What can science prove?

[LukeMC]

There is only assumption when it comes to what we know... what else would our knowledge be based on? We could certainly know things to be true... but that doesn't mean we're 'right' in our knowledge.

Your comment calls for a re-assessment of what it means to "know" something. In the strictest sense, I suppose we don't "know" anything, and our "knowledge" is merely our "database of commonly held beliefs which may be wrong". In which case, we only suppose that we certainly know things to be true, and indeed may not be right in our so-called "knowledge" as you say.

This philosophy business is quite taxing on the brain

[Ace Otana]

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

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.

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.

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.

[Tiberius]

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.

[Frank]

For instance, if I qualify a statement (by saying "assuming I exist and the laws of nature remain unchanged") then I can make conclusive statements.

The fact that you must make those assumptions is what holds my argument together. Strictly speaking, we cannot know the second assumption to be true- we merely make the deduction that it is due to our past experience with it.

Well yes relying on the uniformity of nature is inductive thinking (but I've acknowledged the weaknesses in inductive reasoning). Moreover, you're saying that the necessity to qualify a conclusion proves your point - but I think we might be talking past each other my friend.

Anytime science makes a statement about anything it goes without saying that those conclusions are predicated on the assumptions that we exist, and the laws of nature will not fundamentally change. Obviously if we don't really exist or if the laws of nature suddenly change science would become pretty worthless. This qualifier is built into every conclusion science makes. Therefore, they can make absolute conclusions within those parameters (which is really all I'm saying).

I think what you're saying is science is unable to make "universal" statements (verses absolute conclusions), and yes I think there's a subtle distinction. If science makes a statement, with sufficient qualifiers built in (as we can infer in almost every case), in many instances they can make their conclusion with absolute certainty.

That's not to say that things can't change tomorrow; we cannot rule out the possibility of supernatural occurences in the same way we cannot conclusively rule out the possibilty of a god. It COULD happen. As such, the extent to which science can claim "proof" is limited by this exceptionally thin margin of uncertainty.

I guess I take issue with this line of reasoning. With regard to the question of god, you're right to say we can't debunk the concept in the same way we can exclude the possibility of immortal tunafish living in our oceans. Nevertheless, we can sufficiently debunk the idea of god to render religious faith intellectually absurd (e.g. reductio ad absurdum).

[Ryft]

Not only are a priori facts defacto conclusive, but so are a posteriori facts.

(1) All fish now living on earth eventually die
(2) Tuna is a type of fish now living on earth
(3) Therefore, all tunafish now living on earth will eventually die

The statement that "all fish now living on earth eventually die" is neither scientific nor conclusive, if science has anything to do with observable results (and I'm pretty sure it does). The only way that statement could be considered scientific and conclusive is for all fish now living on earth to be under controlled observation until they die. Although that's possible in theory, it's not feasible in practice because of the sheer number of (i) fish that would have to be found and (ii) tracking devices built—even if we restricted it to just tuna fish.

I think there are good reasons to accept the statement as true, even with a high degree of certainty, but those reasons are philosophical, not scientific, because it's a conclusion drawn from inductive inference, not empirical observation. That is to say, the premises may be proved scientifically, but the conclusion is reasoned philosophically. (Incidentally, such reasoning is inductive, not deductive, because the move is from specific facts to a general conclusion: from "all fish observed die" to "all fish die.")

Science says the things I can see exist.

Reality check #1.

Science does not say that. Science assumes it (as surely it must). It might be helpful to consider the word "says" (in this context) as idiomatic, that is, 'what science says' is an idiom whose literal meaning is 'what science concludes'. The things you can see exist, yes. But that is not a conclusion reached through scientific methodology; in fact, the issue is not even available for empirical review in the first place. What exists? What does it mean for something to exist? When does something cease to exist? This is philosophy, not science. The branch of philosophy known as metaphysics is where conclusions are drawn about ontology (existence). Science does not, and cannot, draw those conclusions. It assumes them.

Science relies on the assumption of materialism.

Reality check #2.

