Can Experiments Determine the Truth in Science?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Antonio Lao
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the role of experiments in validating scientific theories, exploring the nature of truth in science, and the implications of experimental results on theoretical frameworks. Participants examine the complexities of proving or disproving theories through experimentation, touching on concepts of antigravity and the historical context of scientific theories.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that in science, every theory is considered wrong until proven right, emphasizing the burden of proof lies with experiments.
  • Others suggest that a right experiment can yield wrong conclusions, leading to a domino effect that complicates future scientific developments.
  • There is a contention that theories cannot be proven right, only wrong, with some participants referencing historical examples like Einstein's Nobel Prize for the Photoelectric Effect as a case of acceptance based on experimental verification.
  • A participant raises questions about the existence of an antigravity force and its relationship to gravity and mass, proposing that both forces should be considered in understanding the true nature of mass.
  • Some participants reflect on the historical context of scientific theories, noting that no theory has ever been 100% right, which raises questions about the nature of scientific progress.
  • There are references to the importance of independent verification and repeatability of experiments, with discussions around what constitutes a "wrong experiment" beyond technical errors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of scientific theories and the reliability of experiments. There is no consensus on whether theories can be proven right or if they are inherently flawed until disproven.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the implications of experimental results, including the dependence on assumptions and the potential for erroneous conclusions to affect future scientific work.

Antonio Lao
Messages
1,436
Reaction score
1
Searching for the truth in science always lead to finding out what is right or what is wrong for a particular theory and its experimental verification. In criminal law, every suspect is innocent unless proven guilty. But in science, every theory is wrong unless proven right. The burden of the proof lies with the right experiment.

If a theory is developed to show that the vacuum has a force and experiment cannot find this force then the theory is wrong only up to the limit that the experiment is right. A right experiment can prove a wrong theory wrong. A wrong experiment can prove a right theory wrong. A right experiment can always prove a right theory right. Finally, a wrong experiment can always prove a wrong theory right.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok ! But what about the domino type of catastrophe effect . So you have a right experiment for which you draw the wrong conclusions , on which all future experiments are based and from which all conclusions are drawn and so on. So that in the end you end up far from where you wanted to be which was closer to the truth. So although it is always poissible to set a wrong experiment right , it is much more difficult to set wrong conclusion right , which affects all future developments.
 
Last edited:
Antonio Lao said:
. But in science, every theory is wrong unless proven right. .
This is backwards. Theories in science cannot be proven right, only wrong.
 
Antonio Lao said:
A wrong experiment can prove a right theory wrong. ... Finally, a wrong experiment can always prove a wrong theory right.

That's why experiments are not immediately believed until they are independently verified or are shown to be repeatable.
 
krab said:
This is backwards. Theories in science cannot be proven right, only wrong.

I imagine what Lao means is that theories gain acceptance after there is sufficient experimental verification.

Hence, Einstein's Nobel Prize for explaining the Photoelectric Effect.
 
Gokul43201 said:
That's why experiments are not immediately believed until they are independently verified or are shown to be repeatable.
By "wrong experiment" I don't think Lao was talking about a technical error, but an experiment perhaps based on some erroneous conclusions or poor assumptions.

For some reason Bell experiments come to mind ...
 
Thanks for your replies, threaders of the lost force.

I started this post for the main reason of finding the lost force of antigravity. Why does gravity is only manifested as an attractive force? Why the expansion of space is not caused by any kind of repulsive force? The existence of this antigravity force is not obvious and was thought not necessary for formulation of any physical theory. Yet both the forces of gravity and antigravity should be related to the true meaning of mass. Are there just one kind of mass in the Law of Universal Gravitation and the Second law of Motion since both gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent? Or is there another mass beside gravity mass and inertial mass? Can this be the kinetic mass which should be related intimately with the relativistic mass?
 
historically speaking there has never been a theory that was 100% right

why should science ruin a perfect track record? :smile:
 
The individuals who can really ruin this perfect track record are either dead or yet to be born.
 
  • #10
energia said:
historically speaking there has never been a theory that was 100% right

why should science ruin a perfect track record? :smile:


Actually, there are so many theories that are a 100% correct, that you'll be astonished. Of course there are many more wrong theories...but most of those were "non-scientifically" arrived at.
 
  • #11
I am holding in my hand a book by Jennifer Bothamley called "Dictionary of Theories." From A to Z and starts with 'a priori theories' in accountancy to 'Zorn's lemma' in mathematics. And the people from Abegg, Richard (1896-1910) to Zweig, George (1937- ). And the name Aristotle (384-322 BC) appeared most for the more than 5,000 entries of theory.
 
  • #12
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Graduate Is Relativity Denial Still Prevalent in Science Forums?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School What is scientific and what is not?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad What if one is in 1905 and debating foundational fundamentals?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad What Does Falsifiability Mean in the Context of Science?
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
Undergrad Scientific law vs. theory, Newton vs. Einstein
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
Undergrad Possible universes as in Modal Logics
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Balancing theories and empirical data, especially concerning string theory
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
10K
Undergrad No relativistic Bohmian mechanics and superluminal causation
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
Undergrad Can Ockham’s razor be used to make quick qualitative predictions?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
Undergrad Is nonlinear acoustics in mainstream physics?
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K