Can the Sciences Prove that Something is True?

[Sunstone]

Can the sciences prove that something is true? "Proof" in this context means to demonstrate with certainty that something is the case. The emphasis here is on "certainty".

I would argue that while certainty is possible in mathematics and deductive logic, it is not possible in the sciences. There is always the possibility, however remote, that something might not be the case. This is in part because of the fact that science crucially rests on empirical evidence, and empirical evidence is by its very nature uncertain. As Hume pointed out centuries ago, the mere fact the sun has always risen each day does not entail that the sun will rise tomorrow. Although it is likely that it will rise, it is conceivable that it might not. At most, the sciences can provide an overwhelming weight of logical reasoning and empirical evidence in support of a notion that something is the case, but they cannot provide us with certainty that something is the case.

But what do you think?

 

[Polymath257]

Can the sciences prove that something is true? "Proof" in this context means to demonstrate with certainty that something is the case. The emphasis here is on "certainty".

I would argue that while certainty is possible in mathematics and deductive logic, it is not possible in the sciences. There is always the possibility, however remote, that something might not be the case. This is in part because of the fact that science crucially rests on empirical evidence, and empirical evidence is by its very nature uncertain. As Hume pointed out centuries ago, the mere fact the sun has always risen each day does not entail that the sun will rise tomorrow. Although it is likely that it will rise, it is conceivable that it might not. At most, the sciences can provide an overwhelming weight of logical reasoning and empirical evidence in support of a notion that something is the case, but they cannot provide us with certainty that something is the case.

But what do you think?

Since it is *always* possible that we are simply brains in a vat and science cannot prove otherwise, anything about the physical world (so all of science) is uncertain to that degree.

 

[sayak83]

Can the sciences prove that something is true? "Proof" in this context means to demonstrate with certainty that something is the case. The emphasis here is on "certainty".

I would argue that while certainty is possible in mathematics and deductive logic, it is not possible in the sciences. There is always the possibility, however remote, that something might not be the case. This is in part because of the fact that science crucially rests on empirical evidence, and empirical evidence is by its very nature uncertain. As Hume pointed out centuries ago, the mere fact the sun has always risen each day does not entail that the sun will rise tomorrow. Although it is likely that it will rise, it is conceivable that it might not. At most, the sciences can provide an overwhelming weight of logical reasoning and empirical evidence in support of a notion that something is the case, but they cannot provide us with certainty that something is the case.

But what do you think?

It is more correct to say that science deals with objects of enquiry where it is logically impossible to prove anything with certainty no matter what method is used. Given this science claims to be the method that provides maximum possible probabilistic confidence regarding whether or not some proposition X is true or not given all public evidence so far gathered. The technical term here is empirical adequacy.

 

[HonestJoe]

Can the sciences prove that something is true? "Proof" in this context means to demonstrate with certainty that something is the case. The emphasis here is on "certainty".

Well given that “proof” in this context doesn’t mean with absolute certainty, no. Nothing can provide proof with absolute certainty but then scientific method was never intended to. It’s really nothing more than a structured way to assess all the available evidence and reach the most accurate and likely conclusions possible. The process will never be perfect, not least because of our extensive limitations.

 

[shunyadragon]

Since it is *always* possible that we are simply brains in a vat and science cannot prove otherwise, anything about the physical world (so all of science) is uncertain to that degree.

Brains in a Vat?!?!?! How quant!

It is a very positive virtue that science is and remains uncertain to a degree. The philosophy of uniformity of our physical existence is one of the assumptions Methodological Naturalism. It is tested every time a theory or hypothesis is proposed based on existing knowledge and then tested by falsification in the research through the history of science. At present the philosophy of the uniformity of our physical existence has never failed, and continues to stand with certainty.

 

[Sunstone]

It is more correct to say that science deals with objects of enquiry where it is logically impossible to prove anything with certainty no matter what method is used. Given this science claims to be the method that provides maximum possible probabilistic confidence regarding whether or not some proposition X is true or not given all public evidence so far gathered. The technical term here is empirical adequacy.

Great post! But there is more than one scientific method.

 

[Sunstone]

...and continues to stand with certainty.

Not with certainty. With a weight of reason and evidence, yes. But not with certainty. Or do you think you can demonstrate it's certainty?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Can the sciences prove that something is true? "Proof" in this context means to demonstrate with certainty that something is the case. The emphasis here is on "certainty".

I would argue that while certainty is possible in mathematics and deductive logic, it is not possible in the sciences. There is always the possibility, however remote, that something might not be the case. This is in part because of the fact that science crucially rests on empirical evidence, and empirical evidence is by its very nature uncertain. As Hume pointed out centuries ago, the mere fact the sun has always risen each day does not entail that the sun will rise tomorrow. Although it is likely that it will rise, it is conceivable that it might not. At most, the sciences can provide an overwhelming weight of logical reasoning and empirical evidence in support of a notion that something is the case, but they cannot provide us with certainty that something is the case.

