Can you prove anything using the Scientific Method?

[Dale]

So you are saying that in the scientific method theorists use "deduction" to build to hypothesis, and the experimentalists do the experiments and use "induction" to show whether the hypothesis is correct or not?

Yes, that sounds good. I would maybe say that they use induction to show that both the hypothesis and the theory are correct.

Is the use of "deductive" method mandatory in the scientific method?

Can you use the scientific method using "induction" alone??

I don’t know about “mandatory”. There isn’t a governing body that mandates the steps. However, papers are more likely to pass peer review in prestigious journals if both deductive and inductive reasoning are used.

 

[mjc123]

PS: What is the difference between a mathematician drawing things and showing the Pythagoras theorem to be true, verses a physicist who says that stuff is made up of small things called atoms and giving evidence of their existence through experiments?? I can't see any difference.

The proofs for Pythagoras that are given in your link are demonstrative proofs by logical deduction, ultimately from Euclid's axioms, in practice from other theorems that have themselves already been proved from those axioms, that if the axioms are true, then Pythagoras's theorem must be true. The procedure of the physicist is more analogous to someone drawing thousands of right-angled triangles and showing by measurement that Pythagoras's theorem is true for all of them, with no exceptions. This is strong evidence, but it doesn't logically prove that the theorem is always true - you might find a counter-example tomorrow. However, the more triangles you measure without finding any counter-examples, the stronger is your confidence that the theorem is almost certainly true. That is how induction works.
Suppose a physicist has a hypothesis, and devises an experiment to test it. If he says:
"If the hypothesis is true, I would expect this result.
I observe this result.
Therefore, my hypothesis is true."
then he is wrong. The argument does not logically prove the conclusion. It does not exclude the possibility that there is some other explanation of the result, even if the hypothesis is false. (It is called the fallacy of affirming the consequent - look it up.) But the more experiments he does that get the expected results, with none that don't, the more confidence he has in his hypothesis. That is how it is with relativity, for example. It has made many predictions, and as far as I know whenever these have been tested by experiment, you get the predicted result. But all that doesn't prove relativity to be true. Someone may come up with another theory that explains all the observations that relativity can explain, as well as some it can't.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I am still trying to get my head around on the difference between proving something vs showing something to be true.

I can 'show' you a picture of a rock on Mars that looks like a face but that is not a 'proof' of the presence of actual faces there. It's all too easy to waste time on etymology. Some Philosophers spend years of they lives on such stuff. Best not to go too far down that road.
A proof can only really be the result of axioms (as in Maths, when everything is defined) in a totally closed field. We never have a closed field in Science so we have theories.
I believe that, when they cannot prove something, Mathematicians publish Conjectures.

 

[Varsha Verma]

But all that doesn't prove relativity to be true. Someone may come up with another theory that explains all the observations that relativity can explain, as well as some it can't.

I find this statement mind-boggling.

Because then what you are implying is that knowledge is actually not discovered, it's created relative to the sense organs and culture.

So, which means that we can never know the ultimate truths about the universe. This process can go ad infinitum.

This also leads to a weird situation of why we appreciate scientists by giving prizes like the Nobel prize etc.

I mean if you say that 500 years from now somebody else can come and prove that GR is wrong, that objects fall not due to space-time curvature but due to some very different reason, then why is Einstein considered the greatest smartest physicist or human for that matter of all time?? Why was he given the Nobel prize for a theory which can be made to be proved incorrect in the future. Why give awards and appreciate people for things we are not sure of?

 

[Dale]

Why give awards and appreciate people for things we are not sure of?

We give awards for just showing up to participate in little league soccer!

So, which means that we can never know the ultimate truths about the universe

Ultimate truth is the domain of religion, not science. If that is what you want then you need to look for a church you can believe.

 

[Varsha Verma]

We give awards for just showing up to participate in little league soccer!

Ultimate truth is the domain of religion, not science. If that is what you want then you need to look for a church you can believe.

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.

PS: Surely you cannot compare giving little league soccer awards to giving the Nobel prize. Nobody calls little league soccer players the smartest people in the world nor are there documentaries of little league soccer players on PBS and History channel, nor nobody writes 500 page books about little league soccer players, nor are they given million dollar prizes.

 

[Dale]

more and more accurate natural explanations of how the natural world works

I agree with that. Better and better models, not “ultimate truth”.

world's best science university Berkeley ... the scientists at Berkeley who are the best in the world

Wow, you are very prone to exaggeration

Surely you cannot compare giving little league soccer awards to giving the Nobel prize

I didn’t compare them. I was merely pointing out how absurdly exaggerated your “why give awards and appreciate people for things we are not sure of” complaint is. The threshold for an award or appreciation is not an eternally unsurpassable achievement. The threshold for an award is more like showing up to little league. If we can give awards for showing up to soccer, then we can surely give awards to scientific accomplishments that may be superseded in the future.

Nobody calls little league soccer players the smartest people in the world

You have clearly never attended one of these riveting sporting events and spoken with the “fans”.

nor are they given million dollar prizes

Even larger prizes are given for scratching off stickers

 

[Varsha Verma]

I agree with that. Better and better models, not “ultimate truth”.

