Search results
1. This largely depends on what you mean by ‘logically prove that anything exists’ (and a bit on what you mean by ‘logical object’). Let’s consider two alternatives. If you mean: ‘showing that it is a logical truth that something exists’, then the answer is no, or almost no.
- epistemology - How can we prove something exists ...
Also, each of the 'things supposed' is a premise (protasis);...
- epistemology - How can we prove something exists ...
- Words, Words, Words
- Theory: “Climate Change Is Just A Theory”
- Proof: “We Can’T Prove Humans Are Causing Climate Change.”
- A Winning Formula
It’s imperative scientists do a better job communicating the meaning of the words they choose. I don’t mean jargon: I mean basic words that mean one thing in scientific circles and another to the wider public. Let’s take the climate change debate, and focus on a few specific words in context.
In science effectively all ideas are “just” theories. Scientists often use concepts from the philosophy of science to make some semantic distinctions between laws, theories, hypotheses, and the like. So when a scientist talks about a “law” of nature, he or she is referring only to a standard observation (given some strict parameters), not an absolu...
When people ask for proof, they generally just mean “evidence”. Scientists may have lots of “evidence”, but will never claim to have “proof,” because proof does not exist in science. Proof has a technical meaning that only applies in mathematics. All we can do in science is collect evidence – lots of it – much the way we do in testing gravitational...
The burden for fixing this communication problem falls most heavily on the scientist. We need to better educate the public about the meaning of our words, and of the basic principles of science. We fail when we assume that everyone thinks or argues the way that we do. This is a huge challenge in an age of 24-7 news channels that are looking for thr...
May 12, 2015 · Also, each of the 'things supposed' is a premise (protasis); and 'what results of neccessity' is the conclusion (sumperasma). It's how we get from the premises to the conclusion 'by neccessity' that is the notion of proof. Thus a deduction, otherwise known as a valid argument, is to go from premises to the conclusion by way of a proof.
A common used of "lack of proof of absence" are claims of the existence of gods. Today we do not have enough knowledge to disprove gods. But if we find the grand-unified-theory / answer-to-everything in the future, we might gain exhaustive knowledge of the contents of reality, and at that time be properly armed to conclude that there are no gods.
Dec 14, 2017 · Nobody can prove that energy is conserved. Nobody can prove that dark matter exists. Nobody can prove that quantum physics is real. Because that’s not what science is about. Proof can only exist ...
Apr 19, 2016 · Science doesn’t prove anything, and that’s a good thing. It is often the case that the most fundamental concepts in science are the ones that are the most misunderstood, and that is certainly true with the concept of “proof.”. Many people accept the misconception that science is capable of providing proof, and I often hear people make ...
People also ask
Can science prove anything but it can disprove things?
Can you prove anything exists?
Is science a proof or a probability?
What if someone asks you 'prove something exists'?
Did science prove anything?
How do you prove a logical truth that something exists?
Sep 23, 2014 · But one word is rarely spoken or printed in science and that word is “proof”. In fact, science has little to do with “proving” anything. These words may have caused a worried expression to ...
