5 ms·

Sort of meta, but I always shudder when someone says that science has "proven" something. What sets science apart from most other methods of seeking answers is

by aazaa 7y ago

Sort of meta, but I always shudder when someone says that science has "proven" something. What sets science apart from most other methods of seeking answers is its focus on disproof. Your goal as a scientist is to devise experiments that can disprove a claim about the natural world. This misconception rears its head most prominently in discussions at the intersection between science and public policy. Climate change. How to handle a pandemic. Evolution. Abortion. But I've even talked to scientists themselves who from time to time get confused about what science can and can't do. The problem with believing that science proves things is that it blinds its adherents to new evidence paving the way to better explanations. It also leads to the absurd conclusion that a scientific question can ever really be "settled."

richardbrevig 7y ago
It kind of floors me that we're taught science the way it is. Much simpler: Karl Popper's conjecture and refutation. So I tell people that science mandates "I believe something, so I should try to prove it wrong." I think understanding that is significantly more beneficial than repeating the arbitrary n- steps of a scientific method. It's two steps. Keep it simple.
xyzzy99 7y ago
Not to be rude, but given current daily attacks on science and the scientific method, I can't let this stand - I think your meta intuition represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. It is simply wrong to think that scientific questions can never be definitively settled. Clearly there are some hypotheses that have been difficult (and may be impossible) to prove, for example, Darwin's idea that natural selection is the basis of evolution. There's ample correlative evidence in support of natural selection, but little of the causal data necessary for "proof" (until perhaps recently). In the case of evolution the experiments required to prove that natural selection could lead to systematic genetic change were technically challenging for a variety of reasons. In the case of climate change, the problem again is that the evidence is correlative and not causal. Demonstrating a causal link between human behavior or CO2 levels and climate change (the gold standard for "proof") is technically challenging, so we are forced to rely on correlations, which is the next best thing. But, you are right, it is not "proof". Establishing causality can be difficult but not impossible - the standard is "necessary and sufficient". You must show necessity: CO2 increase (for example) is necessary for global warming; if CO2 remains constant, no matter what else happens to the system global temperatures remain constant. And you must also demonstrate sufficiency: temperatures will increase if you increase CO2 while holding everything else constant. Those are experiments that can't be done. As a result, we are forced to rely on correlation - the historical correlation between CO2 and temperature change is compelling evidence that CO2 increases cause global warming, but it is not proof. It then becomes a statistical argument, giving room for some to argue the question remains "unsettled". My point is that there are plenty of examples in science where things have been proven -- DNA carries genetic information, DNA (usually) has a double stranded helical structure, V=IR, F=Ma, etc. And there are things that are highly likely, but not "proven", e.g., human activity causes of climate change. While some of the issues you bring are remain unproven, what's really absurd is to think that no scientific questions can be settled.
- dgrin91 7y ago
  I think this goes against the basis of the scientific method. There is a reason why they say everything is a hypothesis and nothing is every proven. Anyone can propose an alternative model explaining something you call proven; you calling something proven does not inherently make that explanation correct. This is not mutually exclusive with being against the attacks on science. Just because we shouldn't treat things as proven doesn't mean we can't come to a general consensus on a topic and act as if it was true. Climate change is real. Evolution is real. Don't inject yourself with bleach. Having a small number of quacks say 'its just a hypothesis and actually god is responsible for climate change and evolution' without any evidence doesn't change the general consensus and doesn't mean we have stop everything until we prove the negative. Ultimate I think most of us agree in principle. Most of what we're discussing here is minor semantic differences in vocabulary.
- johnmorrison 7y ago
  > Establishing causality can be difficult but not impossible - the standard is "necessary and sufficient". You must show necessity: CO2 increase (for example) is necessary for global warming; if CO2 remains constant, no matter what else happens to the system global temperatures remain constant. And you must also demonstrate sufficiency: temperatures will increase if you increase CO2 while holding everything else constant. Those are experiments that can't be done. No. What is the basis for these claims? They're both wrong. It's not true that CO2 increase is necessary for global warming. If the sun got a lot hotter, global temperatures would rise. If non-CO2 GHGs increased, global temperatures would rise. If the overall albedo of the planet changes, global temperatures can rise. There are literally thousands of things that could cause the temperature to rise. It's also not true that CO2 increase, holding everything else constant, would lead to long term or even medium term warning. We have no idea what the ecosystem will do for any given change in CO2 levels, since there are countless species both who are net producers and net consumers of atmospheric CO2, all of whom have exponential growth and feedback loops. Even still, even since both of those claims are wrong, CO2 increase may still cause global warming. Furthermore, the things you claim are proven, are not proven, they are true by definition. All molecules carry information, and the fact that DNA carries genetic information is a direct consequence of the fact that it is DNA. V=IR by definition. F=ma by definition. There's no such thing as a "force" or "mass" or "acceleration" entity per se, these are metrics that are by definition equal in a given physical framework. There is no way to 'technically' prove anything in science, and the reasons are simple: (1) The past is gone - you can't access it (2) You can't see the future (3) Your knowledge of the present is extremely limited and inaccurate These are the limitations of the real world, and science does its best to provide