5 ms·

>The article uses proof in a scientific sense Science does not deal in proofs, for example, the wiki page on scientific method does not use the word except in

>The article uses proof in a scientific sense Science does not deal in proofs, for example, the wiki page on scientific method does not use the word except in the mathematical sense [0]. Science deals in hypotheses, evidence, and models. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

brudgers 11y ago
One common form of scientific proof is that upon which your comment rests: pointing to something and proving that x obtains, e.g. showing me a unicorn would demonstrate that unicorns exist. G. E. Moore (the less famous of Wittgenstein's doctoral advisors) pointed out this out in Proof of an External World [1]. It's more popular form is Popper's falsifiability [2] which is the more commonly accepted formulation of scientific formalism. [1]: http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Moore%20Proof%20External.pdf http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/R... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
- ChrisLomont 11y ago
  Showing me a unicorn example is not proof that unicorns exist. It is evidence towards a hypothesis that they exist. After you present your unicorn, I may discover it is a modified horse. Science can never prove truth or falsity of anything - it only provides evidence for or against hypotheses, but every single thing can be changed subject to future evidence. As such, there is no true/false in science, only degrees of evidence. This article, which you claim uses proof "in the scientific sense," does not prove a hypothesis is false, only that is gets less and less likely and competing ones get more and more likely, which is what your examples are getting at. The article proves (in the mathematical sense) the non-existence of an item, only if a certain conjecture is true. As pointed out above, this is math, not empirical.

brudgers 11y ago

One common form of scientific proof is that upon which your comment rests: pointing to something and proving that x obtains, e.g. showing me a unicorn would demonstrate that unicorns exist. G. E. Moore (the less famous of Wittgenstein's doctoral advisors) pointed out this out in Proof of an External World [1]. It's more popular form is Popper's falsifiability [2] which is the more commonly accepted formulation of scientific formalism. [1]: http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Moore%20Proof%20External.pdf http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/R... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

ChrisLomont 11y ago
Showing me a unicorn example is not proof that unicorns exist. It is evidence towards a hypothesis that they exist. After you present your unicorn, I may discover it is a modified horse. Science can never prove truth or falsity of anything - it only provides evidence for or against hypotheses, but every single thing can be changed subject to future evidence. As such, there is no true/false in science, only degrees of evidence. This article, which you claim uses proof "in the scientific sense," does not prove a hypothesis is false, only that is gets less and less likely and competing ones get more and more likely, which is what your examples are getting at. The article proves (in the mathematical sense) the non-existence of an item, only if a certain conjecture is true. As pointed out above, this is math, not empirical.