4 ms·

This is a strange belief to hold, considering we can prove this not to be the case with pure logic. Suppose we observe that when A happens, B occurs. This does

This is a strange belief to hold, considering we can prove this not to be the case with pure logic. Suppose we observe that when A happens, B occurs. This does not imply that A causes B. In fact, we can never confirm that A causes B, regardless of how closely we measure the reaction. 'Preposterous!' I hear you say on the other end of the intertubes.. but alas, it is true. Beyond the realm of reality and hubris we might observe that in fact X causes Y, and that A is simply an observable effect of X. Similarly, B is just an effect of Y. If you really want to explode that mind, think about how broadly this concept can be applied.

debacle 11y ago
Science is about creating a model that reflects the predictable outcomes in the natural world. If something is unpredictable, science works to understand why. If something that previously was predictable suddenly became unpredictable, science would happen and our model would change. Science is not a mindset or field. It is an act of accomplishing understanding. If there is something mankind can reason about, we can also do science-y stuff with it.
- vixen99 11y ago
  Then we have the famous quote: "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t". "What about a poll among 33 leading thinkers at a conference in Austria in 2011. This group of physicists, mathematicians and philosophers was given 16 multiple-choice questions about the meaning of the theory, and their answers displayed little consensus." "One of the most telling questions in the Austrian poll was whether there will still be conferences about the meaning of quantum theory in 50 years time. Forty-eight percent said “probably yes”, only 15% said “probably no”. Twelve percent said “I’ll organize one no matter what”, but that’s academics for you." From a BBC article by Philip Ball.
  - jules 11y ago
    If you asked a group of 33 physicists, mathematicians and philosophers 16 multiple choice questions about number theory you would probably also not get much consensus. All that would prove is that physicists and philosophers and mathematicians who are not number theorists do not know much about number theory. Or that the questions are vague.
snarfy 11y ago
This is a flawed argument. Nothing can be proven in that sense. We cannot even prove that 1 = 1. I cannot prove the sun will rise tomorrow, but there is a high probability it will.
- knodi123 11y ago
  I had a professor in college who, when challenged with that kind of "but we can't knoooowwwww" argument, would reply "Alright, you are correct. But for the sake of not being an insufferable twit, let us assume that 1 = 1 and move on..."
xlm1717 11y ago
We might observe that X causes Y, and A is just an effect of X while B is an effect of Y. When we observe this, we come up with explanations as to how it happened, describe it using mathematics or chemical symbols or whatever is appropriate. In this way, science is done. There are still a lot of mysteries out there today. Scientists are working on explaining them.

debacle 11y ago

Science is about creating a model that reflects the predictable outcomes in the natural world. If something is unpredictable, science works to understand why. If something that previously was predictable suddenly became unpredictable, science would happen and our model would change. Science is not a mindset or field. It is an act of accomplishing understanding. If there is something mankind can reason about, we can also do science-y stuff with it.

vixen99 11y ago
Then we have the famous quote: "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t". "What about a poll among 33 leading thinkers at a conference in Austria in 2011. This group of physicists, mathematicians and philosophers was given 16 multiple-choice questions about the meaning of the theory, and their answers displayed little consensus." "One of the most telling questions in the Austrian poll was whether there will still be conferences about the meaning of quantum theory in 50 years time. Forty-eight percent said “probably yes”, only 15% said “probably no”. Twelve percent said “I’ll organize one no matter what”, but that’s academics for you." From a BBC article by Philip Ball.
- jules 11y ago
  If you asked a group of 33 physicists, mathematicians and philosophers 16 multiple choice questions about number theory you would probably also not get much consensus. All that would prove is that physicists and philosophers and mathematicians who are not number theorists do not know much about number theory. Or that the questions are vague.

snarfy 11y ago

This is a flawed argument. Nothing can be proven in that sense. We cannot even prove that 1 = 1. I cannot prove the sun will rise tomorrow, but there is a high probability it will.

knodi123 11y ago
I had a professor in college who, when challenged with that kind of "but we can't knoooowwwww" argument, would reply "Alright, you are correct. But for the sake of not being an insufferable twit, let us assume that 1 = 1 and move on..."

xlm1717 11y ago

We might observe that X causes Y, and A is just an effect of X while B is an effect of Y. When we observe this, we come up with explanations as to how it happened, describe it using mathematics or chemical symbols or whatever is appropriate. In this way, science is done. There are still a lot of mysteries out there today. Scientists are working on explaining them.