Science cannot prove anything?

[Lili]

I often hear that science cannot prove any theory, but it can only disprove theories. But, it seems that science has proved many things. It has proved that infectious diseases are caused by germs. It has proved the effectiveness of certain drugs against certain ailments. It has proved that the earth revolves around the sun. It has proved the effectiveness of vaccines against certain diseases. So, how can it be true that science never finds proof?

[Crow]

One thing that strikes me off the top of my head is that science is willing to go back and revisit what it has "proved" as more evidence becomes available.

For example, infectious disease. Science proved that living microscopic organisms, AKA germs, caused infectious disease. But many years later we find that prions and viruses, which aren't life as we commonly define it, cause infectious disease also.

[Mark Little]

I often hear that science cannot prove any theory, but it can only disprove theories. But, it seems that science has proved many things. It has proved that infectious diseases are caused by germs. It has proved the effectiveness of certain drugs against certain ailments. It has proved that the earth revolves around the sun. It has proved the effectiveness of vaccines against certain diseases. So, how can it be true that science never finds proof?

A European naturalist in the middle ages does a study of swans in Europe and concludes that he has proven that all swans are white. For hundreds of years, this becomes a truism that all swans are white.

That is, until the European explorers come to Australia and find black swans. Now we can see the naturalist didn't actually prove there were only white swans, although for all practical European purposes it was true. What we did find is that one black swan could prove him wrong.

This is why we can never say that something is proven, but it can be shown to be false.

[wattsr1]

I often hear that science cannot prove any theory, but it can only disprove theories. But, it seems that science has proved many things. It has proved that infectious diseases are caused by germs. It has proved the effectiveness of certain drugs against certain ailments. It has proved that the earth revolves around the sun. It has proved the effectiveness of vaccines against certain diseases. So, how can it be true that science never finds proof?

Look at it in terms of Copernicus' idea that the earth orbits the sun.

Originally it was an interesting but 'wild' idea, to a large extent rejected by the scholars of the day. By the 1900s there was so much evidence in its favour, that the idea could not be reasonably rejected. However, no one had actually observed the earth orbiting the sun. It was an inference drawn from a lot of good data.

In 1957 (the first man-made satellite), we finally had the technology to observe this orbit directly (assuming that our satellites were not telling us what we designed them to tell us).

However, that the earth orbits the sun depends on a lot of things, one being our understanding of the nature of gravity. And even there we are not on utterly rock solid ground.

Google "The Pioneer Effect". The Voyager and Pioneer space craft are not exactly where they are meant to be, not quite, according to our understanding of solar system dynamics and gravitational interplays. This is, as far as I know, still an unresolved problem.

Maybe gravity is not quite what we think. And if it's not quite what we think, then what about the notion that the earth orbits the sun.


Theories are well tested ideas. As such they can always come undone by new and surprising discoveries.


However, you are right. It is a fact that the earth orbits the sun. Well, it's 99.999999% certain.



Regards, Roland

[Lili]

A European naturalist in the middle ages does a study of swans in Europe and concludes that he has proven that all swans are white. For hundreds of years, this becomes a truism that all swans are white.

That is, until the European explorers come to Australia and find black swans. Now we can see the naturalist didn't actually prove there were only white swans, although for all practical European purposes it was true. What we did find is that one black swan could prove him wrong.

This is why we can never say that something is proven, but it can be shown to be false.

Yes, I understand that theories have been modified or discarded as new evidence has been found. However, there are some theories that have such firm proof that I don't see how they can possibly be overturned in the future. For example, the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. We know this is true. It is observed. Could it really be disproved?

[magellan004]

Yes, I understand that theories have been modified or discarded as new evidence has been found. However, there are some theories that have such firm proof that I don't see how they can possibly be overturned in the future. For example, the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. We know this is true. It is observed. Could it really be disproved?

Science can neither prove nor disprove. All we can know is that either -
A. I experienced something (which to my mind settles the matter) or
B. Someone told me they had an experience and for me, that report settles the matter.

For example -
'Proof' -
1. I did calculations that show to me the Earth orbits the Sun and so to my mind that's proof or
2. I heard that someone did some calculations that the Earth orbits the Sun and that report, for me, seems like proof.

'Disproof' -
1. I did a calculation that shows the Earth does not orbit the Sun and to my mind that settles the matter or
2. I heard that someone did a calculation showing the Earth does not orbit the Sun and for me, that report disproves the idea.

Some people will use bigger numbers ; for example, '10 million people reported such and such'.

If 'I am convinced' equals 'The matter is proved ' or 'The matter is disproved' then science does prove and disprove.

Magellan

[phaedrus]

Science can neither prove nor disprove. All we can know is that either -
A. I experienced something (which to my mind settles the matter) or
B. Someone told me they had an experience and for me, that report settles the matter.

For example -
'Proof' -
1. I did calculations that show to me the Earth orbits the Sun and so to my mind that's proof or
2. I heard that someone did some calculations that the Earth orbits the Sun and that report, for me, seems like proof.

