Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
I had recently a discussion on science and physics with a teacher who
apparently had no background in science. He said that you should
never say "science has proven that...". I proposed that one could
talk about verification of predictions of a theory. In physics this
means that an experimental result matches with the theoretical
prediction within uncertainty limits. However, one might argue that
the theory itself was not proven whereas one could say that theory is
validated by experimental evidence. The concept of proof would in
this scenario be reserved to mathematics and logic.
I quite often hear another claim: science changes all the time so who
knows, perhaps everything is different in future. My response is
that, yes, there will be better theories in future. Then again,
technology based on science we have now does not cease to work and
well checked empirical results are not likely to be false. We have
not abandoned Newtonian mechanics even though we know that relativity
theory is a more accurate description of nature. The point is to know
the limits of validity of a theory with respect to the accuracy of
measurements we want to make. This is not to say that a conceptual
framework in which the empiria is interpreted can be very different.
So...what do you think about science, verification and proof?