Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Scientific Proof Is A Myth

    You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.

    Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#3e2ada432fb1

  • #2


    and mordoror appears in. 5....4....3.....2....

    Comment


    • #3
      People believe. While science should be based on materialism, most is not. There are things that can be proven. Theories are important in building a bridge into the unknown, but they are not fact. There are different kinds of science too. To many people misuse the various concepts in science to prove their beliefs. Also people assume some thing to have a 99.99% provability of being correct, fail to see that does not say it is 100% correct and can become 100% wrong.

      Quod erat demonstrandum

      Comment


      • #4
        This is somewhat of a touchy subject because Science is based on no info ever being enough and the constant need to learn more and more about a subject even if there is sufficient information to find the true nature of whatever is being researched. Scientists admit to this, but at the same time people of lesser knowledge often believe that the "theory" they use on a daily basis is indifferent from "theory" in Science. But theory has entirely different meanings in different fields. A theory for me or you when it comes to for example which pair of shoes might be the ultimate pair of shoes in relative to comfort and looks is just an idea or an opinion, a Scientific theory is based on substantial evidence that often times cannot be debated like evolution or gravity. But at the same time it is debatable because in Science anything is up for debate. Confusing stuff. Taking on the responsibility of rendering such vast amounts of knowledge is not easy, I could never be in that field.

        At the end of the day its all down to faith, maybe like religion. You can put all the evidence in the world into one pile and have every person read through and process it, but not everybody will agree to it whether they are right or wrong, its human nature. But religion is often times baseless and is entirely down to your emotions and how you process it. With Science at least the "substantial evidence" bit is there for you to look at should you ever feel like it. And I do not mean to offend any believers out there, its just an individual opinion.

        So on the base of it if you look at the thread title you'll come to the conclusion that indeed Scientific proof is a myth but its much more complicated than that and a book ought not to be judged by its cover, so to speak.
        Last edited by thanamestolga; 26-11-2017, 09:57 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          "Science is a social construct" would be the current creed followed by most liberals now.

          Comment


          • #6
            "The difference between science and screwing around is writing it down."
            Adam Savage - Professional Mythbuster

            I don't know what the author wants to tell me with his article.
            Science does of course only makes sense from our point of view. If there is an extraterrestrial being somewhere, it will probably perceive a different form of reality.
            Nevertheless the universe is made up of certain components, thus we all are too made up of these components and to measure these components and their behaviour is the job of a scientist. To prove that said scientist is wrong is also the work of another scientist. There is no greater internal review process than there is in science.
            And of course, maybe in 50 years people will laugh about our thoughts on Higgs-Bosons or Neutrinos, but why is that? Because a scientist proved otherwise.
            To declare this as a myth, will lead people to believe that their somewhat limited view of the world is the only right one. That's a dangerous path that we shouldn't take ever again.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hollis
              Originally posted by Hollis View Post
              People believe. While science should be based on materialism, most is not. There are things that can be proven. Theories are important in building a bridge into the unknown, but they are not fact. There are different kinds of science too. To many people misuse the various concepts in science to prove their beliefs. Also people assume some thing to have a 99.99% provability of being correct, fail to see that does not say it is 100% correct and can become 100% wrong.

              Quod erat demonstrandum
              I quite disagree with few of your statements
              There is first a semantic issue with the word theory
              Theories are initial hypotheses of work/research that are validated or invalidated by datas analyses and experiments. Some theories are still true (Gravity, electromagnetism, evolution, continental drift). Just that they are still labelled theories due to history while they are accepted as facts by the scientific community. You have of course other theories that were invalidated (Lamarckisme for example) but those are forgotten in the pits of history

