Do you want "scientific proof"?

page: 1
60
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+42 more 
posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Well, too bad. You'll never get it.

I have been seeing a lot of people during my time here, and specifically from this thread here lately, claim that they choose not to believe something because it lacks "scientific proof". It is really quite embarrassing too, because most of the people screaming for "proof!" are, what I would judge as, quite intelligent individuals.

You do realize that the term "scientific proof" is some what a form of oxymora, right?

There is no such thing as "proof" when it comes to science, because there are no final results in science. If you want finality you will have to partake in mathematics or logic as those are the only subjects where proof exists.

I'd love to go on and write my reasoning for this but this article sums it up much better than I ever could:
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.


We can look at history and see this all the time. You know this to be true. I'm not going to give the cliché example of how people used to think the world was flat (oops I just did hehe), but there has obviously been a lot of this in the past and when someone says that "I don't believe something just because I choose to, I believe it because of facts" they are most certainly wrong.

In the end, it really does come down to your own personal belief. Unless, of course, you are a nihilist and don't believe in anything.


For example, a few scientists in today's world come to an agreement on something. This claim gets brought to the public and now it is generally accepted as a standard and is considered "right" by the public. However, did the mass public do these experiments themselves? Did they calculate everything? Do all the measurements? Most certainly not, but since it is generally agreed by everyone, they believe it. I've talked about this before in a thread of mine and in logic this is known as an argumentum ad populum, which basically means "people believe something to be true merely because everybody else believes it". This is a fallacy, mind you.

The article sited above then goes on to state this:

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.


That being said, if we look at science from a logical standpoint, we would have to conclude that nothing is neither false nor true. However, we know that logic is contradictory to belief. A belief is something thought to be true by means of a opinion, where as logical truths come from facts. So, what that comes down to again is that, at some point, you are believing something based on your own opinion.

Also, with the above text linked, one could conclude that any piece of substantial evidence would be enough for someone to believe that something scientific is "true" or, at least, agreeable with them. If we simply can not prove anything scientific, that would mean the same regardless for the amount of "evidence" that was released. You could have 1000's of pages released saying "this is true" or you could have One page released saying "this is true" but neither one will prove that the theory is final. So, the amount of evidence should not matter either when deciding for yourself that something scientific is provable.

Remember the example I wrote above? Involving the argumentum ad populum? Well, let's say that this information was released to the public and they mass agreed on it. What then if another group of scientists had came out with completely equal amounts of information proving it to be "fasle"? Now you have 50% saying that "this is what is" and 50% saying "this is not what is". Who do you choose then? It merely comes down to your opinion, once again.


Consider this a rant if you wish, but the statement stands the same: "You can't prove anything scientific."

edit on 12-1-2012 by ErroneousDylan because: This text is green and italic.




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
As opposed to 'proof', how about statistical probability based on similar events?

Bob saw 'something' in the sky. The only 2 objects Bob can readily and reliably identify in the sky are the sun and the moon. He's uneducated, like most people, about what goes on overhead, from an astronomical, or aircraft engineering standpoint.

Since Bob is basically ignorant, as most are, that 'something' that Bob saw, based on countless other 'somethings' seen and reported by other people ignorant of astronomy and/or aircraft, would thus have a high statistical probability of being misidentification of either a bright star/planet, or conventional aircraft.

closer scrutiny of anecdotal 'evidence' like photos, and other such might lead to a more defined assessment, but, all in all, the statistical probability is that it's another case of misidentification.

If Bob happens to be an astronomer, even as a simple hobbyist, or a pilot, that puts a whole new slant on things.


+4 more 
posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I agree - Star and Flag for you.

I can give an example or two. I have studied NDE's (Near Death Experiences) for years. I have read thousands of NDE cases. There are certain things that are a commonality in almost every single one of those cases. Here are some:

1. The Earth is a living organism with a consciousness.
2. Time is an illusion and does not really exist.
3. We are coming to a time when people will be awakened to their true self.
4. Reincarnation is a fact.
5. What religion you belong to (and whether or not you believe in Jesus) has no effect on your "afterlife".
6. We plan out our lives (contract or blueprint) before we are born.

Can I prove scientifically any of this? No. I can't. But I know these things to be true because of so many consistent reports on them. Thousands of people could not be all making this stuff up! What would they possibly have to gain from it?

I have other examples, but I don't want to make this too long. However, I would like to add that we are all connected. Every one of us people are pieces, if you will, of the same being. Science will someday prove it - or it won't. (But I believe it will).



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by nineix

As opposed to 'proof', how about statistical probability based on similar events?

