Scientific proof

[BigBallinStalin]

There's the argument that - while there is presumably some 'truth' in the workings of the universe - we only observe them, well, by observing the superficial outcomes of the workings. Which is why Newton's laws - while accurate for almost all intents and purposes - have been disproved and expanded on. This is strikingly similar, but more structured, to the practice of interpreting apparent signs from God/whatever, and trying to explain the why. So, until we know everything, we can't prove anything.

Epistemological arguments also apply.

What is the difference between truth and proof?

[BigBallinStalin]

@Everyone, not exclusively PLAYER.

dont you think it is an enough proof why we do not have any hanging solid item on the air but they tend to drop down on the landscape unless there is any form of opposite force to beat the natural force that we call gravity.

LOL... but now explain exactly how come that happens.... and provide proof, please.

well,
proof ... do you mean a mathematical description for you to accept to be a proof ?
word/meaning, proof, it is subjective i guess...

No, not in science, it isn't. That is the point.

And.. jokes aside, while we know a lot about gravity, the basic theory has not been fully proven.

Even a lot of what IS proven is really only conditionally proven.. that is, "this is true given our time, universe, etc...."

Various sciences or explanations (e.g. from religion) rely upon different standards of objectivity.

So, "Even a lot of what IS proven is really only conditionally proven."

For example, we have two competing theories for gravity.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

(2) Jonesthecurlian Theory of Badger-Gravity

But note the difference between law and theory:

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.

While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-ex ... ory-or-law


So, with "conditional proof" (rather a criteria for objectivity and truth) in mind, which theory of gravity should be discarded? #1 or #2? Why?

[BigBallinStalin]

Recall crispybit's conversation with lionz(?) about this in that Evidence for God thread. Crispybits and those within the science/philosophy-minded community wish to play basketball with its underlying rules in place. They adhere to different teams, e.g. some are logical positivists, others are like Karl Popper (replacing verifiability with falsifiability)--see that wiki link, others are rational constructivists, who are opposed by Hayekians, and blah blah blah.

But then there are those who play football yet wish to play basketball with their football gear and football rules (e.g. adherents of faith-based explanations, you know, the religious type). They don't understand why the basketballers become frustrated when the footballers begin kicking the basketball around. This difference between the two types of players seems to be the fundamental cause of misunderstanding between the two groups. Some brilliant theologians have likely noticed this, but unfortunately, the large swaths of 'footballers' have no clue and will continue kicking the basketball around.

[AAFitz]

dont you think it is an enough proof why we do not have any hanging solid item on the air but they tend to drop down on the landscape unless there is any form of opposite force to beat the natural force that we call gravity.

LOL... but now explain exactly how come that happens.... and provide proof, please.

Ok. Pick up a rock, hold it over your head, drop it.

It will hit you on the head, and that proves there is something called gravity.

There is some force that causes that rock to hit you in the head. Do it a hundred times, a thousand, a million. There is no more proven force known to man.

Now, what I am guessing is you feel it is not proven, simply because we cant be sure of whats causing it, and that doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

What we cant prove, is the definition of gravity, but the existence of it is quite proven.

Let me know when the rock stops hitting you on the head, and you can have the nobel prize.

[AAFitz]

@Everyone, not exclusively PLAYER.

dont you think it is an enough proof why we do not have any hanging solid item on the air but they tend to drop down on the landscape unless there is any form of opposite force to beat the natural force that we call gravity.

LOL... but now explain exactly how come that happens.... and provide proof, please.

well,
proof ... do you mean a mathematical description for you to accept to be a proof ?
word/meaning, proof, it is subjective i guess...

No, not in science, it isn't. That is the point.

And.. jokes aside, while we know a lot about gravity, the basic theory has not been fully proven.

Even a lot of what IS proven is really only conditionally proven.. that is, "this is true given our time, universe, etc...."

Various sciences or explanations (e.g. from religion) rely upon different standards of objectivity.

So, "Even a lot of what IS proven is really only conditionally proven."

For example, we have two competing theories for gravity.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

(2) Jonesthecurlian Theory of Badger-Gravity

But note the difference between law and theory:

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.

While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-ex ... ory-or-law


So, with "conditional proof" (rather a criteria for objectivity and truth) in mind, which theory of gravity should be discarded? #1 or #2? Why?

There can be a thousand theories of the cause of gravity, but that won't cause it to not exist. It will only define the force.

The fact that there is something currently labeled "gravity", which causes objects to move, is quite proven.

Feel free to attempt the same experiment I provided player, if you need more proof.

[BigBallinStalin]

Various sciences or explanations (e.g. from religion) rely upon different standards of objectivity.

So, "Even a lot of what IS proven is really only conditionally proven."

For example, we have two competing theories for gravity.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

(2) Jonesthecurlian Theory of Badger-Gravity

But note the difference between law and theory:

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.

While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-ex ... ory-or-law


So, with "conditional proof" (rather a criteria for objectivity and truth) in mind, which theory of gravity should be discarded? #1 or #2? Why?

There can be a thousand theories of the cause of gravity, but that won't cause it to not exist. It will only define the force.

The fact that there is something currently labeled "gravity", which causes objects to move, is quite proven.

Feel free to attempt the same experiment I provided player, if you need more proof.

I dropped a badger just now, and it levitated; therefore, you're wrong.

Currently, I'm co-authoring a 30-page article on it, but the primary author is God. In it, it shall be written that this is the word of God, so haha, nanny-nanny-foo-foo, it is infallible.

