It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
You do realize that the term "scientific proof" is some what a form of oxymora, right?
Headliner: Do you want "scientific proof"
First paragraph: Well, too bad. You'll never get it.
Science will never prove anything because science doesn't have the full answer book in hand.
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.
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.