science

[canehdianhotstuff]

can science prove itself?

 

[yasic]

you mean:

Science
Therefore science

Yes it can, it just doesn't get us anywhere to know if science is real.

 

[Eudaimonist]

can science prove itself?

It already has. We've been to the Moon. That's more than enough proof.

 

[Grizzly]

can science prove itself?

You're typing on a keyboard 1,000's of mile away, aren't you

 

[D McCloud]

can science prove itself?

look at all the technical advances we have and then ask yourself that question.

 

[michabo]

Science can't "prove" anything, but as has been said, induction shows us that we're probably on to something.

 

[Merlin]

Cogneto ergo potato
I think, therefore I yam.

 

[joebudda]

I don’t believe that the science we know today would even exist if not for our superstitious nature.

If we never started making assumptions about observations we wouldn’t have science.

 

[Nightson]

can science prove itself?

Can a hammer?

 

[Glass*Soul]

can science prove itself?

Why do you ask?

 

[Beastt]

And the ever popular; "Science doesn't deal in proofs. It deals in evidence."

But I think the most appropriate answer so far, (thank you Grizzly), is the one which points out that the text of the OP has been formed by pressing a series of keystrokes which are converted to electrical signals, stored as number patterns in an array of transistors, transmitted again as an electrical signals, then as patterns of photons and back again to electrical signals, to arrive at a specific point thousands of miles away and then be recorded as flux transitions on a smooth spinning platter coated with various metal oxides so that people at any point on the planet, can sit comfortably in front of their computers at home, work, and even in the air, and view the text within seconds so that they may ponder the question; "can science prove itself?".

This leads me to ask the question; 010101000111001001101111011011000110110000111111

 

[Soul Searcher]

can science prove itself?

No, of course not because science in and of itself can not do anything. It is only useful when used properly by an intelligent being.

 

[Niels]

The scientific method helps us better understand our environment. It has proven itself useful.

Interestingly, one can view everything learned through science as either proof of God, or lack of proof of God. Hence, many of the arguments we have around here.

 

[MarinoMan]

Can a giant potato sing? See, I too can ask random questions.

 

[Beastt]

The scientific method helps us better understand our environment. It has proven itself useful.

Interestingly, one can view everything learned through science as either proof of God, or lack of proof of God. Hence, many of the arguments we have around here.

Likewise, one can view everything learned through science as either "proof" of The Invisible Pink Unicorn, or lack of "proof" of The Invisible Pink Unicorn. Except the word I think you're looking for isn't "proof" but "evidence".

 

[RomanSoldier]

can science prove itself?

The proof is in the pudding.

 

[Osiris]

And the ever popular; "Science doesn't deal in proofs. It deals in evidence."

But I think the most appropriate answer so far, (thank you Grizzly), is the one which points out that the text of the OP has been formed by pressing a series of keystrokes which are converted to electrical signals, stored as number patterns in an array of transistors, transmitted again as an electrical signals, then as patterns of photons and back again to electrical signals, to arrive at a specific point thousands of miles away and then be recorded as flux transitions on a smooth spinning platter coated with various metal oxides so that people at any point on the planet, can sit comfortably in front of their computers at home, work, and even in the air, and view the text within seconds so that they may ponder the question; "can science prove itself?".

This leads me to ask the question; 010101000111001001101111011011000110110000111111

Humans might think that is how it happens, and that it is science... but it could all be coincidence.

At some point, coincidence might run out and anything we type will not be what ew wnat and

 

[Osiris]

might not be sent where we want it to go.

 

[Niels]

Likewise, one can view everything learned through science as either "proof" of The Invisible Pink Unicorn, or lack of "proof" of The Invisible Pink Unicorn. Except the word I think you're looking for isn't "proof" but "evidence".

Sure, if by "Invisible Pink Unicorn" you mean reality.

 

[Beastt]

Sure, if by "Invisible Pink Unicorn" you mean reality.

So explain why you think it works with God but would work differently with the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Then demonstrate the evidence to back your assertion.