What is provable science?

[Twilight Hue]

Like the claim that getting hit with a hammer always ends in pain and blood. Claiming science has proven this, is not true. However, the evidence and science have convinced me that hitting myself in the head with a hammer is not a good idea. Since the likely outcome is not going to be pleasant.

Of course, I could put on a hard hat and then, no pain, no blood.

I dunno.

This Hammer is up for the challenge I think.

 

[Revoltingest]

I recently saw a post where a claim was made that provable science aligns with God and the Bible. Further, disdain was shown for theoretical science. No description of either of these was offered and no reason for favoring one over the other was offered.

I have no idea what provable science is and wondered if anyone can provide a description, explanation and examples of provable science.

I wish you the best of luck.
And encourage having low standards for answers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Facts can be misinterpreted.
Superseded theories in science - Wikipedia

You threw in support of the hammer experiment, yet it is explained by theories that you show here can be superseded if new information comes in. Isn't this contradicting the claim that there is such a thing as provable science.

Is a repeated event science, even one with a predicted outcome of extremely high likelihood? Is any observed event science?

Or is science the tool used to test the hammer/head event through experimentation and observation, then draw tentative conclusions and offer tentative explanations for that tested phenomenon?

 

[RestlessSoul]

OK. What is provable science in this context?

I don’t know what provable science is in any context. I’m not sure I know what is meant by the term.

But the means by which anything can be considered proven, is effectively the same in either context; we observe, we measure, we understand, and then we explain. If our explanation makes sense, it should be readily communicable; the closest we can get to an objective understanding of the natural world, is to compare our subjective observation with those of other people. If we are all agreed that the sky is blue and all things are lit by the sun, we can consider the case pretty much closed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I dunno.

This Hammer is up for the challenge I think.

Those are some pretty impressive hammers. I always wanted to know how they made giant metal soups bowls. Now I know.

I am sort of curious what they do if that giant, red hot twinkie falls off its platform.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wish you the best of luck.
And encourage having low standards for answers.

Thanks man. I am here, so...

It helps me to think on a subject, see different perspectives, new ideas, learn and enjoy the humorous comments.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don’t know what provable science is in any context. I’m not sure I know what is meant by the term.

But the means by which anything can be considered proven, is effectively the same in either context; we observe, we measure, we understand, and then we explain. If our explanation makes sense, it should be readily communicable; the closest we can get to an objective understanding of the natural world, is to compare our subjective observation with those of other people. If we are all agreed that the sky is blue and all things are lit by the sun, we can consider the case pretty much closed.

So if an observation has a very high probability and there is consensus, we can dismiss the improbable and consider it proven?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Shame this doesn't seem to apply to religions. That is, they often just seem to be incorporated into 'the message'. At least science tends to discard bad beliefs.

It should apply to every aspect of life, regardless.

The post I responded to, used the word “theory” which just happens to be a scientific term, but every field of thought should have “facts” to support it….not just ideas.

IMO, most religion fails in this regard. But not all of it, from what I’ve come to understand.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It should apply to every aspect of life, regardless.

The post I responded to, used the word “theory” which just happens to be a scientific term, but every field of thought should have “facts” to support it….not just ideas.

IMO, most religion fails in this regard. But not all of it, from what I’ve come to understand.

Well the 'facts' for many religious beliefs often lie within historical texts, and taken as fact, so not amenable to change that much. And is one of my main criticisms of religions - rooted and difficult to pull up - like some weeds. Which is where religions and science do differ. Most of us are ready to trash bad science when it is proven wrong.

 

[PureX]

Explanations and conclusions are tentative and might change upon the discovery of new data. Some theories have stood up so well and for so long, that the new data would have to be very robust.

Nevertheless, the point stands for that person being referred to in OP, even if their wording was pretty clumsy. And I think for some literal biblical theists, this is a big deal.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You threw in support of the hammer experiment, yet it is explained by theories that you show here can be superseded if new information comes in. Isn't this contradicting the claim that there is such a thing as provable science.

Is a repeated event science, even one with a predicted outcome of extremely high likelihood? Is any observed event science?

Or is science the tool used to test the hammer/head event through experimentation and observation, then draw tentative conclusions and offer tentative explanations for that tested phenomenon?

