What can science prove?

[Watson]

I know, I'm not trying to downplay science. I'm aware that science is extremely prevalent in today's society, and appreciate that fact. However, I'm trying to say that we don't know 100% science works and will work all the time. That's all.

[Tiberius]

OK I'll play the semantical game here. If you were to ask me if flying pink gummy bears exist, I'd say no. Can I say with absolute 100% certainty that flying pink gummy bears never existed anywhere in the universe at anytime? I suppose not ... but that's really just a bunch of lard isn't it? Flying pink gummy bears never existed, and I'm absolutely certain of that fact.

What has this got to do with science? I did notice your contradiction in the above though. First you say you cannot say with absolute 100% certainty that flying pink gummy bears (FPGB) never existed, and then you say you are absolutely certain of the fact that FPGB never existed. So which is it?

Let's go one further (these games are always sort of fun, if you have a good sense of humor). We know gummy bears are a candy, and no such creature ever existed, let alone a flying version of a gummy bear. What are the chances that we invented a candy, and in my mockery here I described a creature, based on that candy, which actually exists somewhere in the universe? It would of course be pure coincidence if it did exist. In fact it could only be a coincidence that had a one in several trillion chance of being true. However, maybe if mankind can survive for billions of years, and trillions of little comical hypotheticals like this are made (about trillions of different imaginary creatures) I suppose, statistically speaking, one of them will eventually be true (hey, maybe there really are flying gummy bears somewhere in the universe).

I still don't see what FPGB have to do with science's inability to prove anything. If you think science has proved that FPGB have never existed, I'd like to see the following:

1) The paper in which the discovery was made.
2) The previous paper in which we managed to map the entire universe (I must have missed it...)
3) A competent scientist saying that they have "proved" something has never existed. I've never seen one make such a statement. They might allude to it, they might say it's highly unlikely or "next to impossible" but they have never given an absolute. Absolutes aren't respected in science, because one of the reasons science works so well is that it retests theories and improves them based on new evidence. Evidence may emerge tomorrow that disputes the theory of gravity...I take it you are absolutely certain the theory of gravity is correct?

So OK sure, if you'd like to base a philosophical or scientific axiom on that sort of outlandish thing, be my guest. How about I rephrase it. I like to think of things in terms of practical certainty. I'm certain the computer monitor I'm viewing this screen on exists, and I exist along with it. Is there a one in perhaps several trillion chance I could be wrong? I don't know, and I don't care, because it's immaterial. Subjectively I know both I and the monitor exist. I know we objectively exist, because the world treats me and the monitor as existing things. Therefore, I'm certain I (and the monitor) exist.

I think of things in terms of practical certainty too...but that doesn't mean I am going to believe that science is an all-knowing system of proving things. It simply isn't. Science says the things I can see exist, and I'm fine believing that, but I won't claim it's been proved by science.

The existence of myself is a different matter. There is a logical argument for my existence; it's known as "I think therefore I am".

If you guys like to spend your time wondering if you exist or not .... again, enjoy! Far be it from me to be a party pooper.

I don't. I find it more interesting wondering if what I see and interact with exists. Science can't prove that, and it never will be able to.

[Watson]

You put that into words much more beautifully than I could, Adrian. Nce job.

[theblindferrengi]

Though now it can be said that science can't prove for certian everything, and this is true, given enough time, money, and manpower science eventually will have every awnser to every question we currently ask; though in the process it will create exponentially more questions.

[Frank]

OK I'll play the semantical game here. If you were to ask me if flying pink gummy bears exist, I'd say no. Can I say with absolute 100% certainty that flying pink gummy bears never existed anywhere in the universe at anytime? I suppose not ... but that's really just a bunch of lard isn't it? Flying pink gummy bears never existed, and I'm absolutely certain of that fact.

What has this got to do with science? I did notice your contradiction in the above though. First you say you cannot say with absolute 100% certainty that flying pink gummy bears (FPGB) never existed, and then you say you are absolutely certain of the fact that FPGB never existed. So which is it?

Let's go one further (these games are always sort of fun, if you have a good sense of humor). We know gummy bears are a candy, and no such creature ever existed, let alone a flying version of a gummy bear. What are the chances that we invented a candy, and in my mockery here I described a creature, based on that candy, which actually exists somewhere in the universe? It would of course be pure coincidence if it did exist. In fact it could only be a coincidence that had a one in several trillion chance of being true. However, maybe if mankind can survive for billions of years, and trillions of little comical hypotheticals like this are made (about trillions of different imaginary creatures) I suppose, statistically speaking, one of them will eventually be true (hey, maybe there really are flying gummy bears somewhere in the universe).

I still don't see what FPGB have to do with science's inability to prove anything. If you think science has proved that FPGB have never existed, I'd like to see the following:

1) The paper in which the discovery was made.
2) The previous paper in which we managed to map the entire universe (I must have missed it...)
3) A competent scientist saying that they have "proved" something has never existed. I've never seen one make such a statement. They might allude to it, they might say it's highly unlikely or "next to impossible" but they have never given an absolute. Absolutes aren't respected in science, because one of the reasons science works so well is that it retests theories and improves them based on new evidence. Evidence may emerge tomorrow that disputes the theory of gravity...I take it you are absolutely certain the theory of gravity is correct?

