4 ms·
Alternatively, you don’t “prove” things in biology, you just provide evidence for them. Proof implies a level of certainty that doesn’t exist in biology.
by spott 3y ago
Alternatively, you don’t “prove” things in biology, you just provide evidence for them.
Proof implies a level of certainty that doesn’t exist in biology.
- anonacct37 3y agoIn fact you don't prove anything in science. You merely fail to disprove something.
- epgui 3y agoin the “natural sciences”
- _ZeD_ 3y agoDo we have innatural ones?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cfiggers 3y agoIs computer science a science?
- thaumasiotes 3y agoOf course not. It's a branch of mathematics. Always has been.
- artemonster 3y ago„A branch“ - so we are back to trees then?
- epgui 3y agoMathematics and computer science are both in the category of formal science.
- epgui 3y agoYes, it’s a formal science.
- epgui 3y agoThe other category of science is called formal science.
- mistercheph 3y agoIs proving something internal to a system of ad-hoc rules that cannot (to the same standard of proof) be proven to have any correspondance with the natural world really proving something? Sincere question.
- epgui 3y agoI think so, yes. You start with axioms, and the proof follows from those. You can argue whether that’s interesting or not, but IMO it’s as much a proof as anything can be, and IMO it’s very interesting.