B Can you prove anything using the Scientific Method?

[Varsha Verma]

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??

 

[phinds]

The scientific method is not about "proving" anything, it is about how to develop theories that comport with observations and make predictions about future observations. You never prove anything in physics, that's a math thing.

 

[Dale]

it is impossible for the scientific method (SM) to prove that anything is true

Yes, this is well known.

So like mathematics, the scientific method builds knowledge on axioms which cannot be proven to be true

I would say that the scientific method builds knowledge on experimental evidence, not axioms. But experimental evidence verifies or falsifies theories, it does not prove them.

If you push an object -> it will move says the SM. But it does not show that there is a force.

It definitely does show it. Just because it isn’t proven doesn’t mean that it isn’t shown. And just because it isn’t certain doesn’t mean it isn’t knowledge.

I think that you are overemphasizing the importance of proofs in the development of knowledge

 

[Varsha Verma]

Yes, this is well known.

I would say that the scientific method builds knowledge on experimental evidence, not axioms. But experimental evidence verifies or falsifies theories, it does not prove them.

It definitely does show it. Just because it isn’t proven doesn’t mean that it isn’t shown. And just because it isn’t certain doesn’t mean it isn’t knowledge.

I think that you are overemphasizing the importance of proofs in the development of knowledge

I am a big fan of astronomy and cosmology and astrophysics. Particularly SETI project.

So, for example when these days scientists discover exoplanets using the SM like this (artist rendition),

they are saying that the planet is actually there, right??

Does the SM tell us that the planet is actually there, that it exists ? Because we cannot directly see it using a telescope.

 

[phinds]

Does the SM tell us that the planet is actually there, that it exists ?

You are putting too much emphasis on the scientific method. OBSERVATIONS (and extrapolations from those observations) tell us that it is there.

 

[Dale]

they are saying that the planet is actually there, right??

Yes, and the evidence shows that the planet is actually there. It doesn’t prove it, but it does show it.

Does the SM tell us that the planet is actually there, that it exists ? Because we cannot directly see it using a telescope.

Directly seeing it with a telescope isn’t proof either.

 

[anorlunda]

Leonard Susskind said, "Physicists aren't interested in what is true, but rather what is useful."

The scientific method is not about "proving" anything, it is about how to develop theories that comport with observations and make predictions about future observations.

What @phinds said is the kind of useful that Susskind meant.

 

[Dale]

You are putting too much emphasis on the scientific method.

Et tu phinds!

 

[Varsha Verma]

Yes, and the evidence shows that the planet is actually there. It doesn’t prove it, but it does show it.

Directly seeing it with a telescope isn’t proof either.

I am a bit confused.

Because isn't prove and show the same thing.

In Google I looked at the meaning of "prove" and it says this:
Prove = demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
Synonyms = show.

So, I think they are the same thing right?? To show something is there is also to prove it's there, right?

Or, when you say "prove" you mean like in the mathematical sense of "proof".

But when you search for the meaning of "proof" in Google I get the same thing:
Proof = evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

So, when scientists using the scientific method and "show" that an exoplanet exist 1000s of light years away orbiting a star he is in fact giving us "proof" isn't it?
He is in-fact giving us "evidence or argument establishing a fact which is that a planet exists or the truth of a statement, the statement being that an exoplanet exists".

So, aren't all (show, prove, proof) the same same thing?

I feel it is the same thing.

If not, what is the difference between show and prove?

 

[Dale]

Or, when you say "prove" you mean like in the mathematical sense of "proof".

Yes, I thought that was the sense in which you meant it, particularly given how you used it in the original post. In any case, that is the usual meaning here.

A proof is the standard form of deductive reasoning. Science is based on inductive reasoning, hence it is not proof as you yourself mentioned in the OP.

You should re read your own statements regarding “proof” in the OP for context here.

 

[Varsha Verma]

Why is Directly seeing it with a telescope isn’t proof either?

We don't modify anything when we see things from a telescope, the light is the original light which came from the object, so it has to be real right?

 

[Dale]

Why is Directly seeing it with a telescope isn’t proof either?