So OK sure, if you'd like to base a philosophical or scientific axiom on that sort of outlandish thing, be my guest. How about I rephrase it. I like to think of things in terms of practical certainty. I'm certain the computer monitor I'm viewing this screen on exists, and I exist along with it. Is there a one in perhaps several trillion chance I could be wrong? I don't know, and I don't care, because it's immaterial. Subjectively I know both I and the monitor exist. I know we objectively exist, because the world treats me and the monitor as existing things. Therefore, I'm certain I (and the monitor) exist.

I think of things in terms of practical certainty too...but that doesn't mean I am going to believe that science is an all-knowing system of proving things. It simply isn't. Science says the things I can see exist, and I'm fine believing that, but I won't claim it's been proved by science.

The existence of myself is a different matter. There is a logical argument for my existence; it's known as "I think therefore I am".

If you guys like to spend your time wondering if you exist or not .... again, enjoy! Far be it from me to be a party pooper.

I don't. I find it more interesting wondering if what I see and interact with exists. Science can't prove that, and it never will be able to.

Of course science (to my knowledge) has never shown (or tried to show) that we really exist (just as no scientist has ever disproven the existence of flying pink gummy bears). However, we can call the fact of our existence an a priori fact, which doesn't require any empirical data beyond reason alone; and thus it may be a presumption underlying any other fact arrived at by conclusive scientific proof or logical argument (assuming the argument structure is sound).

I understand there are weaknesses inherent in inductive reasoning (David Hume made excellent points in this regard three centuries ago). Moreover, I also understand it's popular to say science can't prove anything (because they can't prove the underlying fact of our existence). However, our existence is an a priori fact, and it's fallacious to infer it's a fact that requires proof in order to validate the conclusiveness of any other fact. Same type of tap dance theists seem so fond of (and something like theism can only exist in an environement of intellectual confusion). We do exist, and that's a fact, oh yeah .... a "conclusive" fact.

As to my supposed contradiction, no contradiction (it was illustrative). There are different degrees of certainty concerning different things. The more narrow the assertion the more certainty we can have regarding it (and we can conclusively know many things are true). For instance the fact that I exist is an a priori fact - no need for empirical data beyond reason alone. Since I know I exist I can look at my hands and see five fingers on each, and conclusively know right at this moment I have ten fingers. Indeed I can even have conclusive knowledge with regard to a posteriori facts. I can say all tunafish now on earth eventually die with absolute certainty. Science has adequately examined the tuna fish. They are an aquatic species that live in salt water; and like all other biological life, eventually die (with no exceptions). In fact I can say I know all tunafish now on earth die conclusively, whereas I can't say with absolute certainty flying pink gummy bears cannot exist anywhere in the universe (and never existed at anypoint in time). The obvious reason is science hasn't sufficiently explored the universe to rule out the existence of flying pink gummy bears (and even if they did they couldn't possibly rule out the possibility that flying gummy bears existed at some point in the past).

However, what are the odds that a creature, I invented here this evening as a muse (partially based on a popular candy) actually exists? The odds are so remote that we can conclusively say flying pink gummy bears don't exist (just like we can conclusively say snakes don't talk, apples don't magically impart knowledge, and dead men can't walk, much less fly around).

[Tiberius]

Of course science (to my knowledge) has never shown (or tried to show) that we really exist (just as no scientist has ever disproven the existence of flying pink gummy bears). However, we can call the fact of our existence an a priori fact, which doesn't require any empirical data beyond reason alone; and thus it may be a presumption underlying any other fact arrived at by conclusive scientific proof or logical argument (assuming the argument structure is sound).

I understand there are weaknesses inherent in inductive reasoning (David Hume made excellent points in this regard three centuries ago). Moreover, I also understand it's popular to say science can't prove anything (because they can't prove the underlying fact of our existence). However, our existence is an a priori fact, and it's fallacious to infer it's a fact that requires proof in order to validate the conclusiveness of any other fact. Same type of tap dance theists seem so fond of (and something like theism can only exist in an environement of intellectual confusion). We do exist, and that's a fact, oh yeah .... a "conclusive" fact.

Our existence is logically provable; I have no doubt of that. That wasn't my point though. You can't go from "we exist" to "science has proven certain things do not exist".

The argument for me existing is based on the argument that the act of asking whether I exist or not is a display of thought; thought being an attribute of something that exists; therefore I exist. Please show me how that can be extended to show other things exist...

[Frank]

Of course science (to my knowledge) has never shown (or tried to show) that we really exist (just as no scientist has ever disproven the existence of flying pink gummy bears). However, we can call the fact of our existence an a priori fact, which doesn't require any empirical data beyond reason alone; and thus it may be a presumption underlying any other fact arrived at by conclusive scientific proof or logical argument (assuming the argument structure is sound).