Blood & pain resulting from a “hammer/head event” is really not a phenomenon, is it?
Under normal conditions, I t’s the predicted outcome….every time.

But let me say this: I don’t find this world, “normal”. It’s under an insidious, misleading control. — 1 John 5:19; John 12:31.

Oh, it’s what all of us have been living with…..for many, many generations….. so it’s normal to us. But life, filled with hatred turmoil and confusion, was not supposed to be this way originally.

Take care.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So if an observation has a very high probability and there is consensus, we can dismiss the improbable and consider it proven?

That’s pretty much what we do, don’t you think?

In which case, there is no absolute reality, only degrees of probability…

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Most of us are ready to trash bad science when it is proven wrong.

Yep. Now, if we could just get people to trash ‘bad’ religion.
That’s hard, if it’s theirs.

But I guess there would have to be agreement on what would constitute a ‘faulty’ religion?

What do you think?

Could a religion be a ‘good’ one, if it condones hating other people?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Blood & pain resulting from a “hammer/head event” is really not a phenomenon, is it?
Under normal conditions, I t’s the predicted outcome….every time.

It's not every time. The hammer could slip. The force exerted could be minimal. There are many, many different things that can happen that can make it so getting hit in the head with a hammer doesn't hurt. This is why science does not prove getting hit in the head with a hammer will hurt. It may be the person getting hit has that disorder that makes it so one does not perceive or detect pain.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Blood & pain resulting from a “hammer/head event” is really not a phenomenon, is it?
Under normal conditions, I t’s the predicted outcome….every time.

But let me say this: I don’t find this world, “normal”. It’s under an insidious, misleading control. — 1 John 5:19; John 12:31.

Oh, it’s what all of us have been living with…..for many, many generations….. so it’s normal to us. But life, filled with hatred turmoil and confusion, was not supposed to be this way originally.

Take care.

What are the normal conditions for a hammer coming into contact with the human head?

How many examples of this have you reviewed to determine what the outcome is?

What other variables are or could be involved that would have to be considered?

Is an event science or is the study of that event the science?

Is there a theoretical basis for busting heads with hammers?

What does a failed potential for the human condition have to do with whether a hammer striking a head will yield blood and pain every time without any other outcome?

Moe hit Curly with a hammer to the head all the time. And Curly got famous and wealthy and there were girls.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It should apply to every aspect of life, regardless.

The post I responded to, used the word “theory” which just happens to be a scientific term, but every field of thought should have “facts” to support it….not just ideas.

IMO, most religion fails in this regard. But not all of it, from what I’ve come to understand.

And the theory of evolution has more facts supporting it than any other theory. Your demand was satisfied before you posted it here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's not every time. The hammer could slip. The force exerted could be minimal. There are many, many different things that can happen that can make it so getting hit in the head with a hammer doesn't hurt. This is why science does not prove getting hit in the head with a hammer will hurt. It may be the person getting hit has that disorder that makes it so one does not perceive or detect pain.

Or perhaps the target has Paget's disease and a hammer blow might be sloughed off as trivial and with no real damage.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That’s pretty much what we do, don’t you think?

In which case, there is no absolute reality, only degrees of probability…

That we take this functional approach does not prove that the probability we ignore will not happen. Neither does it represent something called "provable science". You are talking about how we apply knowledge and not that something is proven absolute or not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Blood & pain resulting from a “hammer/head event” is really not a phenomenon, is it?
Under normal conditions, I t’s the predicted outcome….every time.

But let me say this: I don’t find this world, “normal”. It’s under an insidious, misleading control. — 1 John 5:19; John 12:31.

Oh, it’s what all of us have been living with…..for many, many generations….. so it’s normal to us. But life, filled with hatred turmoil and confusion, was not supposed to be this way originally.

Take care.

I am not sure it makes a difference what we label it. A phenomenon, an event, an observation, it is not science. It is evidence. The science, regardless of how predictable an event is, still is underpinned with theory and their remains uncertainty in the conclusions.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Y

And when I get an infection from that hammer blow, it is proven to be caused by tiny organisms I cannot see?

Yes bacteria do exist even we can not see them with our eyes