Because it is still inductive reasoning, not deductive. Do you understand the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning? It doesn’t matter how strong the inductive argument is, it does not turn into deductive reasoning

 

[Varsha Verma]

Because it is still inductive reasoning, not deductive. Do you understand the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning? It doesn’t matter how strong the inductive argument is, it does not turn into deductive reasoning

Well, I don't fully understand the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning.

Can you give a real life example of both with regards to Physics??

Also, is deductive reasoning superior to inductive reasoning?

 

[Varsha Verma]

Hi, according to this page: https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html

the scientific method also uses the deductive approach.

"The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. "In deductive inference, we hold a theory and based on it we make a prediction of its consequences. That is, we predict what the observations should be if the theory were correct. We go from the general — the theory — to the specific — the observations," said Dr. Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller, a researcher and professor emerita at Albert Einstein College of Medicine."

But you said science is purely inductive?

 

[mjc123]

Leonard Susskind said, "Physicists aren't interested in what is true, but rather what is useful."

Was it Thomson who gave the toast "The electron: may it never be of any use to anybody!"?

 

[Dale]

Well, I don't fully understand the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning.

Can you give a real life example of both with regards to Physics??

Desuctive reasoning is mathematical theorems or proofs. In science it is the part of the scientific method where you start with a theory and then generate a testable hypothesis. You prove mathematically that if the theory is correct then you will see some hypothesized observation in a given experiment. For example, Noether’s theorem showed that if the laws of physics are time invariant then energy is conserved.

Inductive reasoning is the part of the scientific method where you perform the experiment and compare the result to the hypothesis. Then, if the data matches the hypothesis you conclude, via inductive reasoning, that the theory is valid, at least in the domain covered by the experiment. For instance, if energy is conserved in an experiment then you would take that as experimental validation of your theory that the laws of physics are time invariant.

Also, is deductive reasoning superior to inductive reasoning?

I don’t believe so, I think that both are useful and have their value. The scientific method uses them together to advance knowledge effectively.

the scientific method also uses the deductive approach.

Yes

But you said science is purely inductive?

Did I? I don’t think so, but if I did, then my apologies. The inductive part is the part that distinguishes science from other disciplines like math or philosophy that exclusively use deductive reasoning. Science uses both. That is partly what makes it so effective at generating knowledge.

 

[Varsha Verma]

Desuctive reasoning is mathematical theorems or proofs. In science it is the part of the scientific method where you start with a theory and then generate a testable hypothesis. You prove mathematically that if the theory is correct then you will see some hypothesized observation in a given experiment. For example, Noether’s theorem showed that if the laws of physics are time invariant then energy is conserved.

Inductive reasoning is the part of the scientific method where you perform the experiment and compare the result to the hypothesis. Then, if the data matches the hypothesis you conclude, via inductive reasoning, that the theory is valid, at least in the domain covered by the experiment. For instance, if energy is conserved in an experiment then you would take that as experimental validation of your theory that the laws of physics are time invariant.

I don’t believe so, I think that both are useful and have their value. The scientific method uses them together to advance knowledge effectively.

Yes

Did I? I don’t think so, but if I did, then my apologies. The inductive part is the part that distinguishes science from other disciplines like math or philosophy that exclusively use deductive reasoning. Science uses both. That is partly what makes it so effective at generating knowledge.

I still don't get this "deductive" part in in science.

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?? How can you have a theory first?? Because, from what I understand, a "theory" in science is " a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. ".

So, I don't understand how you can start with a "theory" and end up with a hypothesis. Is this a special, rare thing in science??

Is science mainly "inductive"??

So, did Thompson, and Rutherford, Chadwick discover the atom, proton, neutron and electrons through the deduction process or induction process??

 

[russ_watters]

Part of the issue here may be that "proof" or "proven" can be used to describe the outcome of either inductive or deductive reasoning. Mathematical "proofs" are 100% true (or 100% false) and therefore "proven" whereas scientific theories can never be 100% true but can be said to be "proven" to a lower standard, similar to how a court case is won or lost based on a lower certainty.

 

[A.T.]

But, doesn't it happen the other way around.

It doesn't matter. What matters is that in the end you have a quantitative model that matches observation.

