5 ms·

In reference to your paragraph on scientific theory: In actuality nothing in science or in reality can be proven to be true. In science it is only possible to

In reference to your paragraph on scientific theory: In actuality nothing in science or in reality can be proven to be true. In science it is only possible to disprove or falsify theories. You can actually extract this concept from a famous statement in science and statistics: "Correlation does not imply causation" This basically means nothing can be proven, we can only correlate things. If you negate that statement it turns into: "No Correlation does imply non-causation" Which means by establishing that two things do not correlate we've disproved or falsified causation.

Retra 12y ago
If P is true, its negation is false. >In actuality nothing in science or in reality can be proven to be true. If this were the case, the word "true" would have no meaning. We prove things in science all the time. We proved that you can cross a river without getting wet, for instance. We proved that humans can travel to the moon. The examples are endless, really.
- crimsonalucard 12y ago
  >If P is true, its negation is false. Not exactly sure what you're referring to here. Still let me give you some detail on how I negated that statement: I'm essentially negating phrases within the sentence using the distributive property from algebra: ~(<Correlation> <does not imply> <causation>) = (<No Correlation> <does imply> <no causation>) If the positive statement is valid the negated statement is also valid. Negating +2 into -2 doesn't make the -2 any less true then the +2, in fact it's not even applicable. You should note that the negated statement (No Correlation does imply no causation) is a fundamental pillar in science experiments. It's part of the reason why researchers always convert their hypothesis to null hypothesis and then try to disprove it. ---------------------------------------------------------- >If this were the case, the word "true" would have no meaning. We prove things in science all the time. We proved that you can cross a river without getting wet, for instance. We proved that humans can travel to the moon. The examples are endless, really. I want to emphasize that what I'm talking about isn't some theory I made up. This is established scientific philosophy within academia. It's actually one of the harder things to understand because it flies in the face of our natural intuition. None of your examples have been "proven." What is happening is that you have formed a very reliable conclusion based on intuition, you haven't gathered proof. Lets take a look at your river example... One way in attempt to gather proof that crossing a river makes you wet is to observe 500 people crossing the river. If you observe that 500 people cross a river and all 500 got wet, what you have established is not a proof but a correlation that crossing the river is correlated to getting wet. Intuitively we assume that this is a proof, but from a rigorous and more philosophical standpoint not only have we not proven anything, it is actually fundamentally impossible to establish a "proof." Try to wrap your head around that. Let me give you an example that's easier to understand and more inline with our intuitive understanding of the world. The following link is a research study on the correlation between birthrate and the population of storks: http://web.stanford.edu/class/hrp259/2007/regression/storke.pdf http://web.stanford.edu/class/hrp259/2007/regression/storke.... They arrive at the conclusion that baby's are delivered by storks because of the positive correlation. Our intuition tells us that this conclusion is improbable despite the correlation. Note that correlation, intuition and proof are completely separate things. It is however possible to disprove things. If I establish that there is no correlation between cancer rates and heights then it is by logic impossible for height to cause higher cancer rates. What I have done is disproven height as a causative factor for cancer. It is fundamentally impossible to prove anything. It is only possible to establish correlations. Correlations can only be used to falsify things or demonstrate the possibility of causation. This is not some weird thing I made up, this is established knowledge. I don't blame people for voting my OP down; Many researchers don't consider or even learn about the implications that the scientific method has on reality as we know it.
  - Retra 12y ago
