Closer to Apes Than They Thought?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R_McGeddon said:
A hypothesis is subject to repeated scientific experiments. If those experiments then repeatedly confirm the hypothesis, it is scientifically proven, therefore it becomes scientific proof.
Click to expand...
How could it be proof? You don’t know if a future experiment might disprove the hypothesis.
 
R_McGeddon said:
You could say this about any current form of proof, scientific or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Mathematics is much different from science as it is not based on observations, but the construction of formal proofs from a set of axioms.
 
Ribozyme is right. Any textbook or scientific introduction for that matter will stipulate that there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Theories and hypothesis coupled with observable facts are the best that science has to offer.

Furthermore, science doesn’t ever prove something to be true. Experiments are designed to prove something false, not true. If an experiment correlates to the theory, then it supports it, not proves it.

You might just be saying ‘proof’ when you mean theory, I don’t know.

As Ribozyme said, science and math are different in that regard.
 
Ianjo99 said:
Ribozyme is right…
Click to expand...
No, actually, he’s not. Proof doesn’t mean 100%. Mathematical proofs can be wrong, they are never 100% certain. There has never ever been a context in which proof is used which means “100% certainty”. Look in the dictionary. Think of any usage of the worrd proof ever. “Burden of proof” “Prove it” “What proof do you have?” Proof means enough evidence to form a conclusion.
 
John_Henry said:
Fair enough. But note: you are in the overwhelmingly vast minority of human beings in this regard, both currently and historically. Mayhaps there’s a subtle little egoistic joy in thinking that the “intelligent few” have finally cracked the code, while the vast hordes of benighted humanity carry on in their laughable dreamworlds. Don’t lecture me on egoism!
Click to expand...
That’s not really accurate. Most religions are athiestic. The ones that aren’t are rarely monothesistic and are nothing similar to the Christian God. Believing in a benevolent creator puts you in a minority, actually. Athiesm is probably the most common belief in regard to god or gods. But it’s rather common that Christians are ignorent of how unique their religion is.
 
Mersenne said:
No, actually, he’s not. Proof doesn’t mean 100%. Mathematical proofs can be wrong, they are never 100% certain. There has never ever been a context in which proof is used which means “100% certainty”. Look in the dictionary. Think of any usage of the word proof ever. “Burden of proof” “Prove it” “What proof do you have?” Proof means enough evidence to form a conclusion.
Click to expand...
I understand what you mean, and, to an extent, you’re right. But he was using it in the sense of, “science has proven something to be true”. My point was that science never proves anything, it supports a theory or falsifies it. Maybe it’s semantics, but important (IMO) to note nonetheless.

Also, using the word proof in science often implies that it is assured. While you’ve obviously shown that isn’t the correct usage, it is a somewhat common understood usage. If I’ve “proven” something, that is sometimes colloquially understood to mean that it is irrefutable.

While not a major issue, I was trying to get him to avoid using “proof” when debating scientific principles.
 
R_McGeddon said:
Mathematics is the science of numbers.
Click to expand...
Most of it is not based on observations (well physics is mostly derived from mathematics) but in the construction of new elegant theorems.

You can’t prove anything in the sciences, but you can falsify various hypotheses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top