You are confusing “proof” with “evidence” here, George.
What HonestJoe wrote that you had quoted, was “evidence”, but you say “proof/disproof”.
I know that many people use “proof” and “evidence” interchangeably as if they were synonymous, especially in courtroom, but they are not the same things, George.
Judges, lawyers and jury don’t need qualifications in maths and science, so their usage of these 2 words can be forgiven. But this forum isn’t a “Law and Justice” forum, but a “Science and Religion” forum.
But in the worlds of mathematics and science, there are clear distinctions between the two. And if you are going to use science in your arguments in forums like the “Science and Religion” forum, then you need to understand the distinctions and use the terms in proper contexts when talking about science.
This is not word games. You know that there are certain words that can be used in different spheres of knowledge (spheres or domains, like science, maths, medicine, engineering, laws, politics, religion, etc), so the usages of such terms must be understood in their respective contexts, depending on the spheres/domains of the conversation.
So in the worlds of mathematics and science, proof is a logical or mathematical statements, often expressed in mathematical equations, formulas, constants, variables.
Both mathematicians and scientists will use mathematical proofs, and in science, scientists will use such proofs as part of explanation in explanatory models, eg hypothesis, scientific theory.
So -
- Einstein’s famous mass-energy equivalence equation for Special Relativity (E = m c^2), the value in speed of light constant (c) in that equation;
- Einstein’s field equations used in General Relativity;
- the Maxwell’s equations used in electromagnetic;
- Ohm’s law (I = V / R);
- Newton’s motion equations and gravity equations in classical mechanics;
- the Pythagorean theorem (a^2 + b^2 = c^2) used to find the dimension of the right-angle triangle’s hypotenuse;
- the value of constant pi (3.14159) used in trigonometry and geometry;
- all of the different equations that can be used in differential calculus and integral calculus;
- and so on...
...they (all of the above) are all examples of proofs; not evidence.
All of these are useful tools in science that can help explain the observed phenomena, using equations and formulas, but these proofs are not evidence.
When people talk of “proving” or “disproving” in science and mathematics, they are referring to any of the following, like breaking down complex equations into smaller equations (known as simplifying process); used two or more different equations to create a new equation; using multiple different equations to create a large equation (eg the equation in the Theory of Everything); transforming equation to another which have different purpose, etc.
So “proving” means trying to solve proofs (eg equations), to provide mathematical solutions to any problems.
That’s what “proof” mean to any mathematicians and scientists.
But that’s not the real goals of scientists (although theoretical physicists do rely heavily on proofs, only because they are waiting for other physicists to find real world answers to their problems).
The real goals in science are to find OBSERVATIONs or EVIDENCE which they can test their falsifiable explanatory models (eg hypotheses, scientific theories, etc), AND to test their mathematical proof.
Observation comes in the form of evidence, evidence that can be observed/detected, measured, quantified, tested, analyzed, etc, which should provide useful data.
Evidence and data that can be used to verify or refuted any falsifiable model.
To give you some real life examples.
When a doctor take blood sample from you, to be analyzed in some labs, eg to pathology lab. The blood itself is evidence. All sorts of tests can be done, and the most obvious one is blood type, eg O, A, B, AB, etc, that test result, is another evidence.
They might test your blood, like cholesterols, blood sugar to see if you are diabetic or not, DNA, test for viral or bacterial infection, poisoning, etc. whatever results they are looking for, they are all considered evidence, nor proofs.
When you have blood pressure done, when they use the x-ray, ultrasound, MRI scan, CT scan, etc, they all provide evidence that allow doctors or specialists to diagnose if you have any health issues or not.
There more to the world than just equations and numbers, proof only provide abstract solutions, not real world solutions.
So real science (except for theoretical scientists) are looking for evidence or relying on testable and verifiable evidence, hence looking for real world solutions, not mathematical proofs.
What I mean by “real world science”, I mean “experimental science”, “empirical science”, science that have real applications (hence “applied science”).
Sometimes, theoretical models can later become scientific model, when they can be tested. Such as the cases with General Relativity, which started off being theoretical, where Einstein only provided explanations and some equations (field equations). Later other physicists found evidence through testing explanations (plus equations), and found use in different areas of physics.
Einstein’s GR is the newer standard model that explain gravity, replacing Newton’s theory on gravity as standard, but not completely replacing Newton’s theory, since it still have useful applications, like in civil engineering, mechanical engineering, etc.
Another new model for gravity that still at theoretical stage, haven’t been tested ye. It is called Quantum Gravity, where theoretical physicists have been trying to explain gravity on the quantum level.
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics don’t work together so nicely, so since Einstein’s days, physicists have been trying to combine them into one theory.