 

[anorlunda]

Because, from what I understand, a "theory" in science is " a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. ".

That understanding can confuse you. There are no language police to enforce uniform and consistent use of words like theory, law, hypothesis, and so on. For example, "Newton's Laws" versus "Einstein's Theories of Relativity." Use of law and theory in those contexts are just accidents of history.

Math can be precise, but natural language will never be precise.

 

[jbriggs444]

First all you have is the "hypothesis", right?? How can you have a theory first??

Do not put so much emphasis on word choice. The word "theory" does not always mean some well confirmed and reasonably complete explanation for some set of facts. It can be used (as @Dale uses it above) to simply mean some arbitrary and tentative explanation whose correctness will need to be probed further.

Personally, I use the scientific method pretty much every day at my job (network troubleshooting). A user will come in with a complaint about some behavior. [Sometimes they will even have some symptoms more precise than "it's slow" or "it doesn't work"]. After verifying the symptoms, the first thing that one does is to try to come up with some theories that fit the observed facts. DNS failure? Asymmetric routing? Firewall policy? PMTU black hole? Intermittent packet loss? Inadequate buffering for the round trip delay? QoS bits being stripped off?, etc, etc.

If one cannot come up with a good theory, things get really difficult. You end up having to gather data blindly, hoping that a detectable pattern will emerge.

With a set of theories in hand, the next step is to see which can be ruled out or substantiated. This is where experiment comes in. One stops and thinks: "If this explanation holds, what resulting behavior can I test for?". So one tests DNS resolution, runs traceroutes and looks at routing tables, examines firewall logs and obtains packet captures.

All through the process, one has to keep in mind that all diagnoses are tentative -- every diagnostic test has weaknesses which can and sometimes will lead to false conclusions.

 

[Bandersnatch]

So, I don't understand how you can start with a "theory" and end up with a hypothesis. Is this a special, rare thing in science??

Let's walk through an example.

You are an astronomer hunting for exoplanets. You have on hand a set of tools: mathematics and physical theories. These have been worked through earlier by other people, so you're not concerned with their validity - you know they've been either proven (in the case of mathematical theorems, relationships, etc.) or supported with evidence beyond reasonable doubt (in the case of physical theories). You assume they're correct.

Your tools in hunting for exoplanets would likely be geometric relationships, theory of gravity, theory of stellar structure, optics, etc.

So you observe a certain star, and see a dip in brightness. You then use all your tools to deductively formulate a hypothesis: given what we know about geometry, optics, gravity, and the star, we hypothesise that there should be a planet with such and such characteristics, in such and such orbit. The hypothesis gives some predictions - the star should have repeated and equal dips in brightness at such and such precise intervals. This let's you use induction to test the hypothesis against further observations, either falsifying or supporting it.

 

[Dale]

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?? How can you have a theory first??

Hmm, science is an iterative process, so what comes first is a little ambiguous, but how could you have a hypothesis without a theory? A hypothesis is a prediction of the outcome of a particular experiment. On what basis could you make a prediction other than a theory?

a "theory" in science is " a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. ".

That is a bad definition since it does not allow for new theories which are not yet well substantiated.

I don’t know what is your source for all of this, but it does not appear to be a very good source. Anything that teaches about the scientific method in general without describing the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is suspect.

 

[Varsha Verma]

Hmm, science is an iterative process, so what comes first is a little ambiguous, but how could you have a hypothesis without a theory? A hypothesis is a prediction of the outcome of a particular experiment. On what basis could you make a prediction other than a theory?

That is a bad definition since it does not allow for new theories which are not yet well substantiated.

I don’t know what is your source for all of this, but it does not appear to be a very good source. Anything that teaches about the scientific method in general without describing the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is suspect.

I got it from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

A new theory which is not yet well substantiated is still a hypothesis, right??

Hypothesis = a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

Like for example "String Theory" is actually "Sting Hypothesis", right??

But they use "String Theory" because I think it sounds good.

 

[Dale]

I got it from Wikipedia:

That does explain a lot.

Without getting hung up further on vocabulary. Your OP clearly started out with the idea of “proof” as a logical deduction, and correctly pointed out that by reliance on experiment the scientific method is based on inductive reasoning. Nevertheless, the result of inductive reasoning is still informative even though it does not constitute a logical deductive “proof”.

