← Home ← Back to /sci/

Thread 16747842

6 posts 4 images /sci/
Anonymous No.16747842 >>16747900 >>16747928 >>16747935
Does science find truth? Can the scientific method be used to prove facts about the universe are true?
Anonymous No.16747849
You can derive a law have it empirically experimentally verified beyond any reasonable doubt and still be ultimately wrong. Krauss talked about this how if humanity became self aware well later in the evolution of the cosmos and the universe was expanding faster than light away from us we would come to the conclusion empirically that we are the only galaxy in the universe.
Anonymous No.16747888
the difference between the everyday and scientific definition of 'theory'.

In science, 'theory' is pretty damn solid,
it's like a nuclear-powered supercarrier,
almost impossible to sink. To become a theory, it has to:

1) explain all observed phenomena

2) predict new phenomena

3) the predicted new phenomena has then been verified by testing

A 'theory' does all of (1)+(2)+(3), while 'hypothesis' is just (1)+(2).

The layman's use of the word 'theory', even in the best case, is about the same as the scientist's 'hypothesis'.
In most everyday use it is just (1), and often fails even that.
Anonymous No.16747900
>>16747842 (OP)
No it actually works by the opposite principle: theories are developed and then put to test in conditions where they might be proven false. If they survive, then it doesn't mean they are true, just that they remain valid FAAP. It's also possible for a theory to be false in one instance without being discarded entirely because it's still effective enough in other scenarios; that merely shows its limitations.
Anonymous No.16747928
>>16747842 (OP)
Not for sure, never for sure.
Science is ultimately about identifying and mapping out (aka "model") reproducible aspects of the current reality, stored for the potential purpose of resource allocation (technology..etc.)
Why these aspects are currently reproducible, how long they will stay reproducible, and were they reproducible in the past, are not questions fundementally answerable by science. Real truth will remain elusive to this methodology.
Anonymous No.16747935
>>16747842 (OP)
Occasionally here and there. It is far from perfect, but other methods suck worse.