Originally posted by huckleberryhoundLook at the first or the fourth. Science does not establish "truths" like I've been arguing. Wormwood also explains it pretty well...
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, he ...[text shortened]... verifies a conclusion
................................
What am i not getting here?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEven if it isn't, proof that the experiment took place is still only evidence that the theory under investigation is correct. Possibly quite conclusive evidence, but still evidence, not proof.
Unless it was Photoshopped, of course.
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundQuite possibly that science deals with strict definitions of terms, not with random consultation of a web dictionary followed by an inconsistent argument. That would be a perfectly good "proof" of the meaning of "proof" in the Opinion Subjects, such as sociology and politicology, but it isn't 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 looked up Proof on dictionary.com, here is what i got. (first 7 definitions only)
...
What am i not getting here?
As such, your definition of "proof" would serve perfectly well in your original discussion on anarchy (after all, it's anarchy... any definition ought to be allowed, of course). It does not, however, serve its purpose in a discussion on science. Moreover, science has no purpose in a discussion on anarchy, exactly because the requirements of science and politics are so different.
Concluding, you might well complain about the insertion of a statement on science into a discussion on anarchy. But taken out of its context, as you did at the start of this thread, said statement is correct.
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by reinfeldOh Lord, not that nonsense again. If I had a nickel for every time that "argument" was trotted out by someone with even the slightest real knowledge about science... I'd be flat broke.
the theory of evolution...treated not as a theory but as an operating truth...is an example that science will do without proof if it serves an agenda...
Richard
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI actually brought the statement back into it's proper context for the purpose of this discussion. I was flumoxed by the statement and searched for it on the interwebz to find it's origin/meaning. I found it in a piece about the scientific method and brought it here for clarification (being a plebeian myself).
Quite possibly that science deals with strict definitions of terms, not with random consultation of a web dictionary followed by an inconsistent argument. That would be a perfectly good "proof" of the meaning of "proof" in the Opinion Subjects, such as sociology and politicology, but it isn't in science.
As such, your definition of "proof" would serve ...[text shortened]... s context, as you did at the start of this thread, said statement is correct.
Richard
The original discussion quickly turned into a "I didn't quote anyone!!!" "define hypothesis" return.
When someone tries to offer tribal Ireland and ancient Greece as examples of an anarchist model you know the proof of their argument is flimsey at best, or just downright misguided, or wrong.
Originally posted by PalynkaI guess what i was doing was mixing my definitions up then. I understand that scientists don't talk in definites to cover their arse, and that they don't talk about absolute truths when trying to prove their hypotheses...I just thought that somewhere in the mix some form of proof would be necessary, thus making the statement redundant.
Look at the first or the fourth. Science does not establish "truths" like I've been arguing. Wormwood also explains it pretty well...
I am wiser for asking the question 🙂
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundCool. I also think many people abuse the notion to justify a sort of "everything goes" (like some creationists, for example) so I know where you're coming from. I just think that you were being a bit harsh on the statement...
I guess what i was doing was mixing my definitions up then. I understand that scientists don't talk in definites to cover their arse, and that they don't talk about absolute truths when trying to prove their hypotheses...I just thought that somewhere in the mix some form of proof would be necessary, thus making the statement redundant.
I am wiser for asking the question 🙂
Hey Huck,
I wouldn't worry about these noobs here who think they know everything but actually don't have a clue. They deal so much with the abstract and intangible that they lose all practicality and common sense.
Science first and formost deals with the real world, the tangible; it has many sub-disciplines. Btw a lot of people here have their ideas mixed-up; Mathematics is NOT included under those scientific sub-disciplines because it is ENTIRELY abstract and intangible. Yes mathematics is used in science to help define variables and their relationships to other variables, but the point here is that it is not part of the scientific process which is primarily hypothesis and experimentation and analysis and real world application. Mathematics on the other hand is an independant, co-dicipline for lack of a better word and it employs its own methodology\processes.
