Can't be proven...

[jopie]

Question:
Why do you believe in something that cannot be proven by science?

 

[Christian Dave]

because thats what faith is for

 

[Aceldama]

Who are you directing the question to Jopie? Technically nothing can be proven in science anyway, even gravity.

 

[brie]

Who are you directing the question to Jopie? Technically nothing can be proven in science anyway, even gravity.

Beat me to it! To re-emphasize what Aceldama posted: You can fail to disprove a hypothesis, you can find evidence to support a hypothesis, etc. But you can never actually prove anything. One of my friends had her thesis dropped a whole letter grade because she went on and on about how she "proved something."

 

[JohnR7]

Question:
Why do you believe in something that cannot be proven by science?

Just what is it that we believe that you think there is no scientific proof for?

 

[LorentzHA]

Who are you directing the question to Jopie? Technically nothing can be proven in science anyway, even gravity.

I politely disagree with this. Science cannot prove anything? Can they/we not prove a round Earth; can they/we Scien[tists] not prove that genetic is not transmitted through proteins; can they not prove that you have pneumonia as opposed to lung cancer?; Can they not prove you have a broken arm?; Can they not prove phlogiston chemistry is false?

 

[LorentzHA]

Just what is it that we believe that you think there is no scientific proof for?

Cool picture, John

 

[Aceldama]

LorentzHA, I think you may understand me more if I say that gravity, atoms and evolution cannot be proven in a SCIENTIFIC sense. They are accepted as true due to the overwhelming evidence though, but their isn't really any proof in science. Others can explain more on this matter.

 

[LorentzHA]

Beat me to it! To re-emphasize what Aceldama posted: You can fail to disprove a hypothesis, you can find evidence to support a hypothesis, etc. But you can never actually prove anything. One of my friends had her thesis dropped a whole letter grade because she went on and on about how she "proved something."

Sorry to hear about your friends letter grade. I ran across a few professors like that in undergrad...does not mean things cannot be proved, however, it means I was going about explaining my data in the wrong manner. I was irritated at first but ithey made my lab skills, as well as, my report writing skills much better. I was able to prove in one of my more memorable experiements that the enzyme peroxidase, was able to split potentially harmful (to optimum cellular conditions), Hydrogen Peroxide, into its harmless components. I was able to prove that through a series of experiments. If I was not able to correctly express that data in my report than, no, I would not have been able to prove this to be true.

 

[LorentzHA]

LorentzHA, I think you may understand me more if I say that gravity, atoms and evolution cannot be proven in a SCIENTIFIC sense. They are accepted as true due to the overwhelming evidence though, but their isn't really any proof in science. Others can explain more on this matter.

Yes, you make some valid points. I was responding to your above statement when you said nothing can be proven through science, which is not correct.

You are correct in saying there are some things that cannot be proven, but that we accept to be true, due to overwhelming evidence, such as gravity. We accept this because no one has been able to falsify it. We know that objects fall to Eaerth at 9.8 meters per second-per second. We know that object always fall towards earth and not away from, etc. But the things I mentioned above are things we can and have proved through science. I can prove, using science that you do not have cancer at this time. Can I prove you will never get any type of cancer? No, because I cannot state that you will not come into contact with certain carcinogens or engage in other risk elevating behaviors.

 

[Bushido216]

His only point is that there are no absolutes.

For all we know, this could all be an elaborate plot by some super-intelligent bunch of aliens or something.

 

[LorentzHA]

I understand what you are both saying, but, reality and "plot" are more Philosophical terms, than scientific. I do myself ponder "reality" and our origins, quite often.

However, based on what we do know and accept as "reality", there are provable things. I deal with those tests and study them, everyday. There are positive test results and negative test results. If you truly believed there were NO absolutes you would never go to the doctor because those results would mean nothing to you. Look at all science has proven and all that it has disproven. I do believe in absolutes. Not in all arenas but there are absolutes. Science deals with absolutes, psychology and philosophy do not. I am sure someone will say that they do but you cannot derive hard numbers to prove someone crazy or sane, etc. etc.

 

[revolutio]

because thats what faith is for

That's a how, not a why.

 

[JohnR7]

LorentzHA[/b]]Cool picture, John

Thanks. It took me about 3 hours to do that in Adobe, but I like the way it all fit together. Here are a few others I have been working on. There is a coffee cafe here where the owner wants to display some of my work.

 

[Bushido216]

Dum da dum.

 

[Philosoft]

LorentzHA, I think you may understand me more if I say that gravity, atoms and evolution cannot be proven in a SCIENTIFIC sense. They are accepted as true due to the overwhelming evidence though, but their isn't really any proof in science. Others can explain more on this matter.

The sense in which nothing is proven is a metaphysical one. For example, science can naturalistically falisify an ancient global flood, but it can't prove that some intangible force did not act to make it appear as if no flood occurred. In general, though, since science makes no effort to even consider naturalistically content-free explanations of the latter type, the lack of metaphysical proof is irrelevant.

 

[billwald]

Th word, "proof," is best reserved for formal mathematical proofs. Science provides evidence. The last best guess stands until the next guy wins a Nobel Prize

 

[ThePhoenix]

Just what is it that we believe that you think there is no scientific proof for?

Thank you - you were the only one who noticed that this can be equally directed at either evolution or christians (and doubly at theistic evolutionists).

 

[lucaspa]

Question:
Why do you believe in something that cannot be proven by science?

Science is a limited form of knowledge and doesn't apply to everything. Most of our lives consist of beliefs that cannot be proven by science.

Ever voted? Had scientific "proof" that the candidate you voted for would do the best job?

 

[lucaspa]

However, based on what we do know and accept as "reality", there are provable things. I deal with those tests and study them, everyday. There are positive test results and negative test results. If you truly believed there were NO absolutes you would never go to the doctor because those results would mean nothing to you. Look at all science has proven and all that it has disproven.

The original problem was that Aceldama's claim was too broad. Some things are proven by science. But all these are the negative statements. IOW, the falsified hypotheses:

The earth is not flat.
The sun is not the center of the solar system.
Proteins are not the hereditary material.
Etc.

The positive statements are not "proved". Round earth is not proved. Instead, all current alternatives to round earth have been falsified. However, it is barely possible that some day we will think of or find a shape that describes the shape of the earth better. That's why science is tentative.

Aceldama is correct that the evidence today is so overwhelming that we provisionally accept as true that the earth is round. And we then use that provisional truth to make more detailed explanations, such as plane schedules and satellite orbits. That the planes and satellites are where they are calculated to be provide more support for the theory that the earth is round.

Now, when we "prove" something by science, that is verbal shorthand for:
"We have falsified all the alternative hypotheses that we can think of."

So, if you look at an x-ray that shows a femur fracture, you say you have "proved" the bone is broken because there is no alternative hypothesis except a broken femur that would produce that x-ray. All the alternative hypotheses have long ago been falsified.

Understand?