Can Experiments Determine the Truth in Science?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Antonio Lao
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Experiments play a crucial role in validating scientific theories, as every theory is considered wrong until proven right through experimental verification. A correct experiment can confirm a theory, while a flawed experiment can lead to incorrect conclusions that misguide future research. The discussion emphasizes that scientific theories cannot be proven right, only disproven, and highlights the importance of independent verification and repeatability in experiments. The conversation also touches on the concept of antigravity and the relationship between different types of mass, questioning the completeness of current theories. Ultimately, the thread underscores the ongoing challenge of aligning experimental results with theoretical frameworks in the pursuit of scientific truth.
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

B What is scientific and what is not?
Replies
4
Views
2K
A Is "Equal a priori Probabilities" the correct scientific approach?
Replies
10
Views
3K
I What if one is in 1905 and debating foundational fundamentals?
Replies
7
Views
1K
Can the Big Bang Theory Be Experimentally Verified in Modern Physics?
Replies
2
Views
2K
B Balancing theories and empirical data, especially concerning string theory
Replies
47
Views
8K
Is Relativity Denial Still Prevalent in Science Forums?
Replies
5
Views
1K
I No relativistic Bohmian mechanics and superluminal causation
Replies
37
Views
3K
B Breaking Down the Mystery of Ice VII Nucleation
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Fascinating use of physics to prove a math theorem
Replies
3
Views
3K
I Can Ockham’s razor be used to make quick qualitative predictions?
Replies
23
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top