Re: [Phys-l] Science, verification and proving

[ludwik kowalski <kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu>]

On Mar 8, 2011, at 2:42 AM, Savinainen Antti wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 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.

The method of validation of claims in science is not the same as in  
mathematics. The source of a claim (theory, guess, intuition, guess,  
etc.) does not count.

1) In mathematics claims are validated by logical consistency with  
what has already been accepted.

2) In physics claims are validated by new experimental or  
observational data, as described by Antti

> ... So...what do you think about science, verification and proof?

I agree with you, and with those who replied earlier.


Ludwik

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html