'Disproof' -
1. I did a calculation that shows the Earth does not orbit the Sun and to my mind that settles the matter or
2. I heard that someone did a calculation showing the Earth does not orbit the Sun and for me, that report disproves the idea.

Some people will use bigger numbers ; for example, '10 million people reported such and such'.

If 'I am convinced' equals 'The matter is proved ' or 'The matter is disproved' then science does prove and disprove.

Magellan

Have you ever had any science education?

[Mark Little]

Yes, I understand that theories have been modified or discarded as new evidence has been found. However, there are some theories that have such firm proof that I don't see how they can possibly be overturned in the future. For example, the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. We know this is true. It is observed. Could it really be disproved?

I guess that depends on what level of accuracy you want to invoke. Look at the Moon. At the loosest level, we say it revolves around the Earth because we observe it doing so. However, in reality, they both rotate around the Barycenter of the Earth - Moon System. If we go to further accuracy, we need to take into account the Sun and rest of the mass of the Solar System and so on.

I agree that in practical terms, the observation that the Earth orbits the Sun is highly unlikely to be ever overturned in the sense that it does not do some kind of orbit around the Sun - so highly unlikely that we could say impossible in everyday terms. Exactly how and why the orbit is as it does, is more likely to be modified.

[shunyadragon]

I often hear that science cannot prove any theory, but it can only disprove theories. But, it seems that science has proved many things. It has proved that infectious diseases are caused by germs.

First, germs is a nebulous layman's word. Second, no, science has not proved 'germs cause disease.' Over the last couple of centuries science has found that various different 'things' cause disease, such as, bacteria, virus, fungus, genetic defects, age, and environmental factors.

It has proved the effectiveness of certain drugs against certain ailments. It has proved that the earth revolves around the sun. It has proved the effectiveness of vaccines against certain diseases. So, how can it be true that science never finds proof?

In general, it good to avoid over simplification of examples on how science, math and philosophy view the concepts of 'proof.' In science it must be assumed that all knowledge and conclusions are subject falsification, no matter how obvious it may appear to be. There are many occasions in the past when science has considered issues and knowledge done and determined, but than found 'whooops!!' it was not quite 'proved,' or even totally wrong when new knowledge and research falsified previous theories.

[CommanderVimes]

Yes, I understand that theories have been modified or discarded as new evidence has been found. However, there are some theories that have such firm proof that I don't see how they can possibly be overturned in the future. For example, the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. We know this is true. It is observed. Could it really be disproved?

It's due to us knowing so little about the universe. Science is about understanding how and why things work the way they do. We observe the universe behaving in a certain way, a scientific theory would then be an explanation of why it's behaving that way. A theory could pass test after test but since we lack absolute knowledge we can only say that the theory is true to this point as we have no idea what future discoveries may bring.

An observation is different to a theory, you can't disprove an observation simply because it happens/ed. The earth revolving around the sun is an observation, it can't be disproven even if the earth ends up somewhere else. A theory explains the observations.

Take evolution for example, it is an observation and it can't be disproven. We know that species evolve. The theory of evolution explains why the species evolve (RM+NS) and that can be disproven.

[rogue06]

.



In general, it good to avoid over simplification of examples on how science, math and philosophy view the concepts of 'proof.' In science it must be assumed that all knowledge and conclusions are subject falsification, no matter how obvious it may appear to be. There are many occasions in the past when science has considered issues and knowledge done and determined, but than found 'whooops!!' it was not quite 'proved,' or even totally wrong when new knowledge and research falsified previous theories.

Exactly. In science it is understood that we don't know everything and never will. As new data comes in ideas and understandings may need to be reevaluated and either modified or even discarded if the new information contradicts it. If you want absolute certainty - "proof" - then science isn't the field to seek it in and you should turn to mathematics.

[Sparko]

so it has been scientifically proven that science can't prove anything.

[Lili]

First, germs is a nebulous layman's word. Second, no, science has not proved 'germs cause disease.' Over the last couple of centuries science has found that various different 'things' cause disease, such as, bacteria, virus, fungus, genetic defects, age, and environmental factors.

Of course, I know that genetic defects, environmental factors, etc can cause disease. I was referring to infectious diseases, such as flu and HIV. I agree that germ is a nebulous term, and I only used it because I was referring to the germ theory. By germs, I meant microorganisms.

I realize that science is self correcting, and this is one of its strengths. However, some theories seem impossible to overturn because there is so much proof for them.
For example, the theory that adequate calcium is needed for strong bones has been proved.

[Alien]

I guess one thing needs saying.

The fact that scientific theories are always subject to modification and even total replacement in the light of further evidence does not justify the phrase "only a theory" or tossing aside well supported scientific theories when they conflict with one's pet interpretation of scripture.

[FreezBee]

so it has been scientifically proven that science can't prove anything.

That would be metascience, which isn't science.

- FreezBee