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]

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



It sounds like the teacher who allegedly had no background in science at least has some Bayesian thinking. Experimental results that match theoretical predictions within uncertainty limits increase the probability of the theory's usefulness, but do not "prove the theory."

As experimental results increasingly support the predictions of a given theory, the requirement for evidence that would support an alternative theory become increasingly extraordinary. Two example cases demonstrating the success/failure of meeting this requirement come to mind: 1) high temperature superconductivity, and 2) cold fusion.

Rick Strickert
Austin, TX


-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Savinainen Antti
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 1:42 AM
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Subject: [Phys-l] Science, verification and proving

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.

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?

Best wishes,

Antti


Antti Savinainen, Ph.D., B.Ed.
Adjunct Professor (University of Jyväskylä)
Senior Lecturer in Physics and Mathematics
Kuopion Lyseo High School
Finland
E-mail: <antti.savinainen@kuopio.fi>
Website: <http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/savant/>


--

********************************************************************************************
Viesti on tarkastettu roskapostisuodatus- ja virustorjuntaohjelmistolla.
Tarkastuksesta huolimatta noudata asianmukaista varovaisuutta liitteitä avatessasi.

Istekki Oy
*********************************************************************************************

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l