Can the Sciences Prove that Something is True?

[shunyadragon]

I can go farther. There are many examples in the mathematics literature where people believed that they had a proof of a result, but it turns out that they made a mistake and the proof fell through. For some, the end result turned out to be false.

So even mathematical proof, as it is done by humans, is uncertain. I can almost guarantee that there are wrong results in many top-notch journals. of course, without going through each proof and finding the mistake, I can't say which ones are wrong. But.....

To a certain extent you are arguing from a vague 'argument from ignorance,' concerning what math proofs have errors. Of course there are possible errors or wrong results, but the redundancy of math research probably reduces this to a minimum. Computers are also great tools today to resolve these issues.

Math theorems and and proofs function when when the practically apply to the real world.

 

[Polymath257]

Disagree, if you consider the infinite number of empty hotel rooms as potential infinity there will always be another hotel room no matter how many people are waiting to fill the rooms.

Maybe if you are describing the hotel in terms of an actual infinity, but . . .

. . . potential infinity, in which a non-terminating process (such as "add 1 to the previous number") produces an unending "infinite" sequence of results, but each individual result is finite and is achieved in a finite number of steps.
Actual infinity - Wikipedia

Ultimately, I think the distinction between actual and potential infinities is a poor one. It is based on a lack of understanding of the characteristics of infinite sets that was the case before Cantor explained these things.

So, as an example, in my second example for filling an *actual* infinity of rooms, take 1 hour to fill the first room, 1/2 hour to fill the second, 1/4 hour to fill the third, 1/8 hour to fill the fourth, etc. with each room taking half the time of the previous one.

Each individual step is finite and achieved in a finite number of steps. But the rooms are filled in a finite amount of time: 2 hours.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm still thinking about that one. On the surface, the answer is "no", but I want to think it through a bit more.

I believe it is not absolutely certain, of course, but from a practical stand point over time most errors and false proofs are resolved.

 

[Nous]

I do not spoon fed. You are literate, and can read the definitions for Methodological Naturalism on line or in books, which you reject anyway. So why bother.

Apparently I've read more than you have on the topic. "Methodological Naturalism" is a vacuous idea.

Science predicts it is uniform what happens in all black holes

Prove it.

Bad science. Nothing is proven in science. It gets worse every time you post.

The reason that you are unable to find a scientist or philosopher or other educated person who makes your claims about a hypothesis that every experiment tests and proves, and about science and "methodological naturalism" is because your claims are false.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would hesitate the use the word 'true'. I would use 'proven' since that is more applicable to an axiomatic system.

I can live with "true" in a priori systems.
In this case (as you pointed out), there is the possibility of human error.
But if no error, then when it's proven, it's "true" (given the premises).
But in a posteriori systems, it's always possible that a better understanding can be had.
So one could never "prove" a theory of the natural world to be "true" in the same sense.

I don't know where to stop with all the quotation marks in stuff like this.

 

[Polymath257]

To a certain extent you are arguing from a vague 'argument from ignorance,' concerning what math proofs have errors. Of course there are possible errors or wrong results, but the redundancy of math research probably reduces this to a minimum. Computers are also great tools today to resolve these issues.

The question was one of *certainty*. And redundancy or computer checks don't resolve the minuscule uncertainty.

Math theorems and and proofs function when when the practically apply to the real world.

I don't know how to evaluate that. At first glance, it is clearly false. There are a large number of perfectly functional mathematical results that have no applicability to the real world.

For example, it is a mathematical fact that there is a prime number whose smallest representation as a decimal number takes more digits than the number of particles in the observable universe. I have no idea how such a prime could apply to the real world.

 

[Skwim]

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".

Considering that "certainty" means free from doubt, it's dependent on one's personal confidence level where the two kick in, and is therefore purely subjective. What may be a certainty to you may be doubtful to me. So, if you want to derive proof from such certainty then that proof will be subjective as well. However, this is not scientific proof. Scientific proof is entirely objective. It's generative nature being a true regardless of any perception of it, which is why it only occurs in mathematics and logic . If there was not a single sentient mind in the entire universe, one thing plus another thing would still equal two things.