    >This is established scientific philosophy within academia. Well, I'm sure that is proof of its correctness? >What is happening is that you have formed a very reliable conclusion based on intuition, you haven't gathered proof. That's what proof is. Saying proof is not proof is not all that useful a conclusion to draw. >it is actually fundamentally impossible to establish a "proof." See? That's why it's a stupid conclusion. >None of your examples have been "proven." Did we go to the moon or didn't we? If going to the moon is not proof that we can go to the moon, then I don't see what business you have to say any of this. >It is fundamentally impossible to prove anything. It is only possible to establish correlations. Correlations are what the word "proof" refers to. >This is not some weird thing I made up, this is established knowledge. Well, congratulations. You've just established that God exists, too. --- "Proof" is that which is convincing to a 'fair and rational' mind. All you need are correlations that marginalize error. Things that are proven are true up to the invalidation of your assumptions. In science, those assumptions are experiences. In mathematics, they are axioms. There is no fundamental difference between the two, because mathematical axioms are also observed linguistic experiences.
    - crimsonalucard 12y ago
      >Correlations are what the word "proof" refers to. >That's what proof is. Saying proof is not proof is not all that useful a conclusion to draw. No. Proof is a synonym for causation not correlation. Establishing correlation between stork population and baby population is not establishing proof that storks bring babies to mothers. Proof and correlation are entirely different things. >See? That's why it's a stupid conclusion. Sure applying the scientific method to daily life is stupid, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about the nature of logic itself. That is the context of this debate. You're attempting to deny the validity of my argument by shifting the context into some vague definition of the word proof.
      - Retra 12y ago
        I didn't say proof is a synonym for correlation, I said proof refers to correlation. Causation is itself a kind of correlation, but I wouldn't wouldn't call either of them synonyms. They are structural relations on experience. Proof will compel rational systems into agreement. If I submit a proof to a computer, it will consume it and output that-which-was-proved. The correlation between the structure of the inputs and outputs are what the word 'proof' refers to. It's not that complicated. >You're attempting to deny the validity of my argument by shifting the context into some vague definition of the word proof. I'm not defining proof, I'm just telling you what it is. Words don't require definition to have meaning. >Sure applying the scientific method to daily life is stupid I don't know why you'd say this or why you think I'd agree with it. You are starting from the assumption that science doesn't proof things (a statement that you no doubt have no proof of) and used it to conclude that proof is meaningless. What a fine conclusion -- it's utterly useless. But rather than imagine that your assumption was wrong, you want to dig in because "so many people" told you it was correct. Well? Give me a proof. Why should anyone believe these things? What rational advantage do you have by claiming proof is impossible? Furthermore, why would you -- while saying proof is impossible -- ignore the fact that mathematics -- a discipline completely enamored with proof -- be a useful basis for science if science had no need of proof? Does that not strike you as completely absurd? Why would you believe such a thing?
- Padding 12y ago
  > If P is true, its negation is false. Where's your proof?
tomp 12y ago
> "No Correlation does imply non-causation" You're wrong. Random variables can be uncorrelated but not independent [1]. In general, you can't apply "algebra" to logic as you attempted above and explained below. Logic is very precise. To "prove" that `A => B` is equivalent `~B => ~A`, you use truth tables: | A | B | A => B | ~B => ~A | +---+---+--------+----------+ | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Your statements above aren't equivalent; the first is a tautology (it's always true), whereas the second is standard implication, which can be false. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normally_distributed_and_uncorrelated_does_not_imply_independent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normally_distributed_and_uncorr...

