science

Post Reply New Topic

i was wondering what all the people on wrongplanet had as awnser to this question

Scientists have a high threshold of "proof". They just to prove anything unless there is indisputable evidence. So many things that exist are still hypothesis or theorems for example.

Probably. A thought fitting in with the least-used word in this section, philosophy, has risen in my mind recently. Science has no proof whatsoever if you categorically deny the way science works. Perhaps scientists observe something from their perspective. Perhaps no human can know the truth about anything, just a coloured interpretation. Perhaps there is no evolution, no gravity, no chemistry, because there is no world, and we're looking at all of that from a certain illusion which causes us to intrinsically adhere to those rules and see the world as adhering to them.

The planet Neptune existed long before its presence was inferred from the gravitational perturbations on the planet Uranus.

The neutrino existed long before Fermi postulated its existence.

The elements predicted by Mendeele'ev existed long before they were actually found.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 11 May 2012, 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This is one of those "Yes" and "No" questions that really cannot be answered with a yes and no. Things can exist within the natural world without having been proven by science, as Ruveyn said in an earlier post. Just to add to that bacteria, viruses existed and the world was actually heliocentric way before it was proven by science. However, this is not applicable to supernatural claims, as they are by definition "above" nature. Also, until something has been proven by science about the Universe, it cannot really be seen as "set in stone" fact.

There are things that you know, things that you KNOW THAT you dont know. and then there things that you DONT KNOW THAT you dont know.

The New World existed for billions of years, but pre columbian Europeans not only did not know of the existence of the New World- that werent even aware that were not aware of the existence of the American Continents.

So its safe to say that countless things exist today that we dont even conjecture about existing that do indeed exist that havent been discovered yet- but these are in the realm of things that we dont know that we dont know. So I couldnt say what those things are- because we dont know what they are yet. But stuff under the rubrik of "stuff we dont know that we dont know" must exist.

But if you're asking about stuff that we already concieve of existing but arent yet proven- but are a safe bet that exists- thats a smaller category of things, but there is alot of that to. For example there have to be billions of exo planets in the Universe beyond the mere 200 weve discovered that must also exist.

There are many more things that science hasn't shed light on than it has.

Can't prove it though.

Yes I think lots of things will be existing that science knows nothing about. We are currently searching for the higgs bosson which is predicted to exist but no proof yet.

I think in 100 years the science text books will have lots of stuff in them that we have not even considered yet.

Science describes, and can be used to predict, what we experience. It proves that we are often in error.

Science only disproves. It never fully proves. It merely gets to the point where something is so strongly implied that it can be accepted as "true."

I'm an instrumentalist. So to me science doesn't really prove or disprove the existance of anything - the map is not the territory.

It's a tool. It makes models that are useful because they predict things to greater or lesser degrees of accuracy. Nothing more.

Well, there are still truths found through science, and the science can be said to "prove" something for all practical purposes. I mean, your last sentence seems no more different for science than it does for any inquiry. There are things people(including scientists) can call "scientific truths".

I think the issue here is that while falsificationism is a model of science and one very popular based upon the influence of Karl Popper, it isn't the only model, and it probably isn't the correct model either, but rather a useful partial model. Science does a lot more than just disproving things, as theories are organizations of facts, but they aren't just the results of chiseling away impossibilities, but rather creating a new hypothesis requires a lot of ingenuity and hypotheses and theories organize the scientific discipline's search for knowledge. It isn't just a matter of cutting things away. So, the falsificationist metaphor is like sculpting, or brushing away debris to uncover an artifact, but, honestly, I think the better conceptual metaphor is probably more like a murder investigation, or a search, especially given that you have to recognize that science emerged somewhat organically from pre-existing thought structures(nobody really invented science), where pure falsificationism is wholly artificial and insufficient if we have a broad field to search.

That's interesting, but couldn't the same reasons to claim science as merely an instrument also be applied to every other search for knowledge?

Science isn't profoundly different than any other search. It's more disciplined in many ways, and more institutionalized, but it isn't as if we have this huge gap between pre-existing methods of finding truth and then science on the other hand. If a scientific study doesn't work, then a lot of non-scientific claims must fall by the wayside because of the similarities in approach and the higher standards of the scientific approach.

Lame question is lame.

I don't know. If science doesn't know about it not existing, then neither do I. However, science never claimed completeness at the present moment either, so, it's entirely possible something exists that science hasn't proven.

I do think it's basically not possible for any knowable truth to exist that couldn't be "proven"/"incorporated" into a scientific model. (Y'know, excluding a priori claims) So, if it exists and can be known empirically, then it is potentially knowable through scientifically legitimate methods.(So, a technology/method proven to be successful counts, because not every instance of an event can be put into experiments)

Of course. Embrace uncertainty. It will make you more mentally dynamic. Certainty is an emotional need that will cripple your rationality.