What can science prove?

[Ryft]

Absolutely nothing. Science probabilifies, not proves.

[Bramblepath]

It would be a ridiculous claim to say that it could prove everything. Science proves what it believes by use of evidence and method.

[Frank]

Absolutely nothing. Science probabilifies, not proves.

That's not an accurate statement. Every little thing we take for granted (from the computers we're typing on, to the particle board desks in our offices made out of sawdust held together by glue, to the plastic used to make our cups, our printers, monitors, window blinds, books and paper, etc. etc.) were all once scientific discoveries. Would we say chemists only approximately know how to make plastic, or do they simply know how to make plastic?

I don't want to start parsing words - but your statement is sounds like semantics. Sure, you can say certain elements of quantum mechanics or whatever is probablistic (and that's true), but that's only a tiny segment of science.

[Ryft]

"Science proves what it believes," he says, as if science believes things. Dude, science is a methodology, a tool to be used. It does not have a brain, much less beliefs.

[Tiberius]

I'm in complete agreement with Arcanus. Science actively limits itself to the material world, and thus cannot prove anything (as materialism may not be true).

[Ryft]

Would we say chemists only approximately know how to make plastic, or do they simply know how to make plastic?

Your objection would work if I said that science approximates things. But I didn't. Science informs us with a very high degree of probability how and why making plastic works. Is that knowledge certain? No. But the probability that our knowledge is correct leans very close to 1 (but does not reach 1, where certainty lies).

[tackattack]

It would be a ridiculous claim to say that it could prove everything. Science proves what it believes by use of evidence and method.

So then does science rationalize or have a delusional belief system, or is science's "proofs" ok because it only allows objective evidence?

[fr0d0]

But the probability that our knowledge is correct leans very close to 1 (but does not reach 1, where certainty lies).

0.9... would be close enough

*considers if he should really post this*

[Frank]

"Science proves what it believes," he says, as if science believes things. Dude, science is a methodology, a tool to be used. It does not have a brain, much less beliefs.

I'm not sure where the red herring is coming from (I never said or inferred science has a brain). You said:

"Science probabilifies, not proves"

I said, wrong, science can prove things (practically speaking). The examples I gave (computers, plastic, etc.) all rely on things proven by science. Sometimes science is only able to approximate, but not true in all cases (and you couched it as some sort of axiom).

[Tiberius]

No, they all rely on things that science has deduced have a high probability of being correct. There is a big difference between something being very likely to be correct, and actually correct.

There is nothing in the scientific method that can objectively confirm something as absolutely true.