Do you want "scientific proof"?

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


you are comparing two different sciences. Only extreme conditions would change a rock, and then we have a name for that event. But biology is different, and it does change and is expected to, then you change the name of that species. But it is still a mushroom, and that hasn't changed.

Well I certainly hope that gravity doesn't change or we would all be dead and the Earth destroyed.

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
reply to post by Openeye

 

As user "AzureSky" quoted:

"In science there is no right or wrong answer, only the theory that best fits, and its just that. A theory."

I know it is hard to perceive but just because there is a very "solid" explanation of something does not mean it is subject to change in the future.

edit on 12-1-2012 by ErroneousDylan because: (no reason given)

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


I know what you are saying ....especially when it comes to photographs of UFOs vs faked or photo shopped ones.

But this isn't entirely true.

For .I can prove the existence and non existence of electrical energy called voltage and current in your body or even your computer as described by the fundamental scientific principals as defined by Ohms law by several means of validation.

We can verify and validate this with various forms and types of measurement instrumentation.
It can also be proven mathematically as well.

If we had no semblance of proof of anything scientific then your computer wouldn't function as it does.



Peace

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan

We can say that the color "yellow" is "yellow". This will generally be accepted by all. The color yellow is, of course, the color yellow. Look at this text.

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan

You do realize that the term "scientific proof" is some what a form of oxymora, right?

There is no such thing as "proof" when it comes to science, because there are no final results in science. If you want finality you will have to partake in mathematics or logic as those are the only subjects where proof exists.

You are absolutely correct.

The above is something I've pointed out a great many times here.

Especially the bolded part.

Harte

I have to disagree . As someone already posted Mathematics have proofs and science is based upon mathematics. No matter what the science is you can break it down into a mathematical formula. Even biology breaks down to maths when you look into the very heart of what constitutes as matter and how they interact.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
So if i see a rock on the ground are you telling me that science could not prove its a rock?

"rock" is just a general term PEOPLE have given an object.

Science would be able to tell you if the rock was Limestone, or Concrete for example, but what the OP is trying to get at is there is no way science could definitively PROVE how the rock came in to being, and how it eventually ended up on the ground where you found it.

Science could offer theories, and maybe they would be correct. But there is no guarantee that a year later a better theory wouldnt come along. That is what science is all about.

Every equation or scientific experiment that doesn't factor YOU into the equation is inherently wrong. Every observation is relative to the instrument recording the observation and where it exists in space time, it can't be absolute.

Good thread.

Originally posted by nixie_nox

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan

We can say that the color "yellow" is "yellow". This will generally be accepted by all. The color yellow is, of course, the color yellow. Look at this text.

First time i've ever wanted to flag a post twice.

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
So if i see a rock on the ground are you telling me that science could not prove its a rock?

This is especially true. While the standard says it is a "rock" it could very well change one day, even if it is a very slim chance. From my work in mycology I see this all the time with living organisms. For years two different type of mushrooms were being classified as the same species because they were nearly identical, and even grew together in the same area. Eventually, however, somebody found that there were, in fact, two different of species mixed together. Now they both have unique species names.

Names get changed all the time, because they are not "set in stone". No pun intended to your rock.

You can call anything whatever you want. That doesn't change what "it" is. I am not "zach," I'm a collection of hundreds of millions of microscopic living organisms that were at one point particles of dust in space, forged in the centers of stars. Science is the means of trying to understand the universe. It doesn't create anything new, it only discovers what already exists, and the manipulations possible. Every thing that could ever possibly be discovered exists right now, in some form.

Originally posted by minor007
I have to disagree . As someone already posted Mathematics have proofs and science is based upon mathematics. No matter what the science is you can break it down into a mathematical formula. Even biology breaks down to maths when you look into the very heart of what constitutes as matter and how they interact.

There is no proof at all in science. None.

The fact that you think there is merely shows that you know little about mathematics.

Harte

Originally posted by Dystopiaphiliac

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
So if i see a rock on the ground are you telling me that science could not prove its a rock?

This is especially true. While the standard says it is a "rock" it could very well change one day, even if it is a very slim chance. From my work in mycology I see this all the time with living organisms. For years two different type of mushrooms were being classified as the same species because they were nearly identical, and even grew together in the same area. Eventually, however, somebody found that there were, in fact, two different of species mixed together. Now they both have unique species names.

Names get changed all the time, because they are not "set in stone". No pun intended to your rock.

You can call anything whatever you want. That doesn't change what "it" is. I am not "zach," I'm a collection of hundreds of millions of microscopic living organisms that were at one point particles of dust in space, forged in the centers of stars. Science is the means of trying to understand the universe. It doesn't create anything new, it only discovers what already exists, and the manipulations possible. Every thing that could ever possibly be discovered exists right now, in some form.

While it's true that you are a collection of atoms, the question then becomes "What is an atom?"

The only answer to this is definition-based, not mathematically based.

An atom is what we define it to be. What it actually is is completely unknown.

Harte

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Every equation or scientific experiment that doesn't factor YOU into the equation is inherently wrong. Every observation is relative to the instrument recording the observation and where it exists in space time, it can't be absolute.

Good thread.