Well, yes, science works at getting better and better models with the aim of getting to the "ultimate truth".

So, we are are on the way to the ultimate truth.

Surely, that is what they mean.

What is the point of just creating better models without hoping to get at the "ultimate truth".

Surely that is a big waste of time and money.

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".

 

[Varsha Verma]

I didn’t compare them. I was merely pointing out how absurdly exaggerated your “why give awards and appreciate people for things we are not sure of” complaint is. The threshold for an award or appreciation is not an eternally unsurpassable achievement. The threshold for an award is more like showing up to little league. If we can give awards for showing up to soccer, then we can surely give awards to scientific accomplishments that may be superseded in the future.

We give football world cup winners prizes. But we KNOW that the world cup will go to a different team. This is expected behavior.

But giving prizes for "science" is completely different. When we give the Nobel prize to scientists like Al Einstein, at least the general public, thinks that their findings will not change. Change is acceptable only if the change "improves" the present model.

But you guys are saying that somebody in the future can come up with a completely different view of what the scientist who get Nobel Prizes say to, meaning that it is not an "improvement", but COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, meaning that today's Noble winners were downright "wrong". You says this is a possibility. This is completely unacceptable. Well, if THIS is science then we cannot give any award to any scientist.

So, for example in 2011 3 scientists Adam Riess, Brian Schmidt, Saul Perlmutter was awarded the Nobel for showing (not proving ;-) ) that the universe is not just expanding, but is accelerating.

So, now you guys are saying that 200 years from now, well in the future, scientists COULD find out that the universe is not actually accelerating. So, Adam Riess, Brian Schmidt, Saul Perlmutter was WRONG. You are saying that this COULD happen. You cannot guarantee that the universe is accelerating. So, then surely Adam Riess, Brian Schmidt, Saul Perlmutter clearly does not deserve any prize. If THIS is how you say science works, then I am completely disappointed.

What about the WONDER OF SCIENCE?

What about the things like the World Science Festival which I follow very closely. Well then no point in spending hours watching this stuff because in the future everything we know know could be proven to be false.

Well, so much for science. I might have to find another hobby now...

PS: I just wonder what those Nobel prize winning scientists who are without any doubt the smartest people in the world actually think about this issue?? It would really great to hear from these guys what THEY think about all of this don't you think??

 

[Varsha Verma]

Even larger prizes are given for scratching off stickers

It's not really the prize money amount that is the problem here. It's the context and the intention.

A lottery is a agreed thing. We all accept what a lottery is. That is, you CAN win 100 million just scratching a price of a paper. Society has no problem with it, and when anybody wins nobody complains because it is done according to the agreed set of rules.

Well, we the public, thinks THAT science prizes like the Nobel prize is given to scientists with a generous cash award for telling US the public the TRUTH about THE UNIVERSE. That is why people admire and respect people like Einstein, and more recently Stephen Hawking. Why did people, meaning the general public loved and admired Stephen Hawking. Because we believed he told the TRUTH about the universe, galaxies and black holes and stuff like that.

But now YOU GUYS are saying that it is not the case. You are saying that EVERYTHING that Hawking said or discovered as true, in the future COULD be shown to be dead WRONG. The universe could be completely different to what we think as it is today.

So now we have a big problem. That is, what this means is that these "scientists" are actually lying to us.

So, if this is the case, then we have to do a complete review of the role of the "scientists". So, then "scientists" could no longer be said to know anything about the any "truth". They become mere "technologists", where only any technology that can result through the finding of science is left for us to either our benefit or detriment, like calibrating GPS satellites using GR and SR, atoms bombs and and things like that.

 

[jbriggs444]

with the aim of getting to the "ultimate truth".

A lofty goal. But not very realistic. It is enough to take small steps.

But now YOU GUYS are saying that it is not the case. You are saying that EVERYTHING that Hawking said or discovered as true, in the future COULD be shown to be dead WRONG. The universe could be completely different to what we think as it is today.

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.

 

[Dale]

But now YOU GUYS are saying that it is not the case. You are saying that EVERYTHING that Hawking said or discovered as true, in the future COULD be shown to be dead WRONG.

In addition to the Asimov essay, you should read the recent Insights article by @ZapperZ

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/classical-physics-is-wrong-fallacy/

 

[Outhouse]

Because isn't prove and show the same thing.

No.

Science observes and reports what it finds in said observations. While it does not prove anything, facts can be observed and verified.

Knowledge can be advanced by observing. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.

 

[Outhouse]

Because you say that "you start with a theory and then generate a testable hypothesis". But, doesn't it happen the other way around. First all you have is the "hypothesis", right??

No.

You have to have the idea, you have to have the thought of something being a certain way, so that you can develop a credible test to confirm your idea is correct. Even if said test are carried out and you believe you have a correct result. The result is always open to advancement and or the chance to be falsified. It is an ongoing process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[2] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[3] The Oxford Dictionaries Online defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses".[4]

 

[Varsha Verma]

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.

This is a really good explanation. Thanks...

 

[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.