But what do you think?

"Proof" has to be defined contextually. Assuming the laws of physics are consistent according to our countless observations, science has proven a great many things. If there is no air resistance, two objects of different sizes and masses will always fall at the same rate - and at a predictable rate based on the mass of the object they are falling towards. "Proof" is only a problematic concept when taken to a rather ridiculous extreme - an extreme which, if actualized, would render empiricism meaningless anyway.

 

[shunyadragon]

Great post! But there is more than one scientific method.

This is not clear. Of course, there are many methods used in science. The Methods of science are based on the Philosophy of Methodological Naturalism.

 

[Sunstone]

This is not clear. Of course, there are many methods used in science. The Methods of science are based on the Philosophy of Methodological Naturalism.

The methods of science are based on what scientists find compelling. They are not derived from philosophy.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Can the sciences prove that something is true? "Proof" in this context means to demonstrate with certainty that something is the case. The emphasis here is on "certainty".

I would argue that while certainty is possible in mathematics and deductive logic, it is not possible in the sciences. There is always the possibility, however remote, that something might not be the case. This is in part because of the fact that science crucially rests on empirical evidence, and empirical evidence is by its very nature uncertain. As Hume pointed out centuries ago, the mere fact the sun has always risen each day does not entail that the sun will rise tomorrow. Although it is likely that it will rise, it is conceivable that it might not. At most, the sciences can provide an overwhelming weight of logical reasoning and empirical evidence in support of a notion that something is the case, but they cannot provide us with certainty that something is the case.

But what do you think?

You are not talking about science, you talking about philosophy; something known as radical skepticism. There is a difference here, and most people don't recognize it. Science explores the reality that is presented, while radical skepticism suggest that the reality presented might not be the actual reality. Since science explores the reality that is presented the whole argument of radical skepticism is moot to the goal of science. The whole idea is to follow the bread crumbs, as "real" or not, they are the only trail we have to follow.

I would also like to suggest that impractical doubt does not cancel out reasonable certainty.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Proof" has to be defined contextually. Assuming the laws of physics are consistent according to our countless observations, science has proven a great many things. If there is no air resistance, two objects of different sizes and masses will always fall at the same rate - and at a predictable rate based on the mass of the object they are falling towards. "Proof" is only a problematic concept when taken to a rather ridiculous extreme - an extreme which, if actualized, would render empiricism meaningless anyway.

Even this obvious & accepted phenomenon does not apply in all circumstances.
Dark energy has up ended it, making what you observe a merely local effect.
But it's still a pretty reliable one. As George Box said....
"All models are wrong, but some are useful."
Engineers & farmers will always settle for useful.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

The methods of science are based on what scientists find compelling. They are not derived from philosophy.

I would disagree with that; I think science is a child of philosophy.

 

[Sunstone]

"Proof" has to be defined contextually. Assuming the laws of physics are consistent according to our countless observations, science has proven a great many things. If there is no air resistance, two objects of different sizes and masses will always fall at the same rate - and at a predictable rate based on the mass of the object they are falling towards. "Proof" is only a problematic concept when taken to a rather ridiculous extreme - an extreme which, if actualized, would render empiricism meaningless anyway.

I believe you're indulging in semantics. Even if what you said was true, "proof" in the sciences would be significantly different than "proof" in mathematics and deductive logic. This was established by David Hume centuries ago.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not with certainty. With a weight of reason and evidence, yes. But not with certainty. Or do you think you can demonstrate it's certainty?

I go with this definition.

Certainty - the quality of being reliably true.

Yes science is reliably true, but not absolutely true, because it subject to change over time.

 

[Sunstone]

I would disagree with that; I think science is a child of philosophy.

I suspect you're approaching the issue from a largely logical point of view, rather than from the history of the sciences.

 

[Sunstone]

I go with this definition.

Certainty - the quality of being reliably true.

Yes science is reliably true, but not absolutely true, because it subject to change over time.

If you want to use a different definition than that of the OP, that's fine. But your definition does not take into account that there is a significant difference between the certainty of mathematics and deductive logic, and what you call the certainty of the sciences.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I suspect you're approaching the issue from a largely logical point of view, rather than from the history of the sciences.

No, I am approaching it from a historical perspective.

 

[Sunstone]

You are not talking about science, you talking about philosophy; something known as radical skepticism. There is a difference here, and most people don't recognize it. Science explores the reality that is presented, while radical skepticism suggest that the reality presented might not be the actual reality. Since science explores the reality that is presented the whole argument of radical skepticism is moot to the goal of science. The whole idea is to follow the bread crumbs, as "real" or not, they are the only trail we have to follow.

I would also like to suggest that impractical doubt does not cancel out reasonable certainty.

Please try demonstrating that the level of certainty obtained in mathematics and deductive logic is the equal to or greater than the level of certainty obtain in the sciences.

 

[Sunstone]

No, I am approaching it from a historical perspective.

Then give some cases.