue adding fractures to your arm to convince you.
To the second bit, yes.
The doctor breaks your other arm. Is the pain the same? If yes, then your other arm is broken. Still not convinced? The doctor can continue adding fractures to your arm to convince you.
Science says it cannot prove anything to be true. It can only prove things to be false. Even with the most concrete, observed, experimental evidence and solid, theoretical calculation, there always exists the possibility that a theory can be falsified.
And what is pain, but a condition of the mind? If the doctor alters the mind-state, whether through medication or not, and can diminish or remove the pain without touching the arm, was the arm causing the pain in the first place?
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
Hence the 'reasonable' I stuck on. If we view 100,000,000,000,000,000 turtles, and all are green, is it unreasonable to say 'turtles are green'?
If you insist on being absolutely obtuse and sticking to a defintion of proof which only exists in the world of mathematics, well, that's another story. It is pointless to have a defintion with virtually no real world use.
Would you prefer, proved true to a reasonable degree?
Well, that's irrelevant. You are adding more conditions to the story.
I'll try to make my answer brief for now and I'll be happy to give more detail later if you like.
Science can prove many things via the scientific method which is our best scale to see how things hold up consistently.
Well I guess it goes without saying that a doctor can determine your arm is broken with an examination, should the doctor push, pull and prod you will experience a great deal of pain. After the arm is set and immobilized the pain resides, in about 6-8 weeks the pain is gone.
Science can prove many things via the scientific method which is our best scale to see how things hold up consistently.
Well I guess it goes without saying that a doctor can determine your arm is broken with an examination, should the doctor push, pull and prod you will experience a great deal of pain. After the arm is set and immobilized the pain resides, in about 6-8 weeks the pain is gone.
Do not underestimate my obtuseness! You asked if science can ever prove anything. I think you answered your own question.
I'm adding conditions to test the source of the pain. Is the pain the result of the broken arm? Or is it the result of a neuron firing in the brain? I see no need to get all huffy when someone adds to the discussion.
(From experience, add enough morphine to the equation and a broken arm ceases to hurt and begins to feel "interesting.")
blackout
Violet.
Given all the key conditions of a repeated experiment remain the same,
science can demonstrate "trends".
Given that the key "conditions" of that repeated experiment
WILL NEVER ALTER, you might then elevate the trend to "law".
I however am not one given to the notion that major reality conditions will not alter.
So AT BEST, science for me, might "proove" a "trend" under given conditions.
Science, to my knowledge, does not usually incorporate more "esoteric" test factors in with it's experementing.
Thus it doesn't generally interest me much on a PERSONAL level.
Also, things that I CANNOT UNDERSTAND (or self evidence), prove absolutely nothing to me.
science can demonstrate "trends".
Given that the key "conditions" of that repeated experiment
WILL NEVER ALTER, you might then elevate the trend to "law".
I however am not one given to the notion that major reality conditions will not alter.
So AT BEST, science for me, might "proove" a "trend" under given conditions.
Science, to my knowledge, does not usually incorporate more "esoteric" test factors in with it's experementing.
Thus it doesn't generally interest me much on a PERSONAL level.
Also, things that I CANNOT UNDERSTAND (or self evidence), prove absolutely nothing to me.
rajakrsna
Member
If you think the pain in the arm is due to a broken bone, then have that extremity x-rayed. Clinically, you can also diagnose a broken bone by asking the history of its appearance. You can also look for any swelling, limitation of movement & deformity in that arm. It doesn`t take science to do that just plain common sense.:yes:
You would do well to develop an appreciation of Escher ...
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
Under any 'reasonable' definition of proof.
I used a non conventional defintion, but proof in the purest sense does not exist, therefore it is pointless to have a word regarding it.
Still, it wasn't in the intial bit.
Anyhow, an MRI will figure it out in no time.
And sorry if I appeared huffy
That says more about you than about Escher. My comment stands.
Fluffy
A fool
Who is Escher?
Science proves things according to a specific understanding of proof.
Science makes statements according to a specific understanding of reality and those statements should be regarded as such just in case that understanding is wrong.
I think that this definition and understanding are reasonable but I don't wish to take them as given since to do so would be to ignore, and so undermine, their basis. It would be unreasonable to say that science is rubbish, useless, suspect, weak, untrustworthy e.t.c. just because it doesn't conform to a stricter standard of proof than this.
It should only be called suspect when these important caveats are not taken into consideration. The sceptic should be called suspect when they are given more consideration than they deserve.
Science proves things according to a specific understanding of proof.
Science makes statements according to a specific understanding of reality and those statements should be regarded as such just in case that understanding is wrong.
I think that this definition and understanding are reasonable but I don't wish to take them as given since to do so would be to ignore, and so undermine, their basis. It would be unreasonable to say that science is rubbish, useless, suspect, weak, untrustworthy e.t.c. just because it doesn't conform to a stricter standard of proof than this.
It should only be called suspect when these important caveats are not taken into consideration. The sceptic should be called suspect when they are given more consideration than they deserve.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
The proof is in the pudding.
Well then we agree!
First time I broke my arm, the docs X-rayed the wrong part. I had a spiral fracture of the humerus and they kept looking at my forearm and wondering why they couldn't find a break. My brain couldn't differentiate the location of the pain. Finally, one of the X-ray techs noticed my left humerus was about three inches shorter than the right and more X-raying commenced. Six to eight weeks later, my arm was whole again.
And I accept your comment. We're talking about the artist/mathematician, right?
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
Awww....
But disagreeing is no fun.
Another swing on my part, and another miss.
Oh well.
rojse
RF Addict
It depends on how reasonable I want to be. If I really want to be pedantic, cynical, and distrusting, I could never really prove anything. In the real world, I will wait until it is unreasonable for me to say that their hypothesis is wrong.
If my doctor straightens out my bone, and I don't feel pain, it certainly is possible that it might not have been the bone, but who is going to be that unreasonable when they have been freed of their pain?
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Science can prove what is not. This it what makes it useful to religion, forcing it to evolve.
Everything in science is inference. It sees an effect, measures it, and infers something from it. Electromagnetism, for example: it's not seen except by what it does and from that scientists infer something and give it a name. Particle physics is another: scientists see effects in a cloud chamber and infer something is causing it. The Big Bang is inferred, as is the multiverse theory and God-as-a-concept.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Can science prove anything?
No... it can only provide evidence and suportable explainations for natural phenomina. It also provides testable predictions of those phenomina.
now about the pain... no, but he makes a darn good testable theory about it.
wa:do
No... it can only provide evidence and suportable explainations for natural phenomina. It also provides testable predictions of those phenomina.
now about the pain... no, but he makes a darn good testable theory about it.
wa:do