Can you prove anything using the Scientific Method?

[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.