Can you write a little more on this? I’m not quite clear how this holds. What does science do if it doesn’t prove things? I know it’s not proof in the mathematical (or arguably philosophical) sense but surely–for example–the germ theory of disease has been proven.
Scientific method deals with probabilities. A level of significance is set at the beginning of a research project; it’s designated as “p” (for probability). From most of the studies I’ve read, p<.05 or p<.01. This means that there is a possibility that what is observed was due to chance, either 5% or 1% of the time, respectively.
Other levels can be used, but as far as I know there is no p=0. There is *always *uncertainty.
People used to think the sun revolved around the earth and they had “proof” for it, right? I mean it’s obvious because the sun rises in the east and goes up high towards the west and then sets on the west side and goes over to the opposite side of the earth.
But they were wrong.
Scientific method takes care of this problem by not allowing proof. It doesn’t mean that significant findings can’t be used in a practical way, such as germs causing disease. But look at the following fallacy:
I had a headache.
I took some aspirin and the headache went away.
Ergo, the aspirin got rid of the headache.
There are other reasons why the headache could have gone away (less stress, a dark room, an opiate, etc.) and there may be other reasons why germs and disease are correlated. There’s always that chance, even if it’s the tiniest chance imaginable.
A theory doesn’t show proof, but it can show a significant correlation between a particular germ and a particular disease. Even if it’s not proof, it’s still useful. It’s the best we have. Theories are remarkably useful because each one is an attempt to get closer to Truth. Each study is discussed and confounding factors are removed and other problems are fixed, so the study can be done again and maybe the same results will be found.
If study after study after study shows the same results, that’s pretty close to proof. But it isn’t proof. It’s still a theory but very useful for medicine because it’s something to work with. Medicines and vaccines can be developed. Surgeons now know they need to actually wash their hands and wear surgical gloves and masks because the old idea about dirty hands making no difference during surgery was shown to be incorrect (and that was done by a hero of mine - one Dr. Lister who died in a mad-house because he was taunted and mocked by other physicians until he literally went insane. You can still buy Listerine).
I remember when tobacco companies were all gung-ho about how it couldn’t be scientifically proven that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. And they were right - it can’t be proven because of the limits of scientific method. But, personally, I’m pretty sure that smoking cigarettes causes cancer, at least in most people and I would hope my physician would be aware of that, too. I wouldn’t want to take the chance.
It’s one thing to conduct research and publish it, and another thing to put a theory to practical use. Scientific method is used to conduct research but it doesn’t have to be used when doing practical work.
Does this help?
Why in the world would I want banners stating “We Believe in Evolution!” festooned in churches and greeters at the door who deny entrance of people to Mass because they don’t believe in evolution? What are you talking about? You’re taking one theory and making so much more out of it than is there. It’s a theory, Ed. It’s just a theory. It doesn’t claim proof and it can’t claim proof.
’ or ‘prove (v)’ in your own words. I’m not trying to trap you I really want to know what you mean. It seems that you mean that ‘proof’ intends an explanation that is 100% true with no possible other explanation having any further ground to fit the data. For me–and the vast majority of scientists–99.9(999… whatever)% is more than good enough.