What can science prove?

[Violet]

That's not true, the manifestation of supernatural or non-material entities (should they exist) in reality would still be measurable, so it's false to say science operates on the assumption of materialism, it is simply the case that everything ever observed in (or acting upon) reality has a (most likely) materialistic origin. The simple fact that the best explanations for any phenomenon (in terms testability, repeatability, explanatory power and the ability to make predictions) are materialistic in origin does not mean the supernatural is discounted by default.

Materialism is the philosophical idea that the only things that exist are matter and energy.

Measurable things are material by their nature (since measurement is based on matter and energy). To say otherwise would be like saying you could measure how good a soul is, or how large God is. If anything "supernatural" or "non-material" existed, it would disprove materialism, and we'd have rework science from these new perspectives. Science as it stands today would not work. How can we have a material theory of gravity if we discover that there is a supernatural force that does this instead?

If science doesn't operate on the assumption of materialism, why do you think we discount homeopathy as science? We discount it because what it claims (water has memory) has no basis in the material world. Same with every other alternative medicine.

Why would energy and matter be the only material? That we do not know of the existence of anything that is not energy/matter does not also mean that if those things exist they are not a material of a different form. Anything "supernatural" would just be yet another form of existence (unless it is in essence made of nothing at all, which might exist of course ), hence it would be as material as anything here. Why would spirits be immaterial?

Define for me how supernatural things would not be material. If we found that there was a "supernatural force" that did what gravity does... then surely this force does so by a process that we can 'discover' (By that I mean why would the "supernatural" not have rules)? And if it indeed did exactly what gravity seems to do... then why would we be unable to explain it exactly as we've already explained it?

Define for me exactly why there would be anything but 'the material world'? If water had 'memory' or 'spirit'... that too would be material so far as I can tell. I honestly see no reason for that which we call "supernatural" to be anything more than a broader scope of the natural.

---

This is one mind blowing thread. No wonder this forum and it's members are viewed as "the brainy lot".

Really? We are?

Right...back on topic. I understand how we can be 99% certain and 100% absolutly sure of something. The question is, is it at all possible to "KNOW" something. I'm going to give some examples..., like this soft ball infront of me (I don't mean my bollocks!). It's round (duh!) blue with a green strip going around it. My eyes tell me it's there. So that's one source of infomation that tells me that there is something there and it that it has certain characteristics. Now my sense of touch confirms that there is in fact something there that fits the description for which my eyes have given. So now, I'm quite sure it's real but not 100% certain. I could be suffering from delusion. Parts of my brain giving it self false data. So I can't say for sure it's 100% real. I've got two sources of incoming data that is telling me the same thing. Pointing to the same conclusion. So this must mean it's highly likely that it's real, but not 100% sure.

Actually... you can be 100% sure that it is real. But that doesn't mean you are right

Even if it is all a delusion... it is still real to you (at least in some sense)

Now is it possible to KNOW what would happen say by taking an action for which you know of the direct reaction? Knowing what would happen based on the knowledge and understanding of physics? Is this knowing something? Like throwing a stone. When you release it during acceleration of your arm that you know the stone with it's stored kentic energy will continue to move based on the working knowledge of physics, and not stop in mid air the moment you let go of it.

Knowledge is an assumption of correctness. That is all it is. The real question is wether we really are correct... or not. (Edit: Though it actually does depend on wether we are defining knowledge to mean it is correct or not... i use it without this qualifier because things that are considered 'known' are not necessarily true... though I may be using this forever in a colloquial sense, as how indeed could we "know" (in the sense that it is absolutely true) anything at all?)

I'm a touch confused but I'm sure you brainies can solve this. If I made some kind of error, feel free to correct. Physics is not my strongest points. Romance, ice skating, humour and healing are my strong points.

I don't think I'm a brainy :S This isn't so much a matter of physics as a mater of philosophy... but are the two really so different? (Edit: What I mean by that is what Arcanus says above)