I would argue that while certainty is possible in mathematics and deductive logic, it is not possible in the sciences.

Which, as I point put above, is actually quite possible. Certainty is very well and alive in science. Some scientists, Einstein for one, were certain the universe is static, while other scientists were certain it is growing. Thing is, certainty in science, as elsewhere, need not be absolute. There are degrees of certainty. One can be absolutely certain, quite certain, fairly certain, kind of certain, or sort of certain.

So, as to your question,

"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' "
​

Absolutely, although, being subjective, it isn't very meaningful.

.

 

[Sunstone]

Considering that "certainty" means free from doubt...

.

I'm afraid that, in the context of this thread and the OP, "certainty" does not mean "free from doubt." It means that something is absolutely known to be the case.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Irrelevant.

That is what I said.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I'm afraid that, in the context of this thread and the OP, "certainty" does not mean "free from doubt." It means that something is absolutely known to be the case.

You didn't define certainty in the OP.

 

[Sunstone]

You didn't define certainty in the OP.

I didn't anticipate that the concept of certainty in philosophy would give so many people the fits, hence I merely implied it. My bad.

 

[Skwim]

I'm afraid that, in the context of this thread and the OP, "certainty" does not mean "free from doubt." It means that something is absolutely known to be the case.

Then it would all rest on the strength of such knowledge. Knowledge, being a consequence of the processes of the mind, is dependent on the the ability of the mind to process information fairly (without bias or prejudice) and with understanding. Some people say they absolutely know the lord exists; to them such knowing is just as valid as knowing their own name. Others say they absolutely know no such lord exists, again, to them such knowing is just as valid as knowing their own name. So, as with the common understanding of "certainty" once again the issue becomes a subjective matter. What you claim is absolute knowledge may be in direct opposition to what I claim is absolute knowledge. Taking this form of certainty (absolute knowledge) into the realm of science, your certainty could well be pitted against my certainty, the conclusion of which would be a draw. Thing is, "absolutely knowing" would be a foolish concept in science, which is no doubt why we don't hear about it, other than from zealots and outright crackpots. Scientists simply don't go around claiming they "absolutely know" X to be the case. They're far more intelligent and circumspect.

.

 

[Skwim]

I didn't anticipate that the concept of certainty in philosophy would give so many people the fits, hence I merely implied it. My bad.

Next time you might want to ask the choir.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

The question was one of *certainty*. And redundancy or computer checks don't resolve the minuscule uncertainty.

Your previous post described the errors as possible mountains. Now it 'minuscule uncertainty,' a mole hill?

 

[shunyadragon]

You didn't define certainty in the OP.

I defined it using a standard practical definition, and not mine.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't know how to evaluate that. At first glance, it is clearly false. There are a large number of perfectly functional mathematical results that have no applicability to the real world.

For example, it is a mathematical fact that there is a prime number whose smallest representation as a decimal number takes more digits than the number of particles in the observable universe. I have no idea how such a prime could apply to the real world.

You should evaluate as I described the math that is 'functional' in the real world, and I did not refer to all the possible theorems and proofs of which some have no practical known 'functional application' in the real world.

I believe the redundancy or the research and peer review in math removes by far most errors are removed from the math that has 'functional and practical applications.

 

[shunyadragon]

Apparently I've read more than you have on the topic. "Methodological Naturalism" is a vacuous idea.

Apparently not, because you requested a definition. Your archaic religious agenda against science.

Prove it.

A Vacuous idea in science

The reason that you are unable to find a scientist or philosopher or other educated person who makes your claims about a hypothesis that every experiment tests and proves, and about science and "methodological naturalism" is because your claims are false.

Bad science.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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?

My answer is no, Bob. Do I win a prize?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

I think there is a degree of philosophy at play, actually. Early scientists were theists, and methodological naturalism allows them to 'limit' science to the material and measurable.

 

[Sunstone]

I think there is a degree of philosophy at play, actually. Early scientists were theists, and methodological naturalism allows them to 'limit' science to the material and measurable.

Please document any scientific discovery that was procedurally derived from methodological naturalism.