….we might remind people that the physical sciences proceed not on a basis of deductive logic, but rather primarily of inductive logic, and hence its conclusions are always subject to review as more data are found. Which is to say that when scientists—or political hacks like Bill Nye—make claims of settled fact, they’re displaying not only an ignorance of science, but also basic logic.
Most people don’t use the word “proof” in a binary sense most of the time. In logic, something is either proved or isn’t. In real life, people speak of a very high level of certainty as “proven” or use the word “proof” when they mean “evidence.”
Science (with inductive reasoning, as Bert pointed out) is indeed able to reach levels of certainty so high that there is no meaningful difference between that and “proven.” As one obvious example, though there is still debate about what exactly gravity is, observation and reasoning (science) has long established that it behaves in predictable ways with predictable results. Calling it unproven is pretty silly.
But do people frequently appeal to “scientific proof” in cases where it doesn’t exist? Like crazy.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron, I’d differ somewhat with the notion that an accumulation of evidence meaning that there is no meaningful difference between inductive and deductive logic in science. A great example of this is that when the Ryerson Physics Laboratory at the University of Chicago opened, the evidence for standard Newtonian mechanics was considered so strong that no less than Albert Michelson (who first measured the speed of light) claimed that future discoveries would be made in the sixth decimal place. (1894)
Ironically, it was Michelson’s own experiment with Morley, demonstrating the non-existence of the luminiferous aether, that enabled a young patent examiner from Switzerland to formulate relativity and quantum mechanics. So inductive conclusions may appear as sound as deductive, but there is always some room for a “blind spot” that makes the whole deal moot.
Discussion
NewProof
Fact - it’s a scientific fact that scientific facts can’t always be verified.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
NewOn a more basic level...
….we might remind people that the physical sciences proceed not on a basis of deductive logic, but rather primarily of inductive logic, and hence its conclusions are always subject to review as more data are found. Which is to say that when scientists—or political hacks like Bill Nye—make claims of settled fact, they’re displaying not only an ignorance of science, but also basic logic.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
NewNot a myth
Most people don’t use the word “proof” in a binary sense most of the time. In logic, something is either proved or isn’t. In real life, people speak of a very high level of certainty as “proven” or use the word “proof” when they mean “evidence.”
Science (with inductive reasoning, as Bert pointed out) is indeed able to reach levels of certainty so high that there is no meaningful difference between that and “proven.” As one obvious example, though there is still debate about what exactly gravity is, observation and reasoning (science) has long established that it behaves in predictable ways with predictable results. Calling it unproven is pretty silly.
But do people frequently appeal to “scientific proof” in cases where it doesn’t exist? Like crazy.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewNot quite "no meaningful difference"
Aaron, I’d differ somewhat with the notion that an accumulation of evidence meaning that there is no meaningful difference between inductive and deductive logic in science. A great example of this is that when the Ryerson Physics Laboratory at the University of Chicago opened, the evidence for standard Newtonian mechanics was considered so strong that no less than Albert Michelson (who first measured the speed of light) claimed that future discoveries would be made in the sixth decimal place. (1894)
Ironically, it was Michelson’s own experiment with Morley, demonstrating the non-existence of the luminiferous aether, that enabled a young patent examiner from Switzerland to formulate relativity and quantum mechanics. So inductive conclusions may appear as sound as deductive, but there is always some room for a “blind spot” that makes the whole deal moot.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.