Science does not rely on that assumption. Insofar as science is occupied with the study of natural causes and events, it assumes that material things exist (as noted above) but it does not assume that ONLY material things exist. You are conflating an epistemological assumption (which science relies on) and an ontological assumption (which science does not rely on), the latter being the presupposition that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature" (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Macmillan, 1996). Even if metaphysical naturalism were shown to be complete bollocks, we would still have the natural sciences because material things do exist.

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?

In a colloquial sense, yes. But strictly speaking that's not knowledge so much as belief. Given what I know about the relevant factors involved, I believe (on good reason) that the ball will do such and so. Since a proposition cannot be an item of knowledge without the 'true' element (where knowledge is "justified true belief"), I would say it is not more than justified belief.

[tackattack]

---

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

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.

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.

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.

---

Ok question for you then ace. Using your first example of the softball. Is the default assertion you make based off of your original visual observance of the softball that it's real and you seek another sense to confirm it? Or could it be that you are assuming it is a delusion and seek further proof? I've found this is the basic differences between some theists and atheists is the skeptical view point of assuming that null is non-existant and first observation is assumed delusional until seconded by another source. Where as my standpoint is to assume it's real and if (for instance it's too far away) no other sensory input is possible to leave it at that.

[Frank]

The statement that "all fish now living on earth eventually die" is neither scientific nor conclusive, if science has anything to do with observable results (and I'm pretty sure it does). The only way that statement could be considered scientific and conclusive is for all fish now living on earth to be under controlled observation until they die. Although that's possible in theory, it's not feasible in practice because of the sheer number of (i) fish that would have to be found and (ii) tracking devices built—even if we restricted it to just tuna fish.

That's a fair point, but I predicated the deductive argument with a qualifier (e.g. "assuming the fundamental laws of nature remain unchanged"). This is a built in assumption with any conclusion reached by science. I've never heard a scientist qualify a discovery by saying something like, fish are aquatic species, and biological organisms, and as such (according to the laws of nature) they will necessarily die; but I can't say that for sure because the laws of nature could change tomorrow (or we might not exist at all - and this could all be an illusion).

Nonetheless, if you like, I turn to my other hypothetical of steel. When the guy who invented steel first came up with the idea of combining iron, coke, nickel, and other minerals in a smelting process to create a stronger and lighter metal, there was obviously a chance it wouldn't work. But once he was able to successfully produce steel, and show a method by which we can consistently manufacture steel, the formula for steel became a conclusively proven scientific fact (not an almost proven scientific fact). It may be true that occasionally producers don't get it right, or for some reason they make a bad batch (or whatever); but that doesn't change the validity of the formula for steel. Even if there may be other ways to make steel, or we devise improved ways of producing steel (or better types of metal), it doesn't matter. It doesn't change the validity of that formula as a conclusively proven method for producing steel.

I'm not saying we can't sit around and imagine all sorts of ways everything could change (or whether its possible that somewhere in the universe the laws of physics and chemistry are different). What if a wormhole pops into existence (it's possible right, even if there's only a one in several trillion chance of it happening). Or maybe we're all a figment of a giant globs imagination ... or whatever. But science operates under an assumption that we do exist and the laws of nature won't arbitrarily and unrecognizably change spontaneously (unless you're a quantum physicist and we're discussing fun stuff like virtual particles).

So yes you can point to something like the possibility that we don't really exist; but scientists generally accept that as a matter of a priori knowledge, and that does not dilute the conclusiveness of certain proven facts (like the chemical formula for steel), provided we're operating under the conditions the formula was designed for (e.g. a steel plant on earth).

[kollkolen]

I don't think it’s this simple, science can only explain what it convinces to believe. Science is our tool, and we can't even decide for ourselves what things are positive or negative. It is easy to prove a positive, but proving any negative is almost impossible. The idea of a negative may only exists in our heads. In reality I can only think of a few negatives(black holes, death). People use the idea of negative when dealing with numbers, poles on a batter, and good and bad.

[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)

[leo-rcc]

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

Don't worry, I'll derail it with a rude joke first chance I get.