Omniscience?

[The Stranger]

statement:

Science will prove everything, it is only a matter of time.

[Strike For The South]

You never "prove" anything in science

Thread and philosophy fail

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You never "prove" anything in science

You do prove things in science. And obviously you "prove" things too.

[Strike For The South]

You do prove things in science. And obviously you "prove" things too.

Nothing in Science is ever proven

Theories are supported with empirical evidence

They are NOT proven

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Nothing in Science is ever proven

Theories are supported with empirical evidence

They are NOT proven

You mean to say theories are never proven, not "nothing is ever proven".

[a completely inoffensive name]

Theoretically: Nothing is really known. Science has its models which are supported by mounds of empirical evidence and can accurately predict natural phenomena.

Practically: We know a lot of things that are for all intents and purposes are proven.

EDIT: Except that we exist. That I guess, would be an axiom.

[The Stranger]

You never "prove" anything in science

Thread and philosophy fail

as eloquent as ever XD

its why it is called a debate... some arguments please.

[Reenk Roink]

How ironic, I'm doing some freakin' science right now and I just want to sleep.

Science will prove everything, it is only a matter of time.

You never "prove" anything in science

Some (a few) would still argue you do. It is quite unfashionable now, Popperian thought has dominated for a while, but you can still find those people who look at science as proving things, and not only in a colloquial sense of proof.

You do prove things in science. And obviously you "prove" things too.

What do you prove in science?

EDIT: Except that we exist. That I guess, would be an axiom.

More than that though. You could probably get rid of that one if you wanted by the way.

[The Stranger]

oi. i am just getting a debate going. the statement in no way reflects what i think about the subject. you reenk should know that :P

[Reenk Roink]

oi. i am just getting a debate going. the statement in no way reflects what i think about the subject. you reenk should know that :P

Of course I do my man, but you honestly need to change your major unless you like working in bookstores for the rest of your life...

[The Stranger]

Of course I do my man, but you honestly need to change your major unless you like working in bookstores for the rest of your life...

why? :P i will be a succesful author within a few years trust me on that. ive got it all planned out.

first i will use my poetry skills to get some poetry published then i will use that as a leverage for them to check out my novel. it will be utterly crap but will be marketed better than the millenium trilogy. 10 times better and it will be only 5 times worse (if that is possible) then i will make millions of euros and i will buy that friggin bookstore... owyea.

btw. NO MORE SIDETRACKING THE DEBATE!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What do you prove in science?

Gasoline is flammable, water becomes ice when it gets cold enough, corn needs water and sunlight to grow, there is a placebo effect, etc.

There's an absurd amount of silly things said about science and proof for some reason.

[Reenk Roink]

Gasoline is flammable, water becomes ice when it gets cold enough, corn needs water and sunlight to grow, there is a placebo effect, etc.

None of these things are proven/provable.

There's an absurd amount of silly things said about science and proof for some reason.

Tell me about it...

[The Stranger]

None of these things are proven/provable.

hmm. you will have to elaborate on that.

i would think that it is reasonably proven (not taking any hardcore sceptiscism in account atm) that it is flammable, or that water becomes ice etc the HOW it happens though, that will be the hard thing to prove (in/on philosophical terms)
science does have pragmatic value.

[Fisherking]

I would say that with scientific experiment we demonstrate the repeatability of a particular phenomenon.

The sticky point comes when scientists reach conclusions based on the experiments.

They are often wrong and have to be revised.

What does this prove?

Read my sig!

[The Stranger]

your sig is facebook worthy XD

now continue with the debate and i warn you!!! no more sidetracking.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Gasoline is flammable, water becomes ice when it gets cold enough, corn needs water and sunlight to grow, there is a placebo effect, etc.

There's an absurd amount of silly things said about science and proof for some reason.

We don't "prove" observable things, if you want to be really technical about it. Over time we have seen these observable phenomena and have constructed around them explanations which satisfy the ability to be proven wrong and that adequately predict such events and future events.