Go back
proof has no place in science

proof has no place in science

General

huckleberryhound
Devout Agnostic.

DZ-015

Joined
12 Oct 05
Moves
42584
Clock
08 Mar 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Palynka
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)
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 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.

P
Upward Spiral

Halfway

Joined
02 Aug 04
Moves
8702
Clock
08 Mar 11
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
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.
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 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".

huckleberryhound
Devout Agnostic.

DZ-015

Joined
12 Oct 05
Moves
42584
Clock
08 Mar 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Palynka
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".
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.

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
Clock
08 Mar 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Palynka
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".
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.

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
Clock
08 Mar 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
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.
Unless it was Photoshopped, of course.

P
Upward Spiral

Halfway

Joined
02 Aug 04
Moves
8702
Clock
08 Mar 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
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.
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 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.

P
Upward Spiral

Halfway

Joined
02 Aug 04
Moves
8702
Clock
08 Mar 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
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.
Indeed. But that doesn't mean every possible method is equally consistent.

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
Clock
08 Mar 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Palynka
Indeed. But that doesn't mean every possible method is equally consistent.
Thus his de-emphasis of the indefinite article.

huckleberryhound
Devout Agnostic.

DZ-015

Joined
12 Oct 05
Moves
42584
Clock
08 Mar 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Palynka
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 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.

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?

Sicilian Sausage

In your face

Joined
21 Aug 04
Moves
55993
Clock
08 Mar 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

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?! 🙄

huckleberryhound
Devout Agnostic.

DZ-015

Joined
12 Oct 05
Moves
42584
Clock
08 Mar 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by jimslyp69
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?! 🙄
You perversions of humanity with your creepy butt sex an all 😛

Great Big Stees

Joined
14 Mar 04
Moves
186309
Clock
08 Mar 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by jimslyp69
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?! 🙄
" '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?

P
Mystic Meg

tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4

Joined
27 Mar 03
Moves
17242
Clock
08 Mar 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Great Big Stees
" '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?
Ha. Poof.

w
If Theres Hell Below

We're All Gonna Go!

Joined
10 Sep 05
Moves
10228
Clock
08 Mar 11
Vote Up
Vote Down

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.

Seitse
Doug Stanhope

That's Why I Drink

Joined
01 Jan 06
Moves
33672
Clock
08 Mar 11
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Exactly.

For example, we have proof that Paris Hilton is a slut.

We also have proof that Yasir Arafat liked it in the pooper.

It's all about feasibility of means to discredit the hypothesis!

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.