utility within that. It only focuses on making future predictions using the observed past as evidence, because you only can do that. You can't check your model in the present, because you can't instantaneously observe anywhere you aren't already observing. Checking your model on the past relies on what you think happened, i.e. what allegedly happened, but there is absolutely no way to truly know. You can't even really prove anything 'novel' in mathematics, which is the only place where you can actually prove anything, but even there all proofs are effectively just framing something that was already implied axiomatically in a way that allows our limited human minds to see the relevant/useful patterns that aren't immediately obvious to us. My point is, acting as though you can truly prove anything in science, > what's really absurd is to think that no scientific questions can be settled is not only wrong, but in my opinion is a distraction from what science is actually for. It's not about settling questions. Science is never settled, and that's part of what's beautiful about it. It's about reducing our own ignorance and proving our past selves wrong, discovering patterns and models that equip us with the knowledge to build a better world for ourselves and the rest of humanity. Why lie about being a great soccer player when you're already great at basketball? Let's focus on the beauty of science as a great journey of growth and exploration that accelerates the progress of humanity, instead of trying to make it do something that isn't possible in the real world.
qppo 7y ago
Proof never proves it only implies. People are just bad at weighing how much proof there is and how heavily it implies something. Nuance is inconvenient in policy discussion and public discourse. Science also doesn't seek disproof. It uses both example and counter example to confirm or deny or increase how much one confirms or denies.
j1vms 7y ago
This is an age-old domain of thought known as philosophy of science [0]. Although, by prepending your post as "meta", perhaps you are already aware of it. I should add: As a human being, it is probably impossible to separate the scientist from the philosophy in which they explore, proceed with, and promote their work. In some cases, it might not be something they are even aware of. Instead, the scientific system (as a sort of world institution) should itself be designed to always seek out and protect truth, regardless of prevailing contemporary knowledge. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Viliam1234 7y ago
One thing that rubs me the wrong way about this "no proof ever, only disproof" attitude is that it advantages the new hypotheses too much. Any hypothesis that I invent at this very moment, is from this perspective in the best position a hypothesis can ever be. There is no disproof. There is even no coherent argument against it, because I literally just made it up this second, so no one had enough time to think about it and notice even the obvious flaws. This is the best moment for a hypothesis... and it can only get worse. I understand that there is always a chance that the new hypothesis could be correct. Whether for good reasons, or even completely accidentally. (Thousand monkeys with typewriters could come up with the correct Theory of Everything.) Yes, it is possible. But... Imagine that there are two competing hypotheses, let's call them H1 and H2. Hypothesis H1 was, hundred years ago, just one of many competing options. But when experiment after experiment was done, the competing hypotheses were disproved, and only this one remained. For the following few decades, new experiments were designed specifically with the goal of finding a flaw in H1, but the experimental results were always as H1 has predicted them. Hypothesis H2 is something I just made up at this very moment. There was not enough time for anyone to even consider it. A strawman zealot of simplified Popperism could argue that a true scientist should see H1 and H2 as perfectly equal. Neither was disproved yet; and that is all that a true scientist is allowed to say. Maybe later, if one of them is disproved in a proper scientific experiment, the scientist is allowed to praise the remaining one as the only one that wasn't disproved yet. To express any other opinion would be a mockery of science. Of course, there always is a microscopic chance that H1 might get disproved tomorrow, and that H2 might resist the attempts at falsification. But until that happens, treating both hypotheses as equal is definitely NOT how actual science works. And it is good that it does not. In actual science, there is something positive you are allowed to say about H1. Something that would make the strawman zealot of simplified Popperism (e.g. an average teenager debating philosophy of science online) scream about "no proof ever, only disproof". The H1 is definitely not an absolute certainty. But there is something admirable about having faced many attempts at falsification, and surviving them.
- borramakot 6y ago
  I've not read Popper directly, so I'd be interested in his actual argument on this. But, I wonder if you can describe H1 as being a stronger hypothesis than H2 by virtue of withstanding more and higher quality attempts to disprove it?
GoblinSlayer 7y ago
> Your goal as a scientist is to devise experiments that can disprove a claim about the natural world. If this claim was true, it would disallow science to make true claims, because no experiments can disprove such claims. Truth is a delicate matter and can't be handled by simple methods. Questions may not be settled, but they can be difficult to challenge.
- alphydan 7y ago
  > it would disallow science to make true claims Isn't that exactly how science work? It does not make true claims. It produces statements with disclaimers. If this and this then Y is true, as long as we don't observe Y. You cannot use the scientific method to definitely say: "X is true".
  - carapace 7y ago
    Yes, that's exactly how it works. Every scientist I've ever asked has stood by that. Science dispels untruth.
- Caylio 7y ago
  I think I understand where you are getting at. You seem to be saying no matter how much "evidence" you seem to be getting towards something, it never proves it, no matter what the claim is. You could have a million data points of "evidence", it never truly prove something. And this also applies to a disproof claim, no matter how much data point against something, it doesn't prove you've truly disproven. Except that this line of reasoning is false. Statements of the type "For all..." only needs a single counterexample to be disproved. And those "For all..." type of statements, are usually the type you find in sciences like physics or chemistry etc.. Those are often called "laws".