Bob saw 'something' in the sky. The only 2 objects Bob can readily and reliably identify in the sky are the sun and the moon. He's uneducated, like most people, about what goes on overhead, from an astronomical, or aircraft engineering standpoint.

Since Bob is basically ignorant, as most are, that 'something' that Bob saw, based on countless other 'somethings' seen and reported by other people ignorant of astronomy and/or aircraft, would thus have a high statistical probability of being misidentification of either a bright star/planet, or conventional aircraft.

closer scrutiny of anecdotal 'evidence' like photos, and other such might lead to a more defined assessment, but, all in all, the statistical probability is that it's another case of misidentification.

If Bob happens to be an astronomer, even as a simple hobbyist, or a pilot, that puts a whole new slant on things.


Very true! Is ignorance really bliss?

Your avatar makes me smile, by the way haha.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by angellicview
I agree - Star and Flag for you.

I can give an example or two. I have studied NDE's (Near Death Experiences) for years. I have read thousands of NDE cases. There are certain things that are a commonality in almost every single one of those cases. Here are some:

1. The Earth is a living organism with a consciousness.
2. Time is an illusion and does not really exist.
3. We are coming to a time when people will be awakened to their true self.
4. Reincarnation is a fact.
5. What religion you belong to (and whether or not you believe in Jesus) has no effect on your "afterlife".
6. We plan out our lives (contract or blueprint) before we are born.

Can I prove scientifically any of this? No. I can't. But I know these things to be true because of so many consistent reports on them. Thousands of people could not be all making this stuff up! What would they possibly have to gain from it?

I have other examples, but I don't want to make this too long. However, I would like to add that we are all connected. Every one of us people are pieces, if you will, of the same being. Science will someday prove it - or it won't. (But I believe it will).


Don't worry. You can't scientifically prove anything, so no sweating it =)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Thats exactly what i say to people who come at me with the "science is always right" mentality.
I just tear down their walls,
Most don't listen.

Good to get that out there though!

"In science there is no right or wrong answer, only the theory that best fits, and its just that. A theory."



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
So if i see a rock on the ground are you telling me that science could not prove its a rock?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
although in many ways I am a liberal individual, I most certainly do not subscribe to the liberal ideal of (in the words of philosopher Ken Wilber) an ideological FLATLAND.

no, no. there are, indeed, some ideas which intrinsically have *more value* than other ideas. this intrinsic value is derived from the idea's usefulness, or rather, its ability to produce a reliable effect.


in terms of the humanities, this philosophy is regarded as repugnant. however, it remains that there surely ARE some works of art which are in fact BETTER THAN other works of art. this is judged, principally, by the success of the artist to produce some abstracted reaction within the experiencer of his work.


THIS IS EVEN MORE SO IMPORTANT WITH REGARD TO SCIENCE.

while I, personally, Do not make demands upon any individual idea to be supported by (many times overvalued) academic consensus, I do absolutely require that the idea, unproven as it is, be at least USEFUL if not REPRODUCABLE.


therefore, to those whom wish to assert a controversial or speculative idea on these boards (including those whom claim to be "the one" re: the matrix trilogy), I say this:....

...I don't care what the idea IS, I care what it DOES! period.
...I don't care who (you think) you ARE, I care what you can accomplish!


this is the standard.


thank you.


ETA: ...the question immediately following is, of course, "HOW?" if you do not know how, or cannot provide some type of supporting context, your post does not belong in this forum. there is a very wide berth of acceptable speculation in this ALTERNATIVE science forum. however, we must draw the line somewhere.
edit on 12-1-2012 by tgidkp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
So if i see a rock on the ground are you telling me that science could not prove its a rock?


This is especially true. While the standard says it is a "rock" it could very well change one day, even if it is a very slim chance. From my work in mycology I see this all the time with living organisms. For years two different type of mushrooms were being classified as the same species because they were nearly identical, and even grew together in the same area. Eventually, however, somebody found that there were, in fact, two different of species mixed together. Now they both have unique species names.

Names get changed all the time, because they are not "set in stone". No pun intended to your rock.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


I undertsand what you are saying but I think you are changing the parameters of the argument somewhat.

If a rock is defined by certain characteristics and an object exactly fits those characteristics then it is a rock. Until the rules of what makes up a rock changes then it is a rock.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


further, the parameters typically change only when it is necessary and useful (re: my above post) to do so.

therefore, if the usefulness of an idea cannot be established, the idea has fundamentally zero merit.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


I undertsand what you are saying but I think you are changing the parameters of the argument somewhat.

If a rock is defined by certain characteristics and an object exactly fits those characteristics then it is a rock. Until the rules of what makes up a rock changes then it is a rock.


