4 ms·
Reads very weird, also, scientists don't prove anything
by 7373737373 3y ago
Reads very weird, also, scientists don't prove anything
- kadoban 3y agoScience proves some things. You can prove that something is possible by demonstrating it or with a good enough model even.
- Vecr 3y agoTechnically not because it's induction vs deduction but it can sometimes be "close enough" for some things.
- adrianN 3y agoYou can certainly prove that a ball falls down once on Earth. It’s more difficult but still possible to prove that all balls will fall down. I don’t think that you can prove laws of gravitation in general.
- jl6 3y agoObserving a ball falling down once, even if you are 99.999% sure of what you saw, is still not a deductive process so it’s still a categorically different thing than a mathematical proof. (The remaining 0.001%: maybe you were hallucinating and there was no ball)
- tremon 3y agomaybe you were hallucinating and there was no ball ...at which point you've left the domain of science and have entered the philosophical domain of epistemology. Neither the existence of the term "mathematical proof" nor epistemic quandaries invalidate the concept of scientific proof, and what that term means within the domain of the natural sciences.
- arcbyte 3y agoThe root of every logical proof is an inductive step to assert some group of axioms or believe something. So all possible logical proofs are tainted by induction. If you believe induction makes a proof invalid, then all proofs are invalid. The inductive and deductive reasoning separation is useful just to categorize each step and identify where your beliefs/probabilities enter the proof so you can manage them.
- Vecr 3y agoSure, but I doubt any honest scientist has axioms that lets them prove anything related to a gas feedback-feeding loop, especially one they can't interact with.
- chmod775 3y agoIf you have some data, you can prove that it is consistent with a model or that your methodology will extract useful information from noisy data assuming it fits your model of it. Especially in physics and number-crunching tasks like these, there is enough overlap with mathematics to have plenty of opportunity for proving steps of your process correct. Also mathematics does not have a monopoly on employing pure reason.