4 ms·

> The finding is direct proof of the theory of inflation, the idea that the universe expanded extremely quickly in the first fraction of a second after it was

> The finding is direct proof of the theory of inflation, the idea that the universe expanded extremely quickly in the first fraction of a second after it was born. Small nitpick, but wouldn't the use of the words "evidence for" instead of "proof of" have been better? Not that I am in any way trying to take anything away from the discovery. Just from a science perspective, the word "proof" has always bugged me.

harshreality 13y ago
If you're not talking math (which includes logic), proof can never mean what you want it to mean. So why get upset about it being used differently outside of mathematical context?
kremlin 13y ago
It's kinda a pet peeve of mine as well, having to switch between 'proof' meaning a conclusion that logically necessarily follow from premises, to proof meaning "really strong evidence". But, as harshreality was getting at, if we used 'proof' that strictly, nothing outside of pure math and logic would be a 'proof'.
- wfn 13y ago
  > But, as harshreality was getting at, if we used 'proof' that strictly, nothing outside of pure math and logic would be a 'proof'. True that. But isn't that an important part of the scientific method (at least in the karl-popper-scientific-method sense), and part of the point of science, really? Strictly speaking, you can't prove anything using the scientific method; only 'falsify' it (hence Popper's 'falsificationism', 'science as falsification', etc.) To 'kinda-sorta-prove' something in science, you formulate a null hypothesis, and then attempt to falsify it. But strictly speaking, one is not able to 'prove' anything (only provide weak/strong evidence for/against something.)
- andrewflnr 13y ago
  Well, then, don't use the word "proof" outside pure math and logic. Everyone agrees that "proof" means to render something beyond (reasonable) doubt, so it's not a problem of ambiguous definition, just incorrect usage.

harshreality 13y ago

If you're not talking math (which includes logic), proof can never mean what you want it to mean. So why get upset about it being used differently outside of mathematical context?

kremlin 13y ago

It's kinda a pet peeve of mine as well, having to switch between 'proof' meaning a conclusion that logically necessarily follow from premises, to proof meaning "really strong evidence". But, as harshreality was getting at, if we used 'proof' that strictly, nothing outside of pure math and logic would be a 'proof'.

wfn 13y ago
> But, as harshreality was getting at, if we used 'proof' that strictly, nothing outside of pure math and logic would be a 'proof'. True that. But isn't that an important part of the scientific method (at least in the karl-popper-scientific-method sense), and part of the point of science, really? Strictly speaking, you can't prove anything using the scientific method; only 'falsify' it (hence Popper's 'falsificationism', 'science as falsification', etc.) To 'kinda-sorta-prove' something in science, you formulate a null hypothesis, and then attempt to falsify it. But strictly speaking, one is not able to 'prove' anything (only provide weak/strong evidence for/against something.)
andrewflnr 13y ago
Well, then, don't use the word "proof" outside pure math and logic. Everyone agrees that "proof" means to render something beyond (reasonable) doubt, so it's not a problem of ambiguous definition, just incorrect usage.