Science and their theories

Still, students in schools throughout the world must pass examinations on theories that scientists themselves admit are unproven. Why?

The answer is that a theory is accepted not on the grounds of its certitude, but on the grounds that nobody has yet disproved it. "The best anyone can say of a theory is that it has not been disproved."

This principle forms the basis of modern scientific knowledge. This same principle, ironically, is considered a fallacy in classical philosophy: *argumentum ad ignorantium*, the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

An argument that says something is true because nobody has proved it false, or that something is false because nobody has proved it true, is held to be invalid according to this rule of fallacy.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Still, students in schools throughout the world must pass examinations on theories that scientists themselves admit are unproven. Why?

The answer is that a theory is accepted not on the grounds of its certitude, but on the grounds that nobody has yet disproved it. "The best anyone can say of a theory is that it has not been disproved."

This princi ...[text shortened]... se because nobody has proved it true, is held to be invalid according to this rule of fallacy.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Still, students in schools throughout the world must pass examinations on theories that scientists themselves admit are unproven. Why?

The answer is that a theory is accepted not on the grounds of its certitude, but on the grounds that nobody has yet disproved it. "The best anyone can say of a theory is that it has not been disproved."

This princi ...[text shortened]... se because nobody has proved it true, is held to be invalid according to this rule of fallacy.

Are you trying to say that the scientific community just lets whatever ideas pass into their journals and whatnot?
I believe some scientists have been bought off and others have been ignored but the picture you paint of the sientific community just doesn't really match the reality.
I really dont think scientists are conciously/directly trying to put forward false theories, as you make out.
I dont get why you are so down on the scientific community. I know it has its problems, but there problems everywhere. Much worse ones too.

I, myself, eagerly await the development of Quantum. This revolutionary theory has been around awhile and will not be disproved. Also (as been pointed out on some other threads), quantum seems to validate many eastern spiritual ideas.
The revolutions a comin' ya hear!!

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Are you trying to say that the scientific community just lets whatever ideas pass into their journals and whatnot?
I believe some scientists have been bought off and others have been ignored but the picture you paint of the sientific community just doesn't really match the reality.
I really dont think scientists are conciously/directly trying to put ...[text shortened]... , quantum seems to validate many eastern spiritual ideas.
The revolutions a comin' ya hear!!

please don't feed the troll

this thread is still at the beginning, we can avoid it growing if you just ignore the moron.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Still, students in schools throughout the world must pass examinations on theories that scientists themselves admit are unproven. Why?

The answer is that a theory is accepted not on the grounds of its certitude, but on the grounds that nobody has yet disproved it. "The best anyone can say of a theory is that it has not been disproved."

This princi ...[text shortened]... se because nobody has proved it true, is held to be invalid according to this rule of fallacy.

You neither understand the "Argument from ignorance" fallacy nor the scientific method.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Still, students in schools throughout the world must pass examinations on theories that scientists themselves admit are unproven. Why?

The answer is that a theory is accepted not on the grounds of its certitude, but on the grounds that nobody has yet disproved it. "The best anyone can say of a theory is that it has not been disproved."

This princi ...[text shortened]... se because nobody has proved it true, is held to be invalid according to this rule of fallacy.

Edit: "The best anyone can say of a theory is that it has not been disproved."

No. In science a theory is accepted if it agrees with the observations, and it is rejected if it does not agree with the observations;



Edit: "This principle forms the basis of modern scientific knowledge."

No. This is a false understanding of the concept known as "scientific theory". The basis of modern scientific knowledge is a plexus of philosophy and accurate herenow scientific facts and evidence.
Finally, classical philosophy is merely a tool amongst many; this specific tool is useless in, say, the realm of the quantum manifestations of reality, otherwise the EPR paper would hold
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: "The best anyone can say of a theory is that it has not been disproved."

No. In science a theory is accepted if it agrees with the observations, and it is rejected if it does not agree with the observations;



Edit: "This principle forms the basis of modern scientific knowledge."

No. This is a false understanding of the concept known a ...[text shortened]... the realm of the quantum manifestations of reality, otherwise the EPR paper would hold
😵

The disconnect here between classical philosophy and science is that the latter is not about necessarily true propositions. If one accepts the principle of falsifiability then scientific theories are never necessarily true.

Originally posted by Palynka
The disconnect here between classical philosophy and science is that the latter is not about necessarily true propositions. If one accepts the principle of falsifiability then scientific theories are never necessarily true.

Of course, of course!
😵

too late, another thread has started. another opportunity for him to spam us

Originally posted by Palynka
The disconnect here between classical philosophy and science is that the latter is not about necessarily true propositions. If one accepts the principle of falsifiability then scientific theories are never necessarily true.

And I would add that, even if a specific scientific theory is true herenow, this does not mean that it will be also true at a given future time;
😵

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
too late, another thread has started. another opportunity for him to spam us

And why isn't this another opportunity for us to see the world through our vishvahetu's window?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
And I would add that, even if a specific scientific theory is true herenow, this does not mean that it will be also true at a given future time;
😵

Mmm... I don't agree, but we'll go on a tangent...

Originally posted by black beetle
And why isn't this another opportunity for us to see the world through our vishvahetu's window?
😵

Through a glass, darkly?

Originally posted by Palynka
Mmm... I don't agree, but we'll go on a tangent...

Oh well😵

Originally posted by Palynka
Through a glass, darkly?

Yes😵