4 ms·
If we waited until we were absolutely sure of something we wouldn't be saying much ever would we? Isn't the whole point of science to postulate things and then
by markcerqueira 9y ago
If we waited until we were absolutely sure of something we wouldn't be saying much ever would we? Isn't the whole point of science to postulate things and then prove or disprove them? Advances can also take "proven" things and prove them wrong.
- coldtea 9y ago>If we waited until we were absolutely sure of something we wouldn't be saying much ever would we? Parent ask for those things to merely be tested. Not to have absolutely certain conclusions from those tests.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago>we wouldn't be saying much ever would we? // We could say plenty within the standard scientific framework of presenting hypotheses, testing, promoting to theory. Indeed if you're a scientist that follows a falsificationist methodology for the progress of scientific understanding then all science - all knowledge, for realists - is within that framework. >Advances can also take "proven" things and prove them wrong. // No, because proven means something is true, if it's proven that the claim was wrong then it was not proven in the first place. In _science_ things are held as theories. If they're not yet falsified, they get stronger the more they're tested and not found lacking. The only "truths" are our assumptions/axioms, claims for scientific truth beyond that are scientism.