Can science ever be irrefutable?

First off, I am not here to bash science nor do I have the intention of this becoming a religious vs. science thing, I am not even religious so please keep this about science.

Now we have that out of the way; this question came about when I thought about how scientists often believe theories as fact as it appears to be the best logical answer. However does this still not come down to belief? You’re probably thinking well science itself means proof as the theory is put through a rigorous process of elimination and confirmation. But, even if a test is conducted a million times, all the logic states proof, can it ever be 100%?

I think most of us pretty much determine what is true by science, so is this sensible when science can never be full proof. It takes belief to accept; ok the chance of this being wrong is too great to be false. Electrical instruments also become void as there may always be underlying reasons behind how the result is recorded. I don’t believe a laboratory can ever free of influences, the universe holds more than we will ever find out. We could very well be surrounded by some form of energy, matter or even consciousness that alters how the results show up.

I often think about human history, we used to rely on the environment to determine our understandings of life on the most primitive level. We then formed beliefs, religions etc that we applied to how we understood the world. Now we have science, though the more I think about it the more science is not definite, eventually I believe science will be replaced. Well science like religion may still be relevant for some but I can imagine it becoming overshadowed by something new.

I just thought it is an interesting thought, I’m not suggesting what science has seemingly proven is actually wrong, however science to me is a belief, fact I guess by definition Is truth however anything we do to determine fact falls into the group of belief. By the way I failed science in school so I hope this doesn’t come across as suggestinge scientists don’t know what they are talking about as I myself follow science as truth, I just wonder if I’m justified in this way of thinking.

Yes 2+2=4
No need for a second, but needs must and the devil drives.

reply to post by goldentorch


The problem is 1+3=4

If we only have 2 and 2 infront of us even if it is logical to go with 2+2 that may not be the actual formula providing the result.

If you push a rock with your finger and the rock moves you have scientifically proven that pushing a rock with your finger will cause that rock to move. Everytime you do it it will have the same result.

That is science. If you want to say that it's just a belief that is your right but that is our definition of science so by our definition science is proof.

It's the fundamental difference between science and religion.

One is always refutable and advocates of it not only accept this but strive to prove it. The other is supposedly irrefutable.

Science is all about telling us to have open minds and proving that what we thought we knew was wrong.

Religion is all about telling us what to believe and that it can not possibly be wrong under any possible circumstance. 'Cos God said so.

Originally posted by OwenGP185
reply to post by goldentorch

 

The problem is 1+3=4

If we only have 2 and 2 infront of us even if it is logical to go with 2+2 that may not be the actual formula providing the result.

edit on 5-7-2011 by OwenGP185 because: (no reason given)

Serves me right for trying to be smart.
However you must admit my reasoning is sound changing the equation still means by the same reasoning basic scientific precepts assisted you in your answer too. So yes sometimes science is irrefutable.

Originally posted by goldentorch
Yes 2+2=4
No need for a second, but needs must and the devil drives.

If you are only scientifically debating the question of 2 +2 then 4 is a scientifically proven answer. Bringing up 1 + 3 was not the question so is irrelevant.

If you are trying to figure out how oxygen makes trees grow you do not need to look at how sunlight makes trees grow also as that is not what your currently studying.

1+3 has no bearing on 2+2

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by goldentorch
Yes 2+2=4
No need for a second, but needs must and the devil drives.

If you are only scientifically debating the question of 2 +2 then 4 is a scientifically proven answer. Bringing up 1 + 3 was not the question so is irrelevant.

If you are trying to figure out how oxygen makes trees grow you do not need to look at how sunlight makes trees grow also as that is not what your currently studying.

1+3 has no bearing on 2+2

Wait a second, because another formula that could provide the same result is not part of the theory it becomes void? This is the problem, you cannot just exclud other possibilities just because we choose to look at what is on the table. Nature is unpredictable and it would be foolish to look on the table and miss the magnet underneath manipulating what you are looking at on the surface.

Excluding another posibility is just as single minded as religion, religion might not have any proof but science I dont think is 100%. I do trust science is correct though, its just good to look at the subject from another perspective.

reply to post by OwenGP185


No.

Try this one. What is science? Can anything be irrefutable? One thing.. the one thing no human has or will ever know.

reply to post by OwenGP185


That is exactly what i'm saying. You are only trying to prove the result of 2+2, you are in no way saying that other methods can't give you the same result.

Those other methods aren't what you are putting through the process though as they have no bearing on what 2 +2 is.

If you want to see if a certain fish species is losing numbers due to shark attacks that is what you study. You in no way are declaring that nothing else is causing this fish species to lose numbers as there are most certainly other causes. Your only concern is the fish species in regards to shark attacks.

the number 4 may have many different equations that can bring it about but you are only concerned to see if 2+2 can do it also.

that is science.

reply to post by kro32


Sorry, but if you sit down and push a rock with your finger and it moves and you repeat you have based a theory on observation. You have scientifically proven nothing. In actuality, you never even touched the rock at all, it only appears that way. The energy between your finger and the rock is compressed and in its desire to expand, moves the rock. BUT the molecules in your body leave and join with something else and sometimes comes back, as it does in everything therefore you are the rock and the rock is you. It is simply the manipulation of energy at its simplest level that causes the rock to move.