              Second point, Science is about evolving of knowledge. When something is true in 99.9% at a time T, it is a fact. 0.001% of discrepancy is the exception related to complexity of life, that doesn't make the rest of the 99.9% false. Example: giant viruses. So far we admitted that all viruses were µm size. Some giant viruses (size of a small bacteria were recently found), that doesn't remove the fact that the vast majority of the viruses are still tiny. So it is not 100% correct or 100% wrong here.
              People have hard time to understand that scientific datas are true within the limit of time T, model M and technology t and that they may by refined with a new model and new technologies. So it's rather a refining rather than a wrong or false thing

              Finally as said by power-hansen, i don't really see the point of the article other than another jab at science which seems to be the trend nowadays for several reasons (dogmatism, ideology, religion, politics). And i see it a worrying path, opening roads to alternative facts and think streams with the already known resulst : flat earthers, anti vaxxers, creationnists etc
              Last edited by Mordoror; 27-11-2017, 01:36 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Another anti-science, pro-Trump and white supremacy thread on this forum. Shocking!

                #ImStillWithHer
                #Hillary2020
                #BlackLivesMatter
                #gazIsHot

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ATSzmrots View Post
                  Another anti-science, pro-Trump and white supremacy thread on this forum. Shocking!

                  #ImStillWithHer
                  #Hillary2020
                  #BlackLivesMatter
                  #gazIsHot

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ivan le Fou View Post
                    "Science is a social construct" would be the current creed followed by most liberals now.
                    Very much so and also more and more a political construct.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by riderboy View Post

                      Very much so and also more and more a political construct.
                      Whom's fault ?

                      Who turned it into a political issue ala rope in a pull and triger game

                      Who is listening more to lobbies and "free unregulated market" than to scientific reports ?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mordoror View Post
                        Hollis

                        I quite disagree with few of your statements
                        There is first a semantic issue with the word theory
                        Theories are initial hypotheses of work/research that are validated or invalidated by datas analyses and experiments. Some theories are still true (Gravity, electromagnetism, evolution, continental drift). Just that they are still labelled theories due to history while they are accepted as facts by the scientific community. You have of course other theories that were invalidated (Lamarckisme for example) but those are forgotten in the pits of history

                        Second point, Science is about evolving of knowledge. When something is true in 99.9% at a time T, it is a fact. 0.001% of discrepancy is the exception related to complexity of life, that doesn't make the rest of the 99.9% false. Example: giant viruses. So far we admitted that all viruses were µm size. Some giant viruses (size of a small bacteria were recently found), that doesn't remove the fact that the vast majority of the viruses are still tiny. So it is not 100% correct or 100% wrong here.
                        People have hard time to understand that scientific datas are true within the limit of time T, model M and technology t and that they may by refined with a new model and new technologies. So it's rather a refining rather than a wrong or false thing

                        Finally as said by power-hansen, i don't really see the point of the article other than another jab at science which seems to be the trend nowadays for several reasons (dogmatism, ideology, religion, politics). And i see it a worrying path, opening roads to alternative facts and think streams with the already known resulst : flat earthers, anti vaxxers, creationnists etc
                        Well said, Mordoror. Science is the concerted human effort to better understand. Science is an human global endeavour. Science is a journey of discovery.

                        Perhaps rather than a jab, and not definitively, but maybe or also, just as technology and automation advance and these are afforded more places/uses in society, and the everyday, ways of thinking, the question of what is Science and its purpose may seem to come to the forefront.

                        Perhaps, as with our use of technology, robotics, etc, maybe it is a discussion popping up as it may seem to some the evolution of our practices in understanding rely more and more on technology to provide if for us. Maybe even people think hard science isn't necessary anymore as technology will calculate it or sort it for us.