I understand there are weaknesses inherent in inductive reasoning (David Hume made excellent points in this regard three centuries ago). Moreover, I also understand it's popular to say science can't prove anything (because they can't prove the underlying fact of our existence). However, our existence is an a priori fact, and it's fallacious to infer it's a fact that requires proof in order to validate the conclusiveness of any other fact. Same type of tap dance theists seem so fond of (and something like theism can only exist in an environement of intellectual confusion). We do exist, and that's a fact, oh yeah .... a "conclusive" fact.

Our existence is logically provable; I have no doubt of that. That wasn't my point though. You can't go from "we exist" to "science has proven certain things do not exist".

The argument for me existing is based on the argument that the act of asking whether I exist or not is a display of thought; thought being an attribute of something that exists; therefore I exist. Please show me how that can be extended to show other things exist...

In the first instance I simply asserted that it cannot be said science is incapable of conclusively proving anything. Nonetheless, I'll give your challenge a try. Not only are a priori facts defacto conclusive, but so are posteriori facts. Therefore, we can trust that (for example) tunafish exist.

Assuming the fundamental laws of the natural world remain unaltered:

1) All fish now living on earth eventually die
2) Tuna is a type of fish now living on earth
3) Therefore, all tunafish now living on earth will eventually die

It is true that scientists haven't observed every single tuna fish in our oceans. However, the volumes of data they've collected over the centuries with regard to aquatic life makes statements one and two posteriori knowledge. Therefore, through simple deductive reasoning we arrive at the conclusion that all tunafish now living on earth will die (with no exceptions).

This argument is affirmative, however, it also applies in the negative. Here, we can say science has conclusively ruled out the possibility that any tunafish now living on earth can be immortal (and we can say this conclusively). I'm just playing around with the logic here. In truth the fact that all tunafish on earth will eventually die is itself posteriori knowledge (and doesn't require a deductive argument to prove it). By caveat of the same sort of data science can use to prove all fish now living on earth will die, they can prove all tunafish on earth die. Therefore, the same applies in the negative (e.g. they can rule out the possibility of an immortal tunafish; and that conclusion is posteriori knowledge based on scientific data).

[tackattack]

But you can't rule out an immortal fish because you haven't exhaustively seen all tuna fish. You might discover one that is on day. Would you then redefine life? Or redefine your ideas on tuna fish?

[Tiberius]

In the first instance I simply asserted that it cannot be said science is incapable of conclusively proving anything. Nonetheless, I'll give your challenge a try. Not only are a priori facts defacto conclusive, but so are posteriori facts. Therefore, we can trust that (for example) tunafish exist.

Your use of words I believe reveal the flaw behind your position. You say we can "trust" that tunafish exist, yet trust is not proof, and proof is what we are arguing about here. I do not dispute that science is a measure of probability of something being true, and the highly the probability, the more trust we put into the result, but to say that something is knowledge (i.e. 100% certain) is ridiculous given the nature of science.

Assuming the fundamental laws of the natural world remain unaltered:

1) All fish now living on earth eventually die
2) Tuna is a type of fish now living on earth
3) Therefore, all tunafish now living on earth will eventually die

You are assuming what you set out to prove, that science can prove certain things. The natural laws are descriptions of reality that come from scientific observation; they are not laws in the sense that they can never be refuted or changed.

I'd also like to see the proof that all fish on Earth eventually die, also the proof that tuna is a type of fish (and whilst you are at it, that fish exist). There is an interesting thread here called "Prove China exists" or something; I suggest you take a look as in it we discussed the nature of science, and how it cannot prove anything.

It is true that scientists haven't observed every single tuna fish in our oceans. However, the volumes of data they've collected over the centuries with regard to aquatic life makes statements one and two posteriori knowledge. Therefore, through simple deductive reasoning we arrive at the conclusion that all tunafish now living on earth will die (with no exceptions).

Deductive reasoning isn't proof, and bringing up the volumes of data is an argumentum ad populum of sorts. No amount of data can prove something, as a single piece of data can destroy a theory. If, for instance, we find fossil rabbits in the pre-cambrian, Evolution by Natural Selection as we know it will be disproved. I should also point out that "with no exceptions" relies on data collected up to this point; you cannot tell the future, so you cannot know whether there will be exceptions in the future.

This argument is affirmative, however, it also applies in the negative. Here, we can say science has conclusively ruled out the possibility that any tunafish now living on earth can be immortal (and we can say this conclusively). I'm just playing around with the logic here. In truth the fact that all tunafish on earth will eventually die is itself posteriori knowledge (and doesn't require a deductive argument to prove it). By caveat of the same sort of data science can use to prove all fish now living on earth will die, they can prove all tunafish on earth die. Therefore, the same applies in the negative (e.g. they can rule out the possibility of an immortal tunafish; and that conclusion is posteriori knowledge based on scientific data).

You haven't demonstrated how it is knowledge at all. All you have demonstrated is that you think knowledge depends on the largest amount of data available...it doesn't. You have provided no proof, only reasoning based on an assumption of materialism and data collection. If materialism isn't true, your "proof" evaporates. If the data collection changes to support another theory, your "proof" evaporates.

The idea of a proof is that it cannot possibly evaporate under any circumstances. Otherwise it wouldn't be a proof...

[Zhalentine]

We can prove that the Earth rotates with pendulums.