by aazaa 7y ago

richardbrevig 7y ago

It kind of floors me that we're taught science the way it is. Much simpler: Karl Popper's conjecture and refutation. So I tell people that science mandates "I believe something, so I should try to prove it wrong." I think understanding that is significantly more beneficial than repeating the arbitrary n- steps of a scientific method. It's two steps. Keep it simple.

xyzzy99 7y ago

Not to be rude, but given current daily attacks on science and the scientific method, I can't let this stand - I think your meta intuition represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. It is simply wrong to think that scientific questions can never be definitively settled. Clearly there are some hypotheses that have been difficult (and may be impossible) to prove, for example, Darwin's idea that natural selection is the basis of evolution. There's ample correlative evidence in support of natural selection, but little of the causal data necessary for "proof" (until perhaps recently). In the case of evolution the experiments required to prove that natural selection could lead to systematic genetic change were technically challenging for a variety of reasons. In the case of climate change, the problem again is that the evidence is correlative and not causal. Demonstrating a causal link between human behavior or CO2 levels and climate change (the gold standard for "proof") is technically challenging, so we are forced to rely on correlations, which is the next best thing. But, you are right, it is not "proof". Establishing causality can be difficult but not impossible - the standard is "necessary and sufficient". You must show necessity: CO2 increase (for example) is necessary for global warming; if CO2 remains constant, no matter what else happens to the system global temperatures remain constant. And you must also demonstrate sufficiency: temperatures will increase if you increase CO2 while holding everything else constant. Those are experiments that can't be done. As a result, we are forced to rely on correlation - the historical correlation between CO2 and temperature change is compelling evidence that CO2 increases cause global warming, but it is not proof. It then becomes a statistical argument, giving room for some to argue the question remains "unsettled". My point is that there are plenty of examples in science where things have been proven -- DNA carries genetic information, DNA (usually) has a double stranded helical structure, V=IR, F=Ma, etc. And there are things that are highly likely, but not "proven", e.g., human activity causes of climate change. While some of the issues you bring are remain unproven, what's really absurd is to think that no scientific questions can be settled.