Retra 12y ago

If P is true, its negation is false. >In actuality nothing in science or in reality can be proven to be true. If this were the case, the word "true" would have no meaning. We prove things in science all the time. We proved that you can cross a river without getting wet, for instance. We proved that humans can travel to the moon. The examples are endless, really.

crimsonalucard 12y ago
>If P is true, its negation is false. Not exactly sure what you're referring to here. Still let me give you some detail on how I negated that statement: I'm essentially negating phrases within the sentence using the distributive property from algebra: ~(<Correlation> <does not imply> <causation>) = (<No Correlation> <does imply> <no causation>) If the positive statement is valid the negated statement is also valid. Negating +2 into -2 doesn't make the -2 any less true then the +2, in fact it's not even applicable. You should note that the negated statement (No Correlation does imply no causation) is a fundamental pillar in science experiments. It's part of the reason why researchers always convert their hypothesis to null hypothesis and then try to disprove it. ---------------------------------------------------------- >If this were the case, the word "true" would have no meaning. We prove things in science all the time. We proved that you can cross a river without getting wet, for instance. We proved that humans can travel to the moon. The examples are endless, really. I want to emphasize that what I'm talking about isn't some theory I made up. This is established scientific philosophy within academia. It's actually one of the harder things to understand because it flies in the face of our natural intuition. None of your examples have been "proven." What is happening is that you have formed a very reliable conclusion based on intuition, you haven't gathered proof. Lets take a look at your river example... One way in attempt to gather proof that crossing a river makes you wet is to observe 500 people crossing the river. If you observe that 500 people cross a river and all 500 got wet, what you have established is not a proof but a correlation that crossing the river is correlated to getting wet. Intuitively we assume that this is a proof, but from a rigorous and more philosophical standpoint not only have we not proven anything, it is actually fundamentally impossible to establish a "proof." Try to wrap your head around that. Let me give you an example that's easier to understand and more inline with our intuitive understanding of the world. The following link is a research study on the correlation between birthrate and the population of storks: http://web.stanford.edu/class/hrp259/2007/regression/storke.pdf http://web.stanford.edu/class/hrp259/2007/regression/storke.... They arrive at the conclusion that baby's are delivered by storks because of the positive correlation. Our intuition tells us that this conclusion is improbable despite the correlation. Note that correlation, intuition and proof are completely separate things. It is however possible to disprove things. If I establish that there is no correlation between cancer rates and heights then it is by logic impossible for height to cause higher cancer rates. What I have done is disproven height as a causative factor for cancer. It is fundamentally impossible to prove anything. It is only possible to establish correlations. Correlations can only be used to falsify things or demonstrate the possibility of causation. This is not some weird thing I made up, this is established knowledge. I don't blame people for voting my OP down; Many researchers don't consider or even learn about the implications that the scientific method has on reality as we know it.
- Retra 12y ago
  >This is established scientific philosophy within academia. Well, I'm sure that is proof of its correctness? >What is happening is that you have formed a very reliable conclusion based on intuition, you haven't gathered proof. That's what proof is. Saying proof is not proof is not all that useful a conclusion to draw. >it is actually fundamentally impossible to establish a "proof." See? That's why it's a stupid conclusion. >None of your examples have been "proven." Did we go to the moon or didn't we? If going to the moon is not proof that we can go to the moon, then I don't see what business you have to say any of this. >It is fundamentally impossible to prove anything. It is only possible to establish correlations. Correlations are what the word "proof" refers to. >This is not some weird thing I made up, this is established knowledge. Well, congratulations. You've just established that God exists, too. --- "Proof" is that which is convincing to a 'fair and rational' mind. All you need are correlations that marginalize error. Things that are proven are true up to the invalidation of your assumptions. In science, those assumptions are experiences. In mathematics, they are axioms. There is no fundamental difference between the two, because mathematical axioms are also observed linguistic experiences.
  - crimsonalucard 12y ago
    >Correlations are what the word "proof" refers to. >That's what proof is. Saying proof is not proof is not all that useful a conclusion to draw. No. Proof is a synonym for causation not correlation. Establishing correlation between stork population and baby population is not establishing proof that storks bring babies to mothers. Proof and correlation are entirely different things. >See? That's why it's a stupid conclusion. Sure applying the scientific method to daily life is stupid, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about the nature of logic itself. That is the context of this debate. You're attempting to deny the validity of my argument by shifting the context into some vague definition of the word proof.
    - Retra 12y ago
      I didn't say proof is a synonym for correlation, I said proof refers to correlation. Causation is itself a kind of correlation, but I wouldn't wouldn't call either of them synonyms. They are structural relations on experience. Proof will compel rational systems into agreement. If I submit a proof to a computer, it will consume it and output that-which-was-proved. The correlation between the structure of the inputs and outputs are what the word 'proof' refers to. It's not that complicated. >You're attempting to deny the validity of my argument by shifting the context into some vague definition of the word proof. I'm not defining proof, I'm just telling you what it is. Words don't require definition to have meaning. >Sure applying the scientific method to daily life is stupid I don't know why you'd say this or why you think I'd agree with it. You are starting from the assumption that science doesn't proof things (a statement that you no doubt have no proof of) and used it to conclude that proof is meaningless. What a fine conclusion -- it's utterly useless. But rather than imagine that your assumption was wrong, you want to dig in because "so many people" told you it was correct. Well? Give me a proof. Why should anyone believe these things? What rational advantage do you have by claiming proof is impossible? Furthermore, why would you -- while saying proof is impossible -- ignore the fact that mathematics -- a discipline completely enamored with proof -- be a useful basis for science if science had no need of proof? Does that not strike you as completely absurd? Why would you believe such a thing?
Padding 12y ago
> If P is true, its negation is false. Where's your proof?

tomp 12y ago

> "No Correlation does imply non-causation" You're wrong. Random variables can be uncorrelated but not independent [1]. In general, you can't apply "algebra" to logic as you attempted above and explained below. Logic is very precise. To "prove" that `A => B` is equivalent `~B => ~A`, you use truth tables: | A | B | A => B | ~B => ~A | +---+---+--------+----------+ | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Your statements above aren't equivalent; the first is a tautology (it's always true), whereas the second is standard implication, which can be false. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normally_distributed_and_uncorrelated_does_not_imply_independent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normally_distributed_and_uncorr...