I would disagree.

The best physics can do, for example, is predict, but if those predictions are accurate then the mathematical model is sound and useful.

I think sometimes people (even scientists) get confused and assume that science can/should explain reality down to the very last molecule. It doesn't, and until we get giant amazing mega brains the size of ice cream trucks it likely never will.

So I'd say no, the equations are not wrong. They suit their purpose, and they are often productive.

So, the amount of evidence should not matter either when deciding for yourself that something scientific is provable.

I don't think it's the amount of evidence that really matters, but does the evidence suit the purpose.

Most of this conversation was brought up by philosophers like Decartes and Plato, albeit they weren't aimed at science as we know it today, their conclusions were pretty much the same tangled mess that eventually falls into a neverending argument.

Just my opinion.

reply to post by Harte


en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

nuff said...

Originally posted by Harte
While it's true that you are a collection of atoms, the question then becomes "What is an atom?"

The only answer to this is definition-based, not mathematically based.

An atom is what we define it to be. What it actually is is completely unknown.

Harte

Exactly. Definitions are logical and have no ties to "reality." Science uses definitions to describe observations and to produce inductive arguments, but science is not merely argument by definition. That's analytic philosophy

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


What is the matter with you? I can perfectly understand a "debate " with the OP, but you have now begun "correcting" anyone who posts on this thread with an opinion contrary to your ULTIMATE CAPLOCK PROOF.

This, too, wouldn't bother me except you have ever-so-conveniently forgotten to reply to Necrocharadon's post.

And just to be clear, I don't actually believe you simply did not see the post. This is a post that you cannot argue with, so you have chosen to ignore it.

Normally I wouldn't even post an attack like this, but believe it or not, you're coming off as a troll. With all due respect.

Originally posted by nixie_nox

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan

We can say that the color "yellow" is "yellow". This will generally be accepted by all. The color yellow is, of course, the color yellow. Look at this text.

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Every equation or scientific experiment that doesn't factor YOU into the equation is inherently wrong. Every observation is relative to the instrument recording the observation and where it exists in space time, it can't be absolute.

Good thread.

I would disagree.

The best physics can do, for example, is predict, but if those predictions are accurate then the mathematical model is sound and useful.

I think sometimes people (even scientists) get confused and assume that science can/should explain reality down to the very last molecule. It doesn't, and until we get giant amazing mega brains the size of ice cream trucks it likely never will.

So I'd say no, the equations are not wrong. They suit their purpose, and they are often productive.

So, the amount of evidence should not matter either when deciding for yourself that something scientific is provable.

I don't think it's the amount of evidence that really matters, but does the evidence suit the purpose.

Most of this conversation was brought up by philosophers like Decartes and Plato, albeit they weren't aimed at science as we know it today, their conclusions were pretty much the same tangled mess that eventually falls into a neverending argument.

Just my opinion.

Well, of course. Science is very productive. I hope nobody get's the impression that I am some "religious nut who thinks Science is the devil." I hold the utmost regards towards science. Where would we be without it today?

However, I am looking at this from a very logical, perhaps even philosophical, standpoint. Verily, I am claiming that it doesn't matter about the amount of evidence as it will still provide no absolute answer or binational result.

For instance, as I stated earlier, you could have the logical answer as 0 equally false, and 1 equally true. Although these answers can't apply to non-mathematical scientific theory, I will still use them for conversational reasons.

So, let's say you have a scientific theory. You want to reach an absolute truth of 1. However, you can't do this by simply supporting it with evidence. You would have to equate the scientific theory into a mathematical equation that equaled 1 to conclude that it had absolute truth.

Therefore, I can submit that, regardless of how much evidence is supported, you will still not reach the point of 1.
And since we are looking at solutions from a binational aspect, there is no in-between of 0-1. This would mean that you could support one piece of evidence for your scientific claim or 10,000 pieces and it would still not have the point of 1 reached. However, that does not mean that the claim is automatically placed at 0 (false). It would be neither 0 nor 1.

This why I think it is absurd when people ask for evidence as it ultimately comes down to their belief, once again. It is their "standards" of evidence that allows them to believe something. If we know that 1 can never be reach (and thusly, nothing in science to be absolute, regardless of the claims supporting it), we should conclude evidence to be worthless in the sense of absolute proof. However, worthless is quite a harsh word. Evidence does provide purpose but not absolution.

So, I ask "Why do you want evidence to support a claim made if nothing in science is neither false nor true?". I am not directing this at you, of course. Just to the people who do want it.

I can no longer view the scientific world as true or false. To me, everything just is. (Disclaimer: I am not trying to be 'spiritual' about that.)

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

We have proven that arsenic is and can be deadly. This does not mean it will, in fact, kill everyone. There are exceptions to everything and there are numerous cases of people surviving or being completely tolerant to things that would normally kill "most".

Touche, however there are things that NO human could survive like 10 (probably less) minutes of exposure in the vacuum of space without a space suit.

So, because we are able to synthesize rocks, this would mean that it is physically impossible for there to be "magical marshmallow faeries" out in the world creating rocks?

That's not the point, the point is we have PROVEN that we can synthesize these materials in a lab.