People with extreme anti-science views know the least...

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The only philosophical significance is that one can readily correlate the benefits and value of science to the efficacy of the products thus produced from that system.

Faith healing, being much older than what we consider to be "science" cannot be correlated with success of that "method" above and beyond statistical random chance.

So I don't see any real "issue" with saying that because things generated by scientific research work more often than not means science is "correct". Perhaps maladroitly worded, but still not a significant problem.

Yes, a scientific theory is generally considered 'correct' in a given context if it provides useful predictions (and of sufficient accuracy) for its target phenomena within that context. So classical mechanics can be considered 'correct' in the context of the non-relativistic velocities of everyday experience.

 

[Michael]

I suspect that the usage of 'proof' as a description of high sigma results is becoming more common, but it should be read as implicitly qualified with the standard caveats of scientific research.

The term "proof" shouldn't be used *at all* in a published scientific paper regardless of the subjective "certainty" figure assigned to it. Even the high sigma assignment was dubious in that particular case because it was entirely and completey dependent upon the accuracy of a mass per luminosity calculation that was highly questionable even then, and shown to be utterly wrong in later years.

Calling it 'proof' is not strictly accurate, but, meh.

Not only was it not accurate, it was flat out demonstrated to be *wrong* by numerous later studies and published papers which showed all sorts of errors which were present in the luminosity mass calculation method that was used in that paper.

Much of the 'over-hyping' of scientific results is done by the pop-sci media and research PR depts., keen to get media attention.

Maybe so, but in this particular case the over-hyping started in the title of the published paper itself and the media simply quoted their hype. How that term even passed peer review is the big question. The editors should know better than to use non-scientific terms to describe "evidence" which turned out (later) to be quite weak evidence at best.

 

[Mountainmike]

There is a clear problem

The consistency of an observation model through limited senses , has nothing to say about " what is" or " why is " only how it normally behaves. And since all modelling has errors ( in the case of matter, most of it!! ) " correct" is neither a description of the underlying existence assumptions or even the behaviour "adequate" is the only description possible.


And some evidence simply does not fit, and cannot fit the presumptions of science: deterministic , causal or objective.

The only philosophical significance is that one can readily correlate the benefits and value of science to the efficacy of the products thus produced from that system.

Faith healing, being much older than what we consider to be "science" cannot be correlated with success of that "method" above and beyond statistical random chance.

So I don't see any real "issue" with saying that because things generated by scientific research work more often than not means science is "correct". Perhaps maladroitly worded, but still not a significant problem.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

There is a clear problem

The consistency of an observation model through limited senses , has nothing to say about " what is" or " why is " only how it normally behaves. And since all modelling has errors ( in the case of matter, most of it!! ) " correct" is neither a description of the underlying existence assumptions or even the behaviour.

Oh, I certainly agree. Not only that all modeling has errors but that correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

But all that aside I am rather certain the other poster was merely noting a truism that science yields better results than the alternative.

 

[Mountainmike]

Oh, I certainly agree. Not only that all modeling has errors but that correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

But all that aside I am rather certain the other poster was merely noting a truism that science yields better results than the alternative.

I could debate the final sentence, but note you agree in using the word "better"which is a philosophical right angle from " correct" - indeed even hawking notes models are not unique indeed conflict , and that there can be no fundamental theory of everything, in his concept of " model dependent reality"