dgrin91 7y ago
I think this goes against the basis of the scientific method. There is a reason why they say everything is a hypothesis and nothing is every proven. Anyone can propose an alternative model explaining something you call proven; you calling something proven does not inherently make that explanation correct. This is not mutually exclusive with being against the attacks on science. Just because we shouldn't treat things as proven doesn't mean we can't come to a general consensus on a topic and act as if it was true. Climate change is real. Evolution is real. Don't inject yourself with bleach. Having a small number of quacks say 'its just a hypothesis and actually god is responsible for climate change and evolution' without any evidence doesn't change the general consensus and doesn't mean we have stop everything until we prove the negative. Ultimate I think most of us agree in principle. Most of what we're discussing here is minor semantic differences in vocabulary.
johnmorrison 7y ago
> Establishing causality can be difficult but not impossible - the standard is "necessary and sufficient". You must show necessity: CO2 increase (for example) is necessary for global warming; if CO2 remains constant, no matter what else happens to the system global temperatures remain constant. And you must also demonstrate sufficiency: temperatures will increase if you increase CO2 while holding everything else constant. Those are experiments that can't be done. No. What is the basis for these claims? They're both wrong. It's not true that CO2 increase is necessary for global warming. If the sun got a lot hotter, global temperatures would rise. If non-CO2 GHGs increased, global temperatures would rise. If the overall albedo of the planet changes, global temperatures can rise. There are literally thousands of things that could cause the temperature to rise. It's also not true that CO2 increase, holding everything else constant, would lead to long term or even medium term warning. We have no idea what the ecosystem will do for any given change in CO2 levels, since there are countless species both who are net producers and net consumers of atmospheric CO2, all of whom have exponential growth and feedback loops. Even still, even since both of those claims are wrong, CO2 increase may still cause global warming. Furthermore, the things you claim are proven, are not proven, they are true by definition. All molecules carry information, and the fact that DNA carries genetic information is a direct consequence of the fact that it is DNA. V=IR by definition. F=ma by definition. There's no such thing as a "force" or "mass" or "acceleration" entity per se, these are metrics that are by definition equal in a given physical framework. There is no way to 'technically' prove anything in science, and the reasons are simple: (1) The past is gone - you can't access it (2) You can't see the future (3) Your knowledge of the present is extremely limited and inaccurate These are the limitations of the real world, and science does its best to provide utility within that. It only focuses on making future predictions using the observed past as evidence, because you only can do that. You can't check your model in the present, because you can't instantaneously observe anywhere you aren't already observing. Checking your model on the past relies on what you think happened, i.e. what allegedly happened, but there is absolutely no way to truly know. You can't even really prove anything 'novel' in mathematics, which is the only place where you can actually prove anything, but even there all proofs are effectively just framing something that was already implied axiomatically in a way that allows our limited human minds to see the relevant/useful patterns that aren't immediately obvious to us. My point is, acting as though you can truly prove anything in science, > what's really absurd is to think that no scientific questions can be settled is not only wrong, but in my opinion is a distraction from what science is actually for. It's not about settling questions. Science is never settled, and that's part of what's beautiful about it. It's about reducing our own ignorance and proving our past selves wrong, discovering patterns and models that equip us with the knowledge to build a better world for ourselves and the rest of humanity. Why lie about being a great soccer player when you're already great at basketball? Let's focus on the beauty of science as a great journey of growth and exploration that accelerates the progress of humanity, instead of trying to make it do something that isn't possible in the real world.

