What can science prove?

[Ryft]

I'm not sure where the red herring is coming from. (I never said or [implied] science has a brain).

No, but Bramblepath did (which my direct quote indicated as being who that responded to).

[Frank]

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.

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.

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).

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.

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'm not sure where the red herring is coming from. (I never said or [implied] science has a brain).

No, but Bramblepath did (which my direct quote indicated as being who that responded to).

sorry bout that dude

[Watson]

You're aware that the Big Bang theory and most other scientific explanations for the beginning of the universe posit that the universe itself is ever expanding in all directions, in an infinite way, corrct?

In other words, it is entirely likely, no matter how slim, that Flying Pink Gummy Bears could and do exist. You'll neve rknow for certain, unless you assume as such taht they do not exist.

Another thing: mankind itself, life on Earth itself is virtually improbable from your standpoint, and any other being in the infinite expanses of the universe could surely jest the same; "Ha! Bi-pedal, flesh and bone apes with sentience! What a crock!"

[tavarish]

You're aware that the Big Bang theory and most other scientific explanations for the beginning of the universe posit that the universe itself is ever expanding in all directions, in an infinite way, corrct?

In other words, it is entirely likely, no matter how slim, that Flying Pink Gummy Bears could and do exist. You'll neve rknow for certain, unless you assume as such taht they do not exist.

How the hell did you come to that conclusion?

Re-evaluate the term "likely".

Another thing: mankind itself, life on Earth itself is virtually improbable from your standpoint, and any other being in the infinite expanses of the universe could surely jest the same; "Ha! Bi-pedal, flesh and bone apes with sentience! What a crock!"

The probability of life on Earth is 1. There is life on Earth.

[Watson]

Okay, I'll try and re-work it to make more sense. I was a bit unclear.

The universe is infinite.

Therefore, there are an infinite number of possible lifeforms which could exist.

These lifeforms are no more or less likely than humans coming into being iin the universe.

To us, the likelihood is most definitely one, because we knwo we exist. To a being halfway across the universe, there is no certainty that creatures such as man exist at all without encountering us or scowering the entire universe to prove/disprove that man is not in it.

I hope that helps clear up what I meant, dude.

[Xyster]

Well at least I have evedence that Science works and Prayer fails.

[Watson]

Not exactly. There's a high probability that most of the time, every time, scientific principles will work. But there is no absolute certainty that they will, nor that they are completely set in stone 100% of the time.

[Xyster]

Not exactly. There's a high probability that most of the time, every time, scientific principles will work. But there is no absolute certainty that they will, nor that they are completely set in stone 100% of the time.

WAIT... who said 100% on everything everytime... I SAID IT WORKS.. and when it dont they find out why not then improve

[Watson]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought what was implicated was that science works all the time, every time. I was responding to that, basically saying there's no 100% certainty, but that there is close to certainty a you can get from our limited view-point. Also, it's hard to say that you have evidence that science will work, from within the realms of science itself.

And prayer, as I understand it, works very well. But that's a whole 'nother debate, right?

[Xyster]

Well it works... or you would still be writing on stone tablets... and this disscussion would not be taking place