Science is based on the best explanation that has been found. It sometimes can be explained in different ways and the best explanation is accepted as fact until another explains it better.

Also the question of 2+2=4 or 1+3=4 is only relevant in basic math as algebra can show that 1+1=3

reply to post by OwenGP185



1+3=4 actually helps to corroborate that 2+2=4. take physics for example. one theory can be corroborated by another theory thus pointing even more to that fact that what is being studied is actually happening. those simple equations are not just randomly put together. you can plainly see that if you had 4 oranges in front of you any way you separate them and recombine they will always equal 4.

reply to post by IPILYA


Yes the details as you describe may require further analysis but the fact that your finger is making the rock move has been proving. Observing is a scientific method, one of the best, of determining proof or not.

Putting green dye in a glass of water proves that green dye will turn the water green. Exactly how this happens would require deeper research but your observation proves that green dye will turn a glass of water green.

My theory was that by dumping green dye into water that that would cause the water to turn green. I have proving my theory. My theory isn't to go deeper than that as somebody else may take that up later.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by OwenGP185

 

That is exactly what i'm saying. You are only trying to prove the result of 2+2, you are in no way saying that other methods can't give you the same result.

Those other methods aren't what you are putting through the process though as they have no bearing on what 2 +2 is.

If you want to see if a certain fish species is losing numbers due to shark attacks that is what you study. You in no way are declaring that nothing else is causing this fish species to lose numbers as there are most certainly other causes. Your only concern is the fish species in regards to shark attacks.

the number 4 may have many different equations that can bring it about but you are only concerned to see if 2+2 can do it also.

that is science.

Ok I get what you are saying, however the question of sharks attacking fish is not where the proof is, thats the theory. So what proof is irrefutable in this scenario? Sure there may be millions of possibilites to suggest why the numbers fell but can any of the posibilities be proven without above that 90%?

Also good point IPILYA, thats the problem. It is logical to think out hand is the cause, we could even measure the force of our hand and measure the distance of the rock. But we missed a fundamental element which makes the proof of our hand moving the wrong incorrect.

reply to post by OwenGP185


If you study the sharks and observe them feeding off that fish species you have determined that they are one of the causes of reducing the numbers of this species. You already know there are other causes but your one interest was in determing if the sharks were also a factor. By observing them feeding you have determined that yes indeed they are.

Proving one theory does not neglect all others it simply proves that one theory.

reply to post by kro32


True. And the next person finds out that the green dye actually spreads through dispersion and balances out in the ppm and not actually bonding with the H2O molecules thus making the theory that it turns the water green incorrect. The theory that it turns green is correct on one level of observation and not others. In my opinion, this is what slows scientific advancement. Instead of going deeper into what actually happens they compile evidence to show repeated results and leave the rest to others(in most cases I am not saying they all do).

Science strives to find the best possible model to explain phenomena. When a better model comes along, the former is either incorporated into the new model or is rejected. Five hundred years of this process has produced a very large body of inter-related models that are mostly self-consistent and continue to produce reliable predictions. Scientists can sometimes seem arrogant to those that do not understand this process, but it works.

Originally posted by homeskillet
reply to post by OwenGP185

 

1+3=4 actually helps to corroborate that 2+2=4. take physics for example. one theory can be corroborated by another theory thus pointing even more to that fact that what is being studied is actually happening. those simple equations are not just randomly put together. you can plainly see that if you had 4 oranges in front of you any way you separate them and recombine they will always equal 4.

Makes sence, however we cant point at proof and then accept it because it is reasonable evidence. We could use millions of equations im sure to reach 4, they may all suggest we have 4 but that never makes irrefutable proof? I think science can and will be taken over by methods ahead of our time which describes our world with more precision and accuracy, its hard to wrap our heads around but it is certainly possible in my eyes.

For the record I know science works, however I don't beleive science should ever be considered the ultimate truth. Anything that has been "proven" by science today could have an alternate explanation whether we yet have an understading of this possibility or not.

Originally posted by IPILYA
reply to post by kro32

 

True. And the next person finds out that the green dye actually spreads through dispersion and balances out in the ppm and not actually bonding with the H2O molecules. In my opinion, this is what slows scientific advancement. Instead of going deeper into what actually happens they compile evidence to show repeated results and leave the rest to others(in most cases I am not saying they all do).

Proving that green dye will turn a glass of water green is only the first step. You can't jump into a chemical analysis without first starting at the beginning. If I want to find out if monkey's can surive in space the first thing I do is send a monkey into space.

After that I will delve into the finer details of how and why or why not.

reply to post by OwenGP185


How is that not irrefutable proof.

If you've proven it then it can not be debated.