RE: What can science prove?
March 15, 2010 at 4:28 pm
(This post was last modified: March 15, 2010 at 5:10 pm by Frank.)
(March 15, 2010 at 3:54 pm)Tiberius Wrote: 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...
I disagree. I'm simply saying a priori and posteriori knowledge doesn't require proof in the way you're demanding. The fact that tunafish exist is posteriori knowledge, and it is an allowable presumption we can base conclusions on. Deductive reasoning is not itself proof, but if the argument structure is sound (that is if each presumption used to reach its conclusion is based on sound empirical data, or can be properly defined as a priori or posteriori knowledge) then it's proper to couch it as a true conclusion (and one reached with the assistance of scientific knowledge).
In my tunafish example, I narrowed the argument to exclude any exceptions. I didn't make a statement about all tunafish that potentially exist throughout the universe, or all tunafish that may have existed in the past, I narrowed my reference to tunafish that are currently alive on earth. Indeed I even narrowed it further (I predicated the argument by saying 'assuming all the fundamental laws of nature remain unchanged').
A long time ago someone came up with the idea of combining iron ore with coke and other minerals (like manganese, nickel, chromium and vanadium) to make a stronger, harder, and lighter metal than the iron that was commonly used (which we today call steel). Up until they actually produced steel their formula was merely a theory (that had a certain probability, something less than 1, of working). Once they actually produced steel, they proved their idea was correct. They didn't almost prove how to make steel, they conclusively proved how to make steel.
If I say the moon (as it existed during the moon landing) was made partially of rock, what are the chances this statement could be wrong? I contend the chances are zero, because we collected samples when we visited the moon, and they were shown to be rock. Certainly you can say if I made the same statement regarding the state of the moon as it exists this instant, although the probability I'm right may be extremely high, it's not absolute (because we can't rely on the uniformity of nature). Nonetheless, I'm able to take data collected by science and make statements that are 100% true. Of course a properly structured tautology can be absolutely true as well (but I'll spare you the semantics).
It boils down to how we phrase it. Science can conclusively show some things are true, by validating theories through experiments. Take the example of steel. It is true if the fundamental laws of nature become altered - the formula for producing steel may no longer work. However, a conclusive statement is made by simply qualifying it (e.g. predicating it with a series of assumptions, like assuming the fundamental laws of nature remain unchanged). So when people point to the weaknesses of science (and indeed there are many weaknesses in science), we need to put it in perspective. IMO you're defining the concept of "conclusiveness" so broadly that it loses substantive value.