 

[rootone]

I think we should be accepting that the English word 'proof', has a another context beyond that of mathematical proof.
I am certain that existence of the planet Venus is proven for example.

 

[Dale]

Sure, but the way that the OP was using the word in the OP was clearly that of a logical deductive proof. Since it has that meaning (among others) and since that is the clearly intended meaning, it is fine to stick with that meaning for the purpose of this thread.

 

[Varsha Verma]

That does explain a lot.

Without getting hung up further on vocabulary. Your OP clearly started out with the idea of “proof” as a logical deduction, and correctly pointed out that by reliance on experiment the scientific method is based on inductive reasoning. Nevertheless, the result of inductive reasoning is still informative even though it does not constitute a logical deductive “proof”.

So, I want to understanding this clearly:

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

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

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

 

[Varsha Verma]

I think we should be accepting that the English word 'proof', has a another context beyond that of mathematical proof.
I am certain that existence of the planet Venus is proven for example.

Brilliant. I really like this example

 

[jbriggs444]

Donald Knuth had something to say about proofs:

"I have only proved it correct, not tried it"

 

[sophiecentaur]

There has been a change from using the word "Law" to using "Theory". Those words have much the same meaning except that a Theory always has a get-out clause, which is what Science always needs in order to be real Science. Theory has to be 'falsifiable', according to Popper, which means that there must be the possibility (new evidence or some alternative way of processing the information) that suggests the theory is 'wrong' or 'not complete'. People used to use the word Law because, originally, the Universe was thought to be operating under Laws which had been invented by a 'maker' or 'god'. Our aim was to discover what those Laws actually were. Nowadays, we use the word Theory because we expect / would not be too surprised if any of our theories would be found wanting in some way.
We have found no evidence that the original way of thinking was correct. But we could all be totally wrong. The Creationists could be right, even but that doesn't affect Science at all. We keep on with the Scientific method because we have no alternative.

 

[Varsha Verma]

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

In mathematics, don't we do the same thing??

For example take the Pythagoras theorem the mos famous theorem in mathematics. We prove the Pythagoras theorem by actually drawing areas and calculating the areas of the 3 side squares.

But aren't we also showing that it is true??

We are giving evidence to show that if you add the areas of the 2 squares, then their the sum of that will equal to the big square.

So, proof is the same as showing, isn't it?

Source: http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emt668/emt668.student.folders/headangela/essay1/pythagorean.html

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.

 

[jbriggs444]

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

It seems that you are still putting more emphasis on word choice than is warranted by context.

Yes, in mathematics, one often informally tosses off words like "show" and "prove" as if they are synonymous. Since words mean what they are used and understood to mean, they are, in fact synonymous in such an informal context.

More formally, one could carefully define "proof" in terms of a particular logical system. For instance: "A 'proof' is a sequence of well formed statements, each of which is either an axiom or follows by the rules of inference from prior statements in the proof".

One could then "prove" a statement by exhibiting a proof whose last line is that statement.

Unfortunately, such a proof only shows the statement is provable, not that it is true. To be assured that the statement is true, one would need an assurance that the logical system is sound. From whence can such an assurance come?

 

[itfitmewelltoo]

Synonyms aren't equivalent. They are mostly the same but different in nuance. "Hate" and "dislike" are synonyms but I not like something without hating it. A better synonym for "dislike" is "don't care for".

As far as I'm concerned, if an analysis shows the data to have only a 1% chance of having occurred, it is "proven". I can go forward with manufacturing based on that.

 

[anorlunda]

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

As @Dale said, advances are often iterative and use both kinds of logic. A good example is Einstein's Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR).

Einstein invented SR to explain evidence that already existed. The Michelson-Morely experiment , and Maxwell's Equations were among the prior evidence.

Later, Einstein invented GR. Then he used GR to predict that the light from stars would bend as they passed close to the sun. That was something never before seen or suspected. When that was confirmed experimentally, GR was considered validated.

So in one case he had experiment first and theory later. In the other case he had theory first and experiment later. Both use 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...