Is it verifiable? No.
Is it falsifiable? No.

+1 for God
-1 for Science

amirite?

[Funkyterrance]

What is interesting is the immediate bloodlust we are seeing regarding the mistaken assumption that player is somehow doubting the theory of gravity. I don't think she is denying the validity of the theory, just that it is a theory and by definition not yet proven. There are laws of gravity that can be counted on to know with certainty the actions of objects in given situations but whether or not gravity is absolutely created by the mass of one object acting on another object has not yet been proven. Something is causing the laws of gravity to give predictable results but the cause is just theory.
Why is any perceived challenge of scientific "facts" in general met with such rabid responses? What would happen if up were actually found to be down and vice versa? Would so many people go all lemming on themselves?

[jonesthecurl]

Also: if you let go of a rock tomorrow and it didn't fall, or did but at an unexpected rate, this would show that the theory needed to be refined.
Saying "Things fall" is not stating the laws of gravity.

Newton didn't just say "oh, look! Things fall down! That's my contribution to science!"

[oVo]

Does the natural world really have laws and were they determined in a democratic way?

Objects don't actually drop or fall, they are pulled.

[Funkyterrance]

Objects don't actually drop or fall, they are pulled.

Interesting theory but I call bullshit.

[oVo]

Bull shit may drop with a plop, but that is simply an example
of the Earth's gravitational pull.

[2dimes]

Terrence my friend. If I had the money or more importantly access to proper equipment, I'd take you into orbit to show you where we would stop being pulled toward the Earth and start to be pulled toward the moon. I'd have someone post it to YouTube for Andy to watch whilst munching a banana.

[thegreekdog]

Recall crispybit's conversation with lionz(?) about this in that Evidence for God thread. Crispybits and those within the science/philosophy-minded community wish to play basketball with its underlying rules in place. They adhere to different teams, e.g. some are logical positivists, others are like Karl Popper (replacing verifiability with falsifiability)--see that wiki link, others are rational constructivists, who are opposed by Hayekians, and blah blah blah.

But then there are those who play football yet wish to play basketball with their football gear and football rules (e.g. adherents of faith-based explanations, you know, the religious type). They don't understand why the basketballers become frustrated when the footballers begin kicking the basketball around. This difference between the two types of players seems to be the fundamental cause of misunderstanding between the two groups. Some brilliant theologians have likely noticed this, but unfortunately, the large swaths of 'footballers' have no clue and will continue kicking the basketball around.

This post makes me think you don't know how to play either of those sports.

[BigBallinStalin]

Recall crispybit's conversation with lionz(?) about this in that Evidence for God thread. Crispybits and those within the science/philosophy-minded community wish to play basketball with its underlying rules in place. They adhere to different teams, e.g. some are logical positivists, others are like Karl Popper (replacing verifiability with falsifiability)--see that wiki link, others are rational constructivists, who are opposed by Hayekians, and blah blah blah.

But then there are those who play football yet wish to play basketball with their football gear and football rules (e.g. adherents of faith-based explanations, you know, the religious type). They don't understand why the basketballers become frustrated when the footballers begin kicking the basketball around. This difference between the two types of players seems to be the fundamental cause of misunderstanding between the two groups. Some brilliant theologians have likely noticed this, but unfortunately, the large swaths of 'footballers' have no clue and will continue kicking the basketball around.

This post makes me think you don't know how to play either of those sports.

Quit kicking my basketballs, TGD.

[crispybits]

Recall crispybit's conversation with lionz(?) about this in that Evidence for God thread. Crispybits and those within the science/philosophy-minded community wish to play basketball with its underlying rules in place. They adhere to different teams, e.g. some are logical positivists, others are like Karl Popper (replacing verifiability with falsifiability)--see that wiki link, others are rational constructivists, who are opposed by Hayekians, and blah blah blah.

But then there are those who play football yet wish to play basketball with their football gear and football rules (e.g. adherents of faith-based explanations, you know, the religious type). They don't understand why the basketballers become frustrated when the footballers begin kicking the basketball around. This difference between the two types of players seems to be the fundamental cause of misunderstanding between the two groups. Some brilliant theologians have likely noticed this, but unfortunately, the large swaths of 'footballers' have no clue and will continue kicking the basketball around.

I'd actually forgotten that conversation - yes it was (at least partly) with lionz. The first thing that came to mind when I read this because of the context of the thread was the debate with metsfanmax about whether you can extend causality before the universe, as there is no time to act on a cause-effect relationship until the universe actually gets going.

[Lil_SlimShady]

I have nothing to contribute to the discussion in this thread so have this gif (a must have for all creationists).

[jonesthecurl]

Hmm. two-thirds of the number of the beast?

[tzor]

Terrence my friend. If I had the money or more importantly access to proper equipment, I'd take you into orbit to show you where we would stop being pulled toward the Earth and start to be pulled toward the moon. I'd have someone post it to YouTube for Andy to watch whilst munching a banana.

Why not find the two happy mediums? I hear the Earth/Moon L5 point is really lovely this time of year.

[jonesthecurl]

Home, home on LaGrange....

[PLAYER57832]

What is interesting is the immediate bloodlust we are seeing regarding the mistaken assumption that player is somehow doubting the theory of gravity. I don't think she is denying the validity of the theory, just that it is a theory and by definition not yet proven.

Exactly, I used it precisely because while we all pretty much understand that gravity is real, proving it scientifically is not so easy.

Anyway, my attempt was really to bring up discussion of scientific proof itself, but I obviously failed.