3 ms·
“Prove” could mean many things. For physics, prove what? That a given model is the one and only model that accurately explains the known universe? Then I agr
by nobodyandproud 2y ago
“Prove” could mean many things. For physics, prove what?
That a given model is the one and only model that accurately explains the known universe? Then I agree. Observation won’t get you there. Asymptotic at best.
But by “prove”, that it accurately or usefully makes predictions with respect to certain constraints (which may not be known)?
That’s a more modest use of
“prove”, where observation is certainly a key factor.
- bee_rider 2y agoMaybe proof should be used for that more modest concept. In the sense of “bullet proof.” Similar to a piece of armor with a bullet proof; the ding from where it was shot for testing, a physics theory could be described as “microscope proof,” haha. We hit it with a bunch of microscopes and it didn’t fall apart.
- hgomersall 2y agoInteresting linguistic aside: "the exception that proves the rule" makes use of this more old fashioned use of prove, to test. So it's the exceptional case that tests the rule. With that in mind, "prove" is perfectly fine to use in the context of science.
- trashtester 2y agoIn Physics, you just remove all possible theories that are inconsistent with observations. For instance, you can prove that Newton's laws are not 100% accurate.