                        They do say technology is advancing fast, perhaps our cognition regarding technology's use isn't keeping up, in the spheres of a general public dialogue regarding Science's role with technology at least, hence the dialogue surrounding Science and its use of facts. Someone looks up something on the net, and considers it fact, or not. With technology they can find hundreds of so called facts, so they begin to question which fact is right, which seems foundationally, or another, what may be going on regarding the trend mentioned. If some think of Science as lying about facts, they may indeed not be aware of the refining nature of Science as a practice in general.
                        Last edited by Penny the Penguin; 27-11-2017, 04:50 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Penny the Penguin View Post

                          Well said, Mordoror. Science is the concerted human effort to better understand. Science is an human global endeavour. Science is a journey of discovery.
                          Sure, but it's also been weaponized and used both as a club and a shield when quite convenient ideologically and politically and has been for centuries. Nazi racial and genetic "science" comes to mind. When I pick up my latest copy of Anesthesiology and read the latest randomized, double blinded controlled and peer reviewed study I have as much faith in the conclusions as I do in anything in this world. All good. No politics, no social agenda, just the data and possible interpretations which almost always raise more questions than answers.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Penny the Penguin View Post

                            Well said, Mordoror. Science is the concerted human effort to better understand. Science is an human global endeavour. Science is a journey of discovery.

                            Perhaps rather than a jab, and not definitively, but maybe or also, just as technology and automation advance and these are afforded more places/uses in society, and the everyday, ways of thinking, the question of what is Science and its purpose may seem to come to the forefront.

                            Perhaps, as with our use of technology, robotics, etc, maybe it is a discussion popping up as it may seem to some the evolution of our practices in understanding rely more and more on technology to provide if for us. Maybe even people think hard science isn't necessary anymore as technology will calculate it or sort it for us.

                            They do say technology is advancing fast, perhaps our cognition in its use isn't keeping up, in the spheres of a general public dialogue regarding Science's role with technology at least, hence the dialogue surrounding Science and its use of facts. Someone looks up something on the net, and considers it fact, or not. With technology they can find hundreds of so called facts, so they begin to question which fact is right, which seems foundationally, or another, what maybe going on regarding the trend mentioned. If some think of Science as lying about facts, they may indeed not be aware of the refining nature of Science as a practice in general.
                            There are several issue
                            One is heavy politicization of sciences as said Riderboy (BTW has he put me on ignore ?, well nevermind)

                            The fact that some facts go against big corporate and business

                            Further than politicization it was also used as an ideology weapon (most cases however were rather "pseudo science" than science like the racialist theories based on size and form of the skull bones back in the 1900 to 1945 era)

                            Complexity of things have indeed increased and some concepts are out of grasp for a lot of people (there are 2 millions of scientific articles published each years to be compared with few thousands in the 60s-70s)

                            The net gives everybody access to several discordant answers (not layered by order of importance and veracity) as well as the ability to express opinion i.e like we say here, now with the net we have 66 millions of national team soccer managers, prime ministers and M.Ds

                            Overall quality of science teaching in colleges/univ have spiralled down and anyway, science careers are unattractive, badly paid and labelled with a "nerd/geek" stamp

                            Last (but not least) is that scientists have set themselfs out the civil society and very few are trying to vulgarize their work to make it accessible to common people. Hence the messages have hard time to go "top down"

                            Last, last thing is that science is not interesting those who have the bucks and want more bucks. It's a general trend to see (seen first hand) R&D Dept shrink in Companies (including where they are much needed like Drug developping ones) while in the same time Marketing Dept are overbloated.
                            Society is not investing in science anymore as it is a financial adjustement area (scientists don't have union and rarely strike)
                            And Private corporates are more likely to pay developpment pipelines from start ups or univ/campuses lab (because it is way less expensive) than having their own research Dept. In the same time they push marketing Depts because those are the one selling / "lying" to the customer .....

                            Science and knowledge have turned to be an economy market like the others ....

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by riderboy View Post

                              Sure, but it's also been weaponized and used both as a club and a shield when quite convenient ideologically and politically and has been for centuries. Nazi racial and genetic "science" comes to mind. When I pick up my latest copy of Anesthesiology and read the latest randomized, double blinded controlled and peer reviewed study I have as much faith in the conclusions as I do in anything in this world. All good. No politics, no social agenda, just the data and possible interpretations which almost always raise more questions than answers.
                              Science itself is not about making moral judgements, nor has it ever been.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X