"proof has no place in science"
This statement was posted in a reply to me in a forum.
Am i going mad, or is this the most stupid i've read in a long time...someone please tell me this doesn't make any sense.
My response to this was....
"I have to ask....are you a troll?
I've never used the word "proof" other than in quoting you verbatim...your statement is this "proof has no place in science"
Allow me to make some scientific statements based on this premise.
1) Neanderthal man had a vagina in his foot so that he could gain sexual pleasure from chiropody
2) pixie dust comes from the arse of brown dogs
As no proof is required, these are obviosly scientific in nature.
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundIf you read Finnegans Wake you wouldn't be so dismissive.
"proof has no place in science"
This statement was posted in a reply to me in a forum.
Am i going mad, or is this the most stupid i've read in a long time...someone please tell me this doesn't make any sense.
08 Mar 11
2 edits
Originally posted by HandyAndyPlease explain.
If you read Finnegans Wake you wouldn't be so dismissive.
From a small search (admittedly) all i can find is a simlar quote (though this would make the thread title a "Mis-quote" ) from George Gaylord Simpson - "If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences"....Natural being the important omission.
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI guess one could make the argument that it's about hypothesis and supporting (or contradictory) evidence. "Proof" is certainly 'a fact' in mathematics but in the scientific method, nothing is proven, just disproven.
"proof has no place in science"
This statement was posted in a reply to me in a forum.
Am i going mad, or is this the most stupid i've read in a long time...someone please tell me this doesn't make any sense.
My response to this was....
"I have to ask....are you a troll?
I've never used the word "proof" other than in quoting you v ...[text shortened]... rse of brown dogs
As no proof is required, these are obviosly scientific in nature.
08 Mar 11
5 edits
Originally posted by clive59From a small search (admittedly) all i can find is a simlar quote (though this would make the thread title a "Mis-quote" ) from George Gaylord Simpson - "If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences"....Natural being the important omission.
I guess one could make the argument that it's about hypothesis and supporting (or contradictory) evidence. "Proof" is certainly 'a fact' in mathematics but in the scientific method, nothing is proven, just disproven.
"We speak in terms of “acceptance,“ “confidence,” and “probability,” not “proof.” If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences. Alternatively proof in a natural science, such as biology, must be defined as the attainment of a high degree of confidence"
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundSeriously, Clive gave you the answer. Rigorous proof is required in mathematics, for example, but
Like the Xfiles?
the natural sciences (chemistry, biology and others involved in the physical world) deal largely in
theories and there's always the possibility of new observations toppling old beliefs.
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundWhoever it was said this is correct. Science erects theories to explain data gained from observation, experiment or both. In order for a theory to become accepted by the wider scientific community it must be a reasonably good fit to the data available and make predictions that can be verified by further experiment and/or observation. The best that can be hoped for a scientific theory is that no data will be found that completely demolishes it. Of course, some scientists get all big headed and call their theories "laws of nature" but that doesn't stop some handy dandy new theory replacing them because they fit the data better.
"proof has no place in science"
This statement was posted in a reply to me in a forum.
Am i going mad, or is this the most stupid i've read in a long time...someone please tell me this doesn't make any sense.
My response to this was....
"I have to ask....are you a troll?
I've never used the word "proof" other than in quoting you v ...[text shortened]... rse of brown dogs
As no proof is required, these are obviosly scientific in nature.
Your two theories are perfectly good theories. However, you have presented no data to back up your theory. I suspect the scientific community would have a quiet laugh and pass on to the sport section of Nature or Science or Brown Dog Arse Weekly. Until you have some observational or experimental data to back up your theory it is just an opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.
The proper place for proof is mathematics. I have seen many a mathematician get all dribbly over a particularly "beautiful" proof. I suspect they get so excited because they know that, unlike a scientific theory, a mathematical proof is forever.
I discount the use of proof by the legal profession. Very often such "proof" is no more than one lawyer wearing a sharper suit than the other and the defendant being particularly nice or particularly unpleasant. Legal proofs are really theories that can be overturned on appeal.
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI agree with that statement, it's more subtle than you give it credit for.
"proof has no place in science"
This statement was posted in a reply to me in a forum.
Am i going mad, or is this the most stupid i've read in a long time...someone please tell me this doesn't make any sense.
My response to this was....
"I have to ask....are you a troll?
I've never used the word "proof" other than in quoting you v ...[text shortened]... rse of brown dogs
As no proof is required, these are obviosly scientific in nature.
Science is a method, not a collection of truths. The scientific method accepts that we can never exclude the possibility of us being wrong and therefore falsifiability is what science should aim for and not verifiability. Evidence that accumulates by our inability to disprove a theory, rather than proof that establishes that something is definitely "true" (which we cannot do because there's always the possibility of error in any empirical verification)
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by PalynkaI want to have your babies.
I agree with that statement, it's more subtle than you give it credit for.
Science is a method, not a collection of truths. The scientific method accepts that we can never exclude the possibility of us being wrong and therefore falsifiability is what science should aim for and not verifiability. Evidence that accumulates by our inability to disprove a th ...[text shortened]... we cannot do because there's always the possibility of error in any empirical verification)