Also, the argument they are attempting only apply to new or recent research which is taking place in all of these sub-disciplines. Now at these stages of infancy, what they are debating is quite normal, but little do they know at some time in the future, a few of those theories WILL be proven and become laws. Case in point, Newtons Laws, at one point it was all theory but it now undisputed LAW which adjudicates how EVERYTHING in the physical realm operates given their constraints; humans are very much a part of this realm btw; we are constrained by the amount of force we can withstand are we not? the force of a bullet fired from a high caliber weapon almost always exceed our human limit does it not? that is just one small example and please don't tell me you want 'proof'...it is one example out of many that these noobs take for granted as they spew their nonsense all over these forums.
Let's take another example, power generation, can anyone imagine the immense hardship individuals and nations will experience without the existence of electricity? At any rate, it is not something we can just pull out our ass. Yet again it was all theory at one point, but thanks to the work and brilliance of so many pioneering scientists (Ampere, Volta, Ohm, Coloumb, Watts, Faraday, Hertz, Tesla, Kirchoff, Maxwell) we have been generating electricity now for decades using everything from burning fossil fuels, to windmills or tides, to dams, to solar panels, to nuclear fission all in order to convert enrgy from their original form into kinetic energy for spinning those same windings through the same magnetic fields...think people...do you think like those folks in the textile industry? do you care about the chemistry involved in the development of say cheaper stronger safer plastics, rubbers, alloys, or any other 'material' for that matter which we take for granted...think people...for as much as existing knowledge about the human body has served us in the past, think of how the decoding of human DNA is going to lead to new and superior medical advances for DNA is the basic building blocks of ALL the cells in our body...so I say forget about these idiots arguing about proof, science has moved on from that a long time ago; in the real world, application of science is of more significance and already incorporates all the proofs that anyone would require...
Originally posted by Iere manYou need more words, less breaks. Next time, try running all the letters together without spaces. Makes it easier to follow.
Hey Huck,
I wouldn't worry about these noobs here who think they know everything but actually don't have a clue. They deal so much with the abstract and intangible that they lose all practicality and common sense.
Science first and formost deals with the real world, the tangible; it has many sub-disciplines. Btw a lot of people here have their ideas mixed ...[text shortened]... more significance and already incorporates all the proofs that anyone would require...
Originally posted by Iere manThanks for the reply, but i'd ask that you don't call my friends names like that. All those who replied i would regard as forum friends at least, and don't deserve that.
Hey Huck,
I wouldn't worry about these noobs here who think they know everything but actually don't have a clue. They deal so much with the abstract and intangible that they lose all practicality and common sense.
Science first and formost deals with the real world, the tangible; it has many sub-disciplines. Btw a lot of people here have their ideas mixed ...[text shortened]... more significance and already incorporates all the proofs that anyone would require...
I hope you understand.
Originally posted by Iere manYou've got that round the wrong way. Newton called his theories laws and would have insisted that he had proved their truth. I don't think he used the word theory once in the Principia, although it might be difficult to tell considering he wrote in Latin.
Case in point, Newtons Laws, at one point it was all theory but it now undisputed LAW which adjudicates how EVERYTHING in the physical realm operates given their constraints;
So Newton's Laws started life as laws of nature, undisputed truth if you like. Then people noticed that they weren't necessarily completely accurate. Mercury didn't behave correctly, electrons failed to radiate energy and fall into the nucleus, light went the same speed no matter how you looked at or how fast the observer was going and so on. Then along came Einstein with a theory that was a better description of forces and motion than Newton's Laws. Then he went a stage further and produced a theory of gravity that dethroned Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation.
Now we know that the theories of relativity, special and general, are better descriptions of the universe than Newton's Laws. This doesn't mean that Newton's "Laws" are discarded as disproved, they are still a good description of the way the universe works at low velocities and middling masses. I use them to work out how objects in the solar system move so I can determine how much solar energy falls on a square meter of Martian surface for instance. But scientists don't think of them as absolute truth now.