Can the Sciences Prove that Something is True?

[Jeremiahcp]

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.

"certainty of mathematics and deductive logic"

Certainty of an abstract that references nothing. It is like saying a ruler is a measure of itself. 2+2=4 does not prove anything unless it is applicable.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

This needs more clarification. The philosophy of science cannot be equated with philosophy in general. The philosophy of science evolved separately based on objective verifiable evidence, and nature of our physical existence. I n general philosophy has a different basis in logic.

Yes, math is another branch of philosophy based analytic philosophy within the philosophy of science. Math represent a part of the tool box of science, and everyday use in our world.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Then give some cases.

Unfortunately the two articles I have on the subject are packed away, and I really just do not care enough to find it on the web.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

Fortunately, "local" is the context of general utility.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

This needs more clarification. The philosophy of science cannot be equated with philosophy in general. The philosophy of science evolved separately based on objective verifiable evidence, and nature of our physical existence. I n general philosophy has a different basis in logic.

Yes, math is another branch of philosophy based analytic philosophy within the philosophy of science. Math represent a part of the tool box of science, and everyday use in our world.

How can the philosophy of science evolve separately from philosophy?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

In this case, I could ask whether an ATM machine could serve you breakfast. It isn't built to, so of course it can't. Then again, "proof" has variable connotations, which is why the thread has something to actually discuss.

 

[Revoltingest]

How can the philosophy of science evolve separately from philosophy?

I agree that it's all the same animal.

Don't get used to my agreeing with you.

 

[YmirGF]

I think the best science can offer is a high probability that a given thing is true based on the evidence at hand and the understanding of the time. It's not so much about proving anything but rather more like the continual unraveling of the ball of thread that is reality.

 

[George-ananda]

But what do you think?

Having an avid interest in paranormal/crypto/alien type things I have learned to be content with 'beyond reasonable doubt' and not be concerned with the impossible 'Proof'. In the real world involving events, we can forget the concepts of "Proof' and 'There is no Proof' as having much meaning.

 

[Sunstone]

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

“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” -- Richard Feynman.

 

[Sunstone]

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” -- Albert Einstein.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

That may or may not be the case (there are some pretty strong criticisms of the notion that we cannot know whether or not we are brains in a vat -- but let's not get into those here.), but the problem with certainty in the sciences has more to do with the fundamental nature and limits of inductive logic or reasoning than it does with the brain in a vat notion. Inductive logic (aka reasoning) is fundamental to the sciences since they rely on empirical evidence. However, inductive logic cannot by its very nature provide certainty. Hence, the sciences are ultimately uncertain.

 

[Sunstone]

In this case, I could ask whether an ATM machine could serve you breakfast. It isn't built to, so of course it can't. Then again, "proof" has variable connotations, which is why the thread has something to actually discuss.

I've got very high esteem for your reasoning ability, Kilgore, but in this one case, I think you need to very closely examine your logic here. You yourself can -- if you choose -- discern your own errors here. Please do so for your own sake.

 

[Nous]

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?

I agree with you and Hume. Hume was noting the problem of induction, with which Popper agreed. Ultimately the hypothetico-deductive method can only eliminate hypotheses.

 

[Sunstone]

"certainty of mathematics and deductive logic"

Certainty of an abstract that references nothing. It is like saying a ruler is a measure of itself. 2+2=4 does not prove anything unless it is applicable.

Irrelevant.

 

[Nous]

Nothing can provide proof with absolute certainty

As Sunstone noted, mathematics and deductive logic provides such certainty.

 

[Nous]

The philosophy of uniformity of our physical existence is one of the assumptions Methodological Naturalism.

Say what?

State exactly the proposition that you claim is the assumption of . . .the scientific method(?). (While you're at it, state exactly what "methodological naturalism" is.)

The scientific method does not assume that what happens inside a black hole is uniform with what happens outside black holes.

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.

Quote a scientist who makes such claims about an -ism that is tested and proven with every test of science.

 

[Nous]

2+2=4 does not prove anything unless it is applicable.

No, Hilbert's Hotel--in which a fully occupied hotel with infinitely many rooms can still accommodate infinitely many more guests--does not have to be applicable to an actual hotel in order to be true.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I've got very high esteem for your reasoning ability, Kilgore, but in this one case, I think you need to very closely examine your logic here. You yourself can -- if you choose -- discern your own errors here. Please do so for your own sake.

You'll actually have to explain to what you're interpreting/perceiving, as I really don't know what you're referring to.

 

[shunyadragon]

Say what?

State exactly the proposition that you claim is the assumption of . . .the scientific method(?). (While you're at it, state exactly what "methodological naturalism" is.)

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.

The scientific method does not assume that what happens inside a black hole is uniform with what happens outside black holes.

Science predicts it is uniform what happens in all black holes, and predicts it is uniform as to what happens outside black holes. At present the knowledge of science concerning black holes is consistent and predicable. Your fallacy of distorted 'arguing from ignorance' is apparent to support your religious agenda.

Quote a scientist who makes such claims about an -ism that is tested and proven with every test of science.

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