There is always an exception to rules, however. Something can not meet all the characteristics of a rock, yet still be a rock. And not all rocks meet all the characteristics of a rock. And something could meet the characteristics of a rock and not be a rock. Of course, I am speaking relatively here.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
What we call science applies to the physical world, what we call "reality". The reality which we experience now.

The fallacy is that we assume that your "physical reality" which we experience *right now* is the only one and the only valid one.

In fact, there is evidence this is not the case - and humans know that for 1000s of years already. Our conscious and what we call "the reality" is only a fraction of something bigger, in fact it might be that we are pretty limited in many ways in THIS "reality"..simply because our brain/mind can only perceive it as that.

There is evidence that phenomena like UFOs/Aliens etc. are indeed playing in a "different" reality, above and beyond the laws/science/physics of "our" current reality.

It is therefore likely NEVER possible nor makes sense to apply the laws of what we call "science" to such things...because we don't see the "whole picture" but can only reason and explain things within the limits of our own, current reality. Hope this makes sense



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 



You do realize that the term "scientific proof" is some what a form of oxymora, right?


And how do you mean that, exactly?

Do you mean that Knowledge and Proof are mutually exclusive?

Is that really your perspective on the matter? Because I can assure you that you are wrong.


A = A

There, Your entire thread has been rendered meaningless by 3 characters.

Have fun being Ignorant.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   


Headliner: Do you want "scientific proof"
First paragraph: Well, too bad. You'll never get it.


Beautiful! What a set-up!

Science will never prove anything because science doesn't have the full answer book in hand. Yes, they can do a number of things... the obvious, but for those thing less known?

Science relies on faith as much as faith relies on faith. Our species is just beginning to understand how things work. Someday we may reach out and touch the stars but in our lifetimes? trusting science is as much an act of faith as being baptised to go to heaven.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 



Science will never prove anything because science doesn't have the full answer book in hand.


What really makes me sad for humanity is that you actually believe this.

A = A

Proven.

Scientifically.

Your statement is WRONG.

Just deal with it.


Science relies on faith


Wait... Full Stop... You are just wrong... and that's sad.

Science relies on KNOWLEDGE and Observation of REALITY, not Faith.

Go back to Ignorance Land... you clearly have no conception of what science is.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 




Wait... Full Stop... You are just wrong... and that's sad. Science relies on KNOWLEDGE and Observation of REALITY, not Faith. Go back to Ignorance Land... you clearly have no conception of what science is.


I don't always agree with everyone here at ATS but I always hope that even those I disagree with are civil and not inclined to draw insults and stereotypes on a complete stranger.

Your beliefs are entirely up to you... I would only suggest being less judgmental and more open to ideas and concepts that don't always fit your view.

Best wishes... maybe someday we can discuss our differences without all the above.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 



I don't always agree with everyone here at ATS but I always hope that even those I disagree with are civil and not inclined to draw insults and stereotypes on a complete stranger.


I happen to agree with this statement completely.... was there a specific reason that you brought this up?

Or were you just making idle conversation?


Your beliefs are entirely up to you...


And this is entirely correct....

The only problem, is when you label "Science" as a system of Belief, which is entirely inaccurate, hence, my reply.


I would only suggest being less judgmental and more open to ideas and concepts that don't always fit your view.


I'm terribly sorry, But I reserve the right to Deny Ignorance.

And if that means Judging your Perspective as WRONG, then so be it.

This is not about a "Viewpoint", this is about observable reality, and the study of the veracity of truth.

You seem to be of the mind that Truth is subjective, and that Knowledge is WRONG, or Pliable.

And I assure you that this is not the case.

Science is about observing reality... Your belief that Science is about "Faith" is wholly without merit, and thus, You are Wrong.

This is a judgement, and it is mine to make.

If you argue with reality, expect reality to defeat your argument.

Have a nice day.




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


*sigh*

You can dissect your selected opponents replies, spin them to your advantage in text format... but it doesn't make you or your argument right.

Again, I suggest a more human approach. Leave the arrogance behind and you might learn something.

May I suggest this:

Submit what you might consider to be an undeniable scientific truth. Then, if you don't mind, allow that undeniable truth to be challenged. If I am am not overstepping, I would also suggest that you defend your truth based on that truth and not insults.

'Sup to you. I'll check back in on this.

Cheers



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


I am in agreement with ErtaiNaGia in his response to you.

there is no such thing as an "ideological Flatland", as mentioned in my above post.


rather, some ideas (particularly those produced by workable scientific methods) are more useful (better) than others. this can be taken (typically by those persons with fragile egos) as a personal insult. this is unfortunate, as no one here is attempting to hurt you.


and why should the goal of every human not be to attain the most useful set of ideas that is possible? what is the purpose of holding onto less-useful ideas?



new topics
 
60
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join