Originally posted by Pinke
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Every equation or scientific experiment that doesn't factor YOU into the equation is inherently wrong. Every observation is relative to the
instrument recording the observation and where it exists in space time, it can't be absolute.
I would disagree.
The best physics can do, for example, is predict, but if those predictions are accurate then the mathematical model is sound and useful.
I think sometimes people (even scientists) get confused and assume that science can/should explain reality down to the very last molecule. It
doesn't, and until we get giant amazing mega brains the size of ice cream trucks it likely never will.
So I'd say no, the equations are not wrong. They suit their purpose, and they are often productive.
So, the amount of evidence should not matter either when deciding for yourself that something scientific is provable.
I don't think it's the amount of evidence that really matters, but does the evidence suit the purpose.
Most of this conversation was brought up by philosophers like Decartes and Plato, albeit they weren't aimed at science as we know it today, their
conclusions were pretty much the same tangled mess that eventually falls into a neverending argument.
Just my opinion.
Well, of course. Science is very productive. I hope nobody get's the impression that I am some "religious nut who thinks Science is the devil." I
hold the utmost regards towards science. Where would we be without it today?
However, I am looking at this from a very logical, perhaps even philosophical, standpoint. Verily, I am claiming that it doesn't matter about the
amount of evidence as it will still provide no absolute answer or binational result.
For instance, as I stated earlier, you could have the logical answer as 0 equally false, and 1 equally true. Although these answers can't apply to
non-mathematical scientific theory, I will still use them for conversational reasons.
So, let's say you have a scientific theory. You want to reach an absolute truth of 1. However, you can't do this by simply supporting it with
evidence. You would have to equate the scientific theory into a mathematical equation that equaled 1 to conclude that it had absolute truth.
Therefore, I can submit that, regardless of how much evidence is supported, you will still not reach the point of 1.
And since we are looking at solutions from a binational aspect, there is no in-between of 0-1. This would mean that you could support one piece of
evidence for your scientific claim or 10,000 pieces and it would still not have the point of 1 reached. However, that does not mean that the claim is
automatically placed at 0 (false). It would be neither 0 nor 1.
This why I think it is absurd when people ask for evidence as it ultimately comes down to their belief, once again. It is their "standards" of
evidence that allows them to believe something. If we know that 1 can never be reach (and thusly, nothing in science to be absolute, regardless of the
claims supporting it), we should conclude evidence to be worthless in the sense of absolute proof. However, worthless is quite a harsh word. Evidence
does provide purpose but not absolution.
So, I ask "Why do you want evidence to support a claim made if nothing in science is neither false nor true?". I am not directing this at you, of
course. Just to the people who do want it.
I can no longer view the scientific world as true or false. To me, everything just is. (Disclaimer: I am not trying to be 'spiritual' about that.)