Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would hafta respond by saying that "scientific proof" is a valid term. Things are certainly proven through science.
Now if you are implying that science is used to interpret meaning through evidence and that the evidence supports or refutes an idea or principle, that sounds like a proof process to me. In law enforcement we call it proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is subjective, but there are times when a conclusion is certainly achieved. As far as evolution vs creation, I am of the opinion that evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and creation has been explicitly refuted.
"Hypotheses and theories can never be proven true using the scientific method. Therefore, science advances only through disproof. This is a critical and often misunderstood point. To be scientific, theories can never be proven true, but all theories must be refutable. Therefore, all theories, and by extension all of science, are tentative."
"Hypotheses and theories can never be proven true using the scientific method. Therefore, science advances only through disproof. This is a critical and often misunderstood point. To be scientific, theories can never be proven true, but all theories must be refutable. Therefore, all theories, and by extension all of science, are tentative."
Ya learn something new everyday for sure. Who'da thought. I was always of the opinion that if I see it happen and I experience it and the proof is obvious, it's real. So for example, if I see a piece of paper consumed by a flame, I see that as scientific proof that the paper burned up and is gone, and it was fire that turned it into ashes. Now that ya got me all confused I'm all ears.
Milleka: Science advances through hypotheses, theories, and other scientists trying to disprove those theories (falsifiability). But th latter are considered true unless or until they can be shown to be false. Some have remained true for centuries and are unlikely to ever be shown false. But I'll give you half credit.
I do wonder about the point of the argument, though. Was it an attempt to weaken the credibility of science?
Good science must be fallible. This is why string theory is bad science; it cannot be disproved. God is also bad science; God cannot be disproved. Creationism, strangely enough, is good science, but already proven false. Evolution has been tested time and again and has stood up to everything we threw at it. Evolution is good science.
Ya learn something new everyday for sure. Who'da thought. I was always of the opinion that if I see it happen and I experience it and the proof is obvious, it's real. So for example, if I see a piece of paper consumed by a flame, I see that as scientific proof that the paper burned up and is gone, and it was fire that turned it into ashes. Now that ya got me all confused I'm all ears.
Thank you for being open-minded and just not using the "Nuh uh!" excuse that so many do around here. This is a lesson that I try to get my highschool Biology students to understand. Science doesn't prove anything. There are mountains of data that can support a hypothesis. Then after much more testing and even more evidence, something can be considered to be a theory. A law has the same clout as a theory, it's just expressed in a different way. The problem is that people try to use scientific words in everyday conversation and do not really understand their meaning. Then we get all discombobulated about this, that, and the other. We're cool.
Good science must be fallible. This is why string theory is bad science; it cannot be disproved. God is also bad science; God cannot be disproved. Creationism, strangely enough, is good science, but already proven false. Evolution has been tested time and again and has stood up to everything we threw at it. Evolution is good science.
The word is falsifiable. Falsifiability is not the sole litmus test for "good" science. The moon being made of green cheese, while falsifiable, is not and never was good science.
Milleka: Science advances through hypotheses, theories, and other scientists trying to disprove those theories (falsifiability). But th latter are considered true unless or until they can be shown to be false. Some have remained true for centuries and are unlikely to ever be shown false. But I'll give you half credit.
I do wonder about the point of the argument, though. Was it an attempt to weaken the credibility of science?
Sorry, dude, but I teach this stuff every year. I get an A+ 100 because I deal with these misconceptions on a daily basis.
I'm actually entirely in support of science- I just want people to understand the words they are using.
Thank you for being open-minded and just not using the "Nuh uh!" excuse that so many do around here. This is a lesson that I try to get my highschool Biology students to understand. Science doesn't prove anything. There are mountains of data that can support a hypothesis. Then after much more testing and even more evidence, something can be considered to be a theory. A law has the same clout as a theory, it's just expressed in a different way. The problem is that people try to use scientific words in everyday conversation and do not really understand their meaning. Then we get all discombobulated about this, that, and the other. We're cool.
My wife and daugher teach at the same elementary school, the wife in 3rd nd my daughter in 2nd, we cuss and discuss this stuff all the time.
But I'm still having a hard time swallowing this "scientific proof" thing. If I look at an x-ray and see a bone fracture, I'm convinced, through a scientific process, being x-rays, that the bone is fractured. So isnt science being used to prove something in that context. Or is the real crux of my example the x-ray and how the x-ray process is applied to this issue.
I can't see any scientific application to creationism. There is nothing in the science world, to me anyway, that spports creationism. So, in my mind, creationism has no scientific basis. It's purely imaginitive. No different from someone looking at a bush and making it go aflame from their gaze. It's just an imagination.
Last edited by axemanjoe; 04-06-2011 at 04:12 PM..
My wife and daugher teach at the same elementary school, the wife in 3rd nd my daughter in 2nd, we cuss and discuss this stuff all the time.
But I'm still having a hard time swallowing this "scientific proof" thing. If I look at an x-ray and see a bone fracture, I'm convinced, through a scientific process, being x-rays, that the bone is fractured. So isnt science being used to prove something in that context. Or is the real crux of my example the x-ray and how the x-ray process is applied to this issue.
I can't see any scientific application to creationism. There is nothing in the science world, to me anyway, that spports creationism. So, in my mind, creationism has no scientific basis. It's purely imaginitive. No different from someone looking at a bush and making it go aflame from their gaze. It's just an imagination.
Well, if it helps, once upon a time there was a "theory" called Spontaneous Generation. People really believed that living things come spontaneously generate from nonliving material. (Rotting meat "made" maggots) They didn't know any better because there wasn't the technology to show otherwise. There also used to be an accepted "theory" that Earth was the center of the Universe. Science builds on itself as more and more data are compiled. Science is also willing to admit when it's wrong when new data comes in that refutes previous ideas. That's why there is no "proof" in science. We simply don't know if there will be new evidence in the future that will blow current ideas out of the water. Now- there are certain topics that have had so much compelling data that has been compiled over many many years that all points to the same thing... like Evolution. But, that doesn't mean that it's done either. I mean, look at all the genetic evidence and everything else that has been discovered since Darwin proposed his famous Dangerous Idea. Science is dynamic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
