B Can you prove anything using the Scientific Method?

[Varsha Verma]

A lofty goal. But not very realistic. It is enough to take small steps.
Time for another link to http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm. We are in the role of Asimov, not the English Lit major whose viewpoint he addresses.

I read the Asimov article.

His argument is that "Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.".

But the problem here that Newtons theory of Gravity was not just incomplete. It was WRONG.

That Newtons equations work work for normal speed calculations is surely a coincidence.

I don't think Relativity improved Newtons Gravity. It REPLACED it completely.

 

[A.T.]

But the problem here that Newtons theory of Gravity was not just incomplete. It was WRONG.

Physics makes predictive models, which match observation to a certain degree, in a certain range of applicability. This is true for all physical theories.

 

[sophiecentaur]

But the problem here that Newtons theory of Gravity was not just incomplete. It was WRONG.

That is erring a bit on the preposterous side. Newton's Gravity theory works extremely well. It is not "wrong" - just a tad inaccurate in extreme cases, which places it in the same category as all other theories.

 

[weirdoguy]

I don't think Relativity improved Newtons Gravity. It REPLACED it completely.

Then what you think is simply wrong, because we still use it. And because we use it, it's not replaced completely.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

I am studying the scientific method and have come to the following conclusion.

Since X -> Y does not imply X is true (or real), it is impossible for the scientific method (SM) to prove that anything is true.

So like mathematics, the scientific method builds knowledge on axioms which cannot be proven to be true, like mathematics is built on axioms like the point which does not exist.

The scientific method only stats that "if something is true" then "something else is also true".

For example: If you push an object -> it will move says the SM. But it does not show that there is a force.
Another example: "Taking antibiotics" -> "Cures diseases". But it does not tell that disease causing germs exist.

Is this the correct view??

What you describe here is not the 'scientific method' but rather what is called 'deductive [mathematical or logical] reasoning', which is just one method. The scientific method was described to you by other members here. However, you are right partially to one point, as what I think is confusing you is the fact that the most commonly and widely accepted form of reasoning and corroboration used together/in the scientific method is what is called the 'Hypothetical-Deductive Reasoning (or method)', or 'hypothetical-deductive process', which is based on constructing a 'Hypothetico-deductive system or model'. However, if one examines things carefully we realize that in the scientific method, and/or in connection/together with the above methods, the method of incomplete (or non-mathematical) induction [called Imperfect Induction], together with experiments, is also used in forming, building and testing theories ... . However note that generally this is not a necessary requirement for the Scientific Method and/or the Method of Hypothetical Deduction, which is usually used in the scientific method. (Also cf. 'Inductive Reasoning' and 'Inductive versus Deductive Reasoning'.)
[Please examine carefully the sources in the links I gave.]

 

[TeethWhitener]

That Newtons equations work work for normal speed calculations is surely a coincidence.

No. Newton's equations are Einstein's equations in the limit as $c \to\infty$ (or $g_{\mu\nu} \approx \eta_{\mu\nu}$, depending on which equations you're talking about).

 

[sophiecentaur]

Like you keep on dating until you find the best person to marry. No point of just dating people just for the sake of it, right? The end goal is to MARRY.

So, similarly, no point in just doing "experiments" just for the sake of doing it unless you have an end goal with is obviously
the "ultimate truth".

There is no "similarity' here. Marriage is a definable state and there is evidence that people actually achieve that state. The existence of an Ultimate truth can only be a matter of faith and plenty of people (me included) do not find it necessary to believe there is one.
The human mind gets involved in plenty of outwardly fruitless exercises, like crossword puzzles, and we are drawn to them because I would say there is a definite evolutionary advantage there. Being complex organisms, we do a lot of self analysis and internal rationalisation. This can make people seek and believe in a deity, look for 'ultimate truths', decide to support a particular football team or even to take up Philosophy. Look for the answers to all these things in our heads and not elsewhere.

 

[pinball1970]

So like mathematics, the scientific method builds knowledge on axioms which cannot be proven to be true, like mathematics is built on axioms like the point which does not exist.

The scientific method only stats that "if something is true" then "something else is also true".

When you use “proof” and “truth” you are on dodgy ground in science.

Mathematics is based on logical proofs which are based on axioms as you stated, Pythagoras theorem can be proven and is water tight all over the universe for all eternity and no one can ever adjust it. (unless the axioms change... Euclidian verses hyperbolic for eg)

Newton’s theory of gravity gave very good approximations until Einstein came along

Einstein’s theories were considered the accomplishment of the 20th C but are incompatible with quantum mechanics in some respects - neither in a sense are either proven or true

Theorem Proof = Mathematics /logic

Empirical evidence verification peer review tests falsification plausible falsified = science/ scientific method

Truth, reality = Philosophy

I think Feynman said something along the lines of you can't prove anything is true only demonstrate something is less wrong – this is paraphrasing as I can't find the quote

 

[A.T.]

...no point in just doing "experiments" just for the sake of doing it unless you have an end goal with is obviously the "ultimate truth".

Predictive models confirmed by experiments are actually quite useful, as opposed to vague philosophical concepts like "ultimate truth".

 

[Dale]

But the problem here that Newtons theory of Gravity was not just incomplete. It was WRONG.

No, it isn't. In the weak gravity and low speed limit it is right as has been experimentally verified many times.

I don't think Relativity improved Newtons Gravity. It REPLACED it completely.

Newton's theory of gravity is part of General Relativity. If GR is right then so is Newtonian Gravity since it is a part of GR and the whole cannot be right if a part is wrong.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I don't think Relativity improved Newtons Gravity. It REPLACED it completely.

You build a house that suits you very well and has all the facilities you wanted. Later on, you build an extension with two extra bedrooms and a new front reception room. The original parts of the house still function perfectly fine; you can just entertain more of your family members. Does that mean you have completely REPLACED the house?
I am not sure what you want out of this thread. What are you trying to assert or prove? Are we just having a semantic problem?

 

[sophiecentaur]

Well, that is not what the world's best science university Berkeley says: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_04

Here what they say, they mean the scientists at Berkeley who are the best in the world: "Science as a collective institution aims to produce more and more accurate natural explanations of how the natural world works, what its components are, and how the world got to be the way it is now. "

So, it is clear that the the purpose of science is to find what the components of the world, meaning the universe. That clearly means that the purpose of science IS to find what ultimately the universe is made up of.

I think you need to brush up on your Comprehension Skills Varsha. Your "clear" conclusion is just not valid. You are trying to fit what is written to your belief. The first paragraph makes it quite clear what they are trying to do and it ain't what you claim.
"Science as a collective institution aims to produce more and more accurate natural explanations of how the natural world works, what its components are, and how the world got to be the way it is now."
You can go closer and closer to c but you cannot expect to get there. No one would be chasing that goal, either.

 

[PeterDonis]

At this point the thread has run its course, so it is now closed.