Can science ever be irrefutable?

Originally posted by OwenGP185
we may get consistent results after 100000000000000 tests, but what if on the 100000000000001 test it turns out to be incorrect but we stopped short because it wasnt logical to go further... So we have to go on belief not just the mind bending amount of evidence to say whatever in question is true.

Actually I wouldn't call something that's been supported by 100000000000000 tests just a "belief".

Additionally, science recognized exceptions to the rule, that's part of science.

A specific example comes to mind regarding the second law of thermodynamics. Some people think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is always followed, but it's violated on rare occasion like your 1/100000000000000 example.

Second law of thermodynamics "broken"

One of the most fundamental rules of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, has for the first time been shown not to hold for microscopic systems.

Physicists knew that at atomic scales over very short periods of time, statistical mechanics is pushed beyond its limit, and the second law does not apply. Put another way, situations that break the second law become much more probable.

But the new experiment probed the uncertain middle ground between extremely small-scale systems and macroscopic systems and showed that the second law can also be consistently broken at micron scale, over time periods of up to two seconds.

So a law is broken, but I'd still say in light of these results that the second law of thermodynamics is pretty certain based on all evidence so far. In fact rather than showing the law is wrong, those experiments just helped better define the limitations and boundary conditions over which the law applies, so I'd say it's better than ever now rather than being "disproven" just because it was violated.

In fact science can say that if large enough numbers of experiments are run, then statistically improbable events become much more probable.

An analogy would be that if you go to Vegas and get 20 reds in a row on a roulette wheel, that would seem to be nearly impossible statistically. But given all the roulette wheels operating in Vegas 24/7, it does happen.

But even though it happens, it's still nearly impossible to happen in a single event. And science can and does define these probabilities in many cases, such as in the case of a thermodynamic system, where the larger the system, the less frequently the second law is violated.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by OwenGP185
we may get consistent results after 100000000000000 tests, but what if on the 100000000000001 test it turns out to be incorrect but we stopped short because it wasnt logical to go further... So we have to go on belief not just the mind bending amount of evidence to say whatever in question is true.

Actually I wouldn't call something that's been supported by 100000000000000 tests just a "belief".

Additionally, science recognized exceptions to the rule, that's part of science.

A specific example comes to mind regarding the second law of thermodynamics. Some people think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is always followed, but it's violated on rare occasion like your 1/100000000000000 example.

Second law of thermodynamics "broken"

One of the most fundamental rules of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, has for the first time been shown not to hold for microscopic systems.

Physicists knew that at atomic scales over very short periods of time, statistical mechanics is pushed beyond its limit, and the second law does not apply. Put another way, situations that break the second law become much more probable.

But the new experiment probed the uncertain middle ground between extremely small-scale systems and macroscopic systems and showed that the second law can also be consistently broken at micron scale, over time periods of up to two seconds.

So a law is broken, but I'd still say in light of these results that the second law of thermodynamics is pretty certain based on all evidence so far. In fact rather than showing the law is wrong, those experiments just helped better define the limitations and boundary conditions over which the law applies, so I'd say it's better than ever now rather than being "disproven" just because it was violated.

In fact science can say that if large enough numbers of experiments are run, then statistically improbable events become much more probable.

An analogy would be that if you go to Vegas and get 20 reds in a row on a roulette wheel, that would seem to be nearly impossible statistically. But given all the roulette wheels operating in Vegas 24/7, it does happen.

But even though it happens, it's still nearly impossible to happen in a single event. And science can and does define these probabilities in many cases, such as in the case of a thermodynamic system, where the larger the system, the less frequently the second law is violated.

I feel you are missing what I am trying to say, im not saying anything is disproven in the respect that it is wrong, far from it. It helps to look at this as a debate of how we interpret what is fact rather than the actually physical aspect of science which is not the real subject being questioned. I really do get what you are saying and what others have said, however we are both percieving a very different debate.

The reason I say 100% is because that is an end, when you have explored 100% of possibilites(Known or unknown) and statistical chances you then reach a dead end and can carry on no further, hence your result is final and absolute in conclusion. You must agree it is impossbile to test every aspect of how the universe could have an effect(known or unknown)? We dont even know every possibility in order to put to test.

So a law is broken, but I'd still say in light of these results that the second law of thermodynamics is pretty certain based on all evidence so far. In fact rather than showing the law is wrong, those experiments just helped better define the limitations and boundary conditions over which the law applies, so I'd say it's better than ever now rather than being "disproven" just because it was violated.

This highlights how we are seeing the debate very differently, you say, "pretty certain" based on the evidence. However since the start I have been saying science allows pretty certain and I do not propose anything otherwise. "Pretty certain" is less than 100% even if it is 99.999995 it still lacks that irrefutable aspect. So every consideration has to be taken into account in order to be factual truth atleast in my opinion.

Also im not saying what science says is pretty certain is dis-proven. Again im not saying science is nonsense, my main point is we cannot proof irrefutaly with todays science when in a few years we may have discovered something thats allows me to refute that same "fact". So untill we know everything about the universe(yes this is impossible) then we will always have refutable facts, facts that have the potiental to be argued when more about the universe is discovered.

I feel I have just awnsered my own question lol. Untill we know everything about the universe, we can only know refutable facts, facts that change as our knowledge grows but never irrefutable.

I think one of the problems is a misunderstanding of what a scientific fact is.

A scientific fact is simply something which cannot be disproven given current knowledge.

But facts change. All the time. Whenever we make a new discovery.

And that's science


Edit: mathematical facts are, so I understand, a different matter. They cannot change. But I'm not a mathematician.