qppo 7y ago

Proof never proves it only implies. People are just bad at weighing how much proof there is and how heavily it implies something. Nuance is inconvenient in policy discussion and public discourse. Science also doesn't seek disproof. It uses both example and counter example to confirm or deny or increase how much one confirms or denies.

j1vms 7y ago

This is an age-old domain of thought known as philosophy of science [0]. Although, by prepending your post as "meta", perhaps you are already aware of it. I should add: As a human being, it is probably impossible to separate the scientist from the philosophy in which they explore, proceed with, and promote their work. In some cases, it might not be something they are even aware of. Instead, the scientific system (as a sort of world institution) should itself be designed to always seek out and protect truth, regardless of prevailing contemporary knowledge. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Viliam1234 7y ago

One thing that rubs me the wrong way about this "no proof ever, only disproof" attitude is that it advantages the new hypotheses too much. Any hypothesis that I invent at this very moment, is from this perspective in the best position a hypothesis can ever be. There is no disproof. There is even no coherent argument against it, because I literally just made it up this second, so no one had enough time to think about it and notice even the obvious flaws. This is the best moment for a hypothesis... and it can only get worse. I understand that there is always a chance that the new hypothesis could be correct. Whether for good reasons, or even completely accidentally. (Thousand monkeys with typewriters could come up with the correct Theory of Everything.) Yes, it is possible. But... Imagine that there are two competing hypotheses, let's call them H1 and H2. Hypothesis H1 was, hundred years ago, just one of many competing options. But when experiment after experiment was done, the competing hypotheses were disproved, and only this one remained. For the following few decades, new experiments were designed specifically with the goal of finding a flaw in H1, but the experimental results were always as H1 has predicted them. Hypothesis H2 is something I just made up at this very moment. There was not enough time for anyone to even consider it. A strawman zealot of simplified Popperism could argue that a true scientist should see H1 and H2 as perfectly equal. Neither was disproved yet; and that is all that a true scientist is allowed to say. Maybe later, if one of them is disproved in a proper scientific experiment, the scientist is allowed to praise the remaining one as the only one that wasn't disproved yet. To express any other opinion would be a mockery of science. Of course, there always is a microscopic chance that H1 might get disproved tomorrow, and that H2 might resist the attempts at falsification. But until that happens, treating both hypotheses as equal is definitely NOT how actual science works. And it is good that it does not. In actual science, there is something positive you are allowed to say about H1. Something that would make the strawman zealot of simplified Popperism (e.g. an average teenager debating philosophy of science online) scream about "no proof ever, only disproof". The H1 is definitely not an absolute certainty. But there is something admirable about having faced many attempts at falsification, and surviving them.

borramakot 6y ago
I've not read Popper directly, so I'd be interested in his actual argument on this. But, I wonder if you can describe H1 as being a stronger hypothesis than H2 by virtue of withstanding more and higher quality attempts to disprove it?

GoblinSlayer 7y ago

> Your goal as a scientist is to devise experiments that can disprove a claim about the natural world. If this claim was true, it would disallow science to make true claims, because no experiments can disprove such claims. Truth is a delicate matter and can't be handled by simple methods. Questions may not be settled, but they can be difficult to challenge.

alphydan 7y ago
> it would disallow science to make true claims Isn't that exactly how science work? It does not make true claims. It produces statements with disclaimers. If this and this then Y is true, as long as we don't observe Y. You cannot use the scientific method to definitely say: "X is true".
- carapace 7y ago
  Yes, that's exactly how it works. Every scientist I've ever asked has stood by that. Science dispels untruth.
Caylio 7y ago
I think I understand where you are getting at. You seem to be saying no matter how much "evidence" you seem to be getting towards something, it never proves it, no matter what the claim is. You could have a million data points of "evidence", it never truly prove something. And this also applies to a disproof claim, no matter how much data point against something, it doesn't prove you've truly disproven. Except that this line of reasoning is false. Statements of the type "For all..." only needs a single counterexample to be disproved. And those "For all..." type of statements, are usually the type you find in sciences like physics or chemistry etc.. Those are often called "laws".