Can Science Prove Anything? (virtual, experience)

[logician]

Scientists make a hypothesis which is a conjecture of a possible explanation of some phenomenon. That hypothesis (if considered a serious one) is tested, and if it holds up becomes a theory that explains the associated phenomenon (Einstein's theory of relativity).

Theories can always be disproven, (found to be false) if someone testing comes up with countradicting data.

String theory is a mathematical theory that never has been tested, because nobody can set up an adequate test, thus it is not a "supported" theory (supported by data).

[stephenw]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Can science prove anything? If so, what and why? If not, why not?

It can prove whatever whoever supplies the funding wants.

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Bonus question: Can your doctor prove the pain in your arm is caused by a broken bone?

If he wiggled it a little I believe that would convince me.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by logician

Scientists make a hypothesis which is a conjecture of a possible explanation of some phenomenon. That hypothesis (if considered a serious one) is tested, and if it holds up becomes a theory that explains the associated phenomenon (Einstein's theory of relativity).

Theories can always be disproven, (found to be false) if someone testing comes up with countradicting data.

I have to disagree. Theories are never "disproven" in any sense. They will always be valid and appropriate given the information that evidences them --the scientific method ensures this. New information does not take that away in any sense, it simply provides us with a new theory. New set of information, new theory; old set of information, old theory --both valid.

[painted wolf]

Originally Posted by stephenw

It can prove whatever whoever supplies the funding wants.

The Tobacco industry wasn't able to change the fact that cigarettes cause cancer no matter how much money they spent. Money doesn't produce evidence, it can fudge numbers but that isn't proof.

Originally Posted by willamena

I have to disagree. Theories are never "disproven" in any sense. They will always be valid and appropriate given the information that evidences them --the scientific method ensures this. New information does not take that away in any sense, it simply provides us with a new theory. New set of information, new theory; old set of information, old theory --both valid.

history is filled with disproved theories. The theory of Aether, geocentric theory, The phlogiston theory of fire and so on.
Many theories needed to be modified by newer theories. Newtonian physics by Einsteinian physics by Quantum physics...

wa:do

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

history is filled with disproved theories. The theory of Aether, geocentric theory, The phlogiston theory of fire and so on.
Many theories needed to be modified by newer theories. Newtonian physics by Einsteinian physics by Quantum physics...

wa:do

Again, I respectfully disagree.

[logician]

Originally Posted by Willamena

I have to disagree. Theories are never "disproven" in any sense. They will always be valid and appropriate given the information that evidences them --the scientific method ensures this. New information does not take that away in any sense, it simply provides us with a new theory. New set of information, new theory; old set of information, old theory --both valid.

Maybe "disproven" is a bad terminology - only valid under certain conditions could be better.

[painted wolf]

I fail to see how geocentrism could be valid. Perhaps I'm missing something?

wa:do

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

I fail to see how geocentrism could be valid. Perhaps I'm missing something?

wa:do

In the context of the information under which it was theorized, it can be nothing else.

It's only when (and if) you take it out of context that it can become false.

[painted wolf]

actually not really... the information for geocentrism was political/religious. Evidence for heliocentrism was reccognized by anchient greeks, the writers of the Vedas and the Babalonians for example.

No context ever made geocentrism accurate. Its only taking geocentrism out of the context of genuine evidence that it becomes feasible.

wa:do

[Willamena]

Then, the way you describe it, it's not a scientific theory.