3 ms·
> 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 mak
by 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 agoYes, that's exactly how it works. Every scientist I've ever asked has stood by that. Science dispels untruth.
- Caylio 7y agoI 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".