ForumsWEPRScientific Proof?

25 6533
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,829 posts
Duke

Here's something I'd like to run by you guys. How do we go about proving something? Let's say there's a theory, like "All birds have wings." I have no idea if this is true or not, but bear with me. How do we go about proving this theory?
This may seem a bit asinine, but I'm going somewhere with it. Let's just start off slowly, though

  • 25 Replies
Strop
offline
Strop
10,817 posts
Bard

Also, Pfhortipfhy...

Math is different because in some cases, it is possible to view every single circumstance. Just an FYI.

Really?

Devoidless
offline
Devoidless
3,678 posts
Jester

Hmm...Let me think for a second. I have heard of a lot of odder connections before anyways.

So we have established that you have seen 10,000 brown finches with wings. Alright. And assume that you looked at 10,000 blue bottle caps. All of them were blue and the same. In a general conclusion, you could say that if you look at 10,000 of anything and all prove to be the same that means that the all of them the same way. Yet if you look at 10,000 bottle caps and find one that, say, has a red spotch on one you would then have to re-look over even more finches. If one bottle cap has that new and different distinction, that means that there may be several more that have the same distinction. Thus, through already stated theory, there may be some finches that you just did not see that do not follow the brown with wings description.

Of course, bottle caps are just bottle caps. So many people would look at you funny and call you a crazy. ^_^

But yeah, that is what methinks is close enough.

DecadentDragon
offline
DecadentDragon
242 posts
Nomad

Those with a true understanding of science know that you can't prove anything. You can only disprove.

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,829 posts
Duke

The idea with the bottle caps has much more to do with the philosophy of science than science itself.
I thought you had something there, Dragon, but I'm actually looking at blue bottlecaps because it does, logically speaking, support the hypothesis that all finches are brown. I would also have to look at everything in the universe world to prove my theory, as long as it isn't brown (the color of my finch).
This shows how much of a leap of faith even scientists take in trying to demonstrate hypothesis, or even to assume the causal nature of reality.
My point of posting was this: What should we do with this information? Should we trust science? Throw it out the window? Does is really do any good if it can't 100% prove anything?
Also, the ice cream is still up for grabs, so while you're answering the above questions, you should be thinking about blue bottlecaps!!

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,829 posts
Duke

Nice colors, but I'm not sure what you mean. I'm sort of rejecting the idea of scientific proof, so I'm not sure I can provide you any...

Sting
offline
Sting
266 posts
Peasant

So you are rejecting the idea of scientific proof? I thought that was kindof what you thrived on Moegreche, if you know what I mean.

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,829 posts
Duke

Well, I have to make that "leap of faith." Most things seem to work relative to our assumed laws of nature. This is an idea I enjoy tossing around every once in awhile.

DecadentDragon
offline
DecadentDragon
242 posts
Nomad

I. THE NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC PROOF
A. Is there proof in science?
1. In the sense that the word proof is used in mathematics and philosophy, nothing is ever proven in science. There is always some uncertainty about the actual value of results
obtained from some experiment or their interpretation.
2. The more times an observation is repeated and the greater number of different
observations and theories that it ties into and agrees with, the more confident we are about how well we actually understand something.
3. However, in the strictest sense, we never arrive at &quotroof"; we simply arrive at a
very high degree of probability that we understand something. Thus, it is important that you shift your frame of reference from one of proof and certainty of knowledge and interpretation of facts to one that is PROBABILISTIC in nature, where our confidence in whether or not we understand something properly is not and never can be absolute. Thus, you are well advised to remove the word &quotroof" from your vocabulary as far as science is concerned.

Fetterchefkoch
offline
Fetterchefkoch
32 posts
Nomad

I don't think you can proof anything with science. We started with the birds. Someone else said birds have to have wings if they don't have wings they're not birds. But we said that they have to have wings. We made everything up so every rule we make it's just for our system. What if wings are acctually different? What if they're actually arms. Cos that's what they are for them. Just some kind of arms which look different.

crazynaitor
offline
crazynaitor
2,612 posts
Jester

Well what Moegreche said at the start no not all birds have wings for instant do penguins have wings.Yes they have yellow feathers though

Showing 16-25 of 25