Originally posted by PalynkaIt's not subtle...it's misleading and downright false as a standalone statement.
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)
Data or evidence can be seen as proof of a premise, just as evidence of a theory must be provided before it will be taken seriously. If you state that potassium reacts violently when placed in water (is violently the right word??) and then "Prove" that statement with a simple procedure. I have posted the quote that he bastardised and it is obvious that the word proof has to be defined and prefaced before the statement can be deemed to be true.
1 edit
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundEvidence and proof may be colloquially interchangeable but in this particular context are often used to mean different things. You can prove a mathematical theorem to be true, but you cannot prove anything to be true by induction which is how empirical work supports a theory.
It's not subtle...it's misleading and downright false as a standalone statement.
Data or evidence can be seen as proof of a premise, just as evidence of a theory must be provided before it will be taken seriously. If you state that potassium reacts violently when placed in water (is violently the right word??) and then "Prove" that statement with ...[text shortened]... the word proof has to be defined and prefaced before the statement can be deemed to be true.
Your example is straightforward. If we put potassium and it reacts violently with water, by induction and repeated experiments we can then we can put forward the hypothesis that ALL instances of potassium being mixed with water will react violently. Have we proven it? No, it would be a logical fallacy of faulty generalization to conclude that we have. Have we provided very strong evidence that failed to contradict the predictions of the hypothesis? You bet.
Science is not a collection of proven truths, it's a collection of undisproven hypothesis for which crucial experiments which could have disproven it have been conducted and failed to reject it.
If you're interested in this subject, try getting a hold of Popper's book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery".
Originally posted by PalynkaI get it, but the difference between proof and evidence is an argument of semantics. Proof is necessary to validate a hypothesis, video evidence of an experiment and data recorded from said experiment is proof that the experiment has taken place.
Evidence and proof may be colloquially interchangeable but in this particular context are often used to mean different things. You can prove a mathematical theorem to be true, but you cannot prove anything to be true by induction which is how empirical work supports a theory.
Your example is straightforward. If we put potassium and it reacts violently wit ...[text shortened]... d in this subject, try getting a hold of Popper's book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery".
Originally posted by PalynkaI believe it was Popper who also underscored the popular misnomer "the scientific method" with emphasis on the indefinite article. Namely, he fleshed out how there is no 'one' accepted scientific method, but rather several, each with their own emphasis.
Evidence and proof may be colloquially interchangeable but in this particular context are often used to mean different things. You can prove a mathematical theorem to be true, but you cannot prove anything to be true by induction which is how empirical work supports a theory.
Your example is straightforward. If we put potassium and it reacts violently wit ...[text shortened]... d in this subject, try getting a hold of Popper's book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery".
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundUnless it was Photoshopped, of course.
I get it, but the difference between proof and evidence is an argument of semantics. Proof is necessary to validate a hypothesis, video evidence of an experiment and data recorded from said experiment is proof that the experiment has taken place.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundAs far as I see it, you are the one making it an issue about semantics by changing the meaning of his words as he used them. The distinction between evidence and proof as I've defined here before is an important one and that's what I think the author intended to say.
I get it, but the difference between proof and evidence is an argument of semantics. Proof is necessary to validate a hypothesis, video evidence of an experiment and data recorded from said experiment is proof that the experiment has taken place.
You want to interpret it in a different way than what he meant and then claim he was wrong to do so. That would be your mistake, though, wouldn't it?
Again, if by proof you mean: "something which demonstrates a proposition to be true" (also a standard definition) then proof has, indeed, no role in science.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIndeed. But that doesn't mean every possible method is equally consistent.
I believe it was Popper who also underscored the popular misnomer "the scientific method" with emphasis on the indefinite article. Namely, he fleshed out how there is no 'one' accepted scientific method, but rather several, each with their own emphasis.
Originally posted by PalynkaI was actually discussing anarchy at the time with someone else when this statement was side-added. I haven't tried to argue semantics with him as the statement was misquoted and misused.
As far as I see it, you are the one making it an issue about semantics by changing the meaning of his words as he used them. The distinction between evidence and proof as I've defined here before is an important one and that's what I think the author intended to say.
You want to interpret it in a different way than what he meant and then claim he was wro ...[text shortened]... sition to be true" (also a standard definition) then proof has, indeed, no role in science.
I am just discussing semantics with you not him. Simpson states a definition of proof as a preface to his statement.
I looked up Proof on dictionary.com, here is what i got. (first 7 definitions only)
–noun
1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.
anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3.
the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4.
the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5.
Law . (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6.
the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7.
an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
Now here is the definition of the noun "evidence"
–noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
Now here is the thesaurus result for proof... (please check the note at the bottom)
Main Entry: proof
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: evidence, authentication
Synonyms: affidavit, argument, attestation, averment, case, certification, chapter and verse, clincher, clue, confirmation, corroboration, credentials, criterion, cue*, data, demonstration, deposition, documents, establishment, exhibit, facts, goods*, grabber, grounds, information, lowdown, nitty-gritty, paper trail, picture, reason, reasons, record, scoop*, score*, skinny*, smoking gun, straight stuff, substantiation, testament, testimony, trace, validation, verification, warrant, wherefore, why*, whyfor, witness
Notes: evidence (from Latin e- 'out' + videre 'to see'😉 is information that helps form a conclusion; proof is factual information that verifies a conclusion
................................
What am i not getting here?
I guess it all comes down to the definition of proof, be it absolute or beyond all reasonable doubt. Some people are more fickle than others, some are complete cynics.
Other explanation could be that it was a typo and he actually meant the homophobic statement 'Poof has no place in science'. Who knows?! 🙄
Originally posted by jimslyp69You perversions of humanity with your creepy butt sex an all 😛
I guess it all comes down to the definition of proof, be it absolute or beyond all reasonable doubt. Some people are more fickle than others, some are complete cynics.
Other explanation could be that it was a typo and he actually meant the homophobic statement 'Poof has no place in science'. Who knows?! 🙄
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 213554
Originally posted by jimslyp69" 'Poof has no place in science'. Who knows?! " Or he may have been a magician and we all know that that's not science right?
I guess it all comes down to the definition of proof, be it absolute or beyond all reasonable doubt. Some people are more fickle than others, some are complete cynics.
Other explanation could be that it was a typo and he actually meant the homophobic statement 'Poof has no place in science'. Who knows?! 🙄
maybe he was a poet.
things like these are semantical 99/100 when encountered in cyberspace. people using words like 'proof' and 'theory' with either no knowledge of their meaning, or downright reckless abandon for it.
proof in a rigid interpretation of the word means absolut truth. a theory is a very similar concept, and usually when people talk of 'theory' they actually mean a hypothesis.
in the natural world such rigid, sterile and well defined scenarios are rare. and certainly they're not practical. so less strict definitions are used, WITH the unspoken mutual understanding that people involved in the conversation/communication are all aware what 'proof' and 'theory' mean in THAT specific context/discipline.
mathematical proof/theory.
philosophical proof/theory.
literary proof/theory.
all very different, even conflicting, but pragmatic for the context they're used in.
truth is absolute, communication is inherently relative. but it's not very important how close to an abstract, strict 'correctness' the definitions are. the important thing is do they allow us to understand the world better or nor.
from the mathematical definitions of proof/theory, there's not much you can say about literature, poetry. probably nothing more than 'it exists'. but from the literary, less rigid definitions, there's a whole vast galaxy of things to say, which obviously tell us more about that aspect of the world we exist in.
