(March 15, 2010 at 4:28 pm)Frank Wrote: 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').You narrowed the argument yet there are exceptions. As I said before, you have not proved that tunafish exist (they may all be delusions we suffer). Nor have you proved that every single one will die, since you have no method to know where each tunafish on Earth is (one may be in the very centre of the Earth, protected for all time). Your assume these things are true, and base your conclusion off these assumptions. It isn't a proof. Proofs cannot possibly be wrong, otherwise they would not be proofs. Do you agree? If you do, then you should be able to see my line of reasoning clearly. There are always exceptions, always other hypothetical situations that are "possible", and thus science does not prove anything, but puts a probability on one of the hypothetical situations, saying the evidence matches it the best.
Quote: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.How do you know (conclusively) that this will always work; that the reasons we think this material is so much stronger are accurate? Your philosophy seems to be "try something, if it works, it must be correct". Do you think Newton proved how gravity works then? His model worked for years, and by your standards he "proved" how gravity worked, but then an anomaly came up, and Einstein came up with a new theory to explain gravity better. So Newton's "proof" wasn't a proof, and we cannot say conclusively that Einsteins is either. We don't know the future...we cannot predict the anomalies.
Quote: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).You claim your statements are 100% true, but there are still possibilities that might show them false:
1) The technology that showed the moon rocks was "rocks" gave errors...repeatedly.
2) The scientists made errors and wrongly pronounced the material as rock.
3) The moon is actually made of cheese, but when we landed on it, a supernatural being altered it to look like rock. The "rocks" we currently have are still disguised, but they are cheese nonetheless.
Are these possibilities absurd? Yes. Are they highly unlikely? Yes. Does that mean the theory about moon rocks is true? Hell no. Truth doesn't have possibilities. Truth has one value. Something is either true or not, and whilst there are multiple possibilities, one cannot say anything about the truth value, only which is the more likely possibility.
Quote: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.I'm not the one defining conclusiveness broadly...you are the one defining "proof" too loosely. I have no doubts science makes conclusions, in fact I've argued this repeatedly. However, it is wrong to say these conclusions are anything other than the most probable answer. There is scientific truth, and there is absolute truth. Scientific truth is whatever science deems is the most probable explanation for the event. The absolute truth is the actual explanation for the event.
It might be that the scientific truth is the absolute truth in some situations, but this is not provable, nor is it a valid way to look at science. In fact, it's a very anti-science thing you are doing; saying science conclusively proves something. You are closing science to the very thing that makes it powerful...re-examination. If we hold Einstein's theories of gravity to be "proven", then we create a dogma around that theory, and any other data that seems to contradict Einstein is thrown out. Why? Because something that is "proven" cannot be contradicted...it is impossible by definition. Luckily, we do not hold that science proves anything, and with this we are able to move forward with more research.
