Omniscience?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

We do prove them, technically. If you doubted that gasoline was flammable I could prove it to you.

Yeah, we aren't doing any kind of hardcore skepticism yet, as there is no need to recourse to it, because these examples are too easy.

All of these statements follow the general pattern of prediction and explanation in an inductivist account. Immediately speaking, they are likely deductive, but premise 1 (laws and theories) is itself based on an induction. Induction is demonstratively an invalid proof.

P > Q
Q
so P

...or the similar denying the antecedent...

Obviously, as I alluded to in my reply to STFS, some people would try and cling to this (naive - there are better versions) inductivist view and say things in science can be proven. However, they are like the California Golden Seals, going against arguments against it which are like the 70's Canadiens. Not a fair fight at all.

Was it instead said, "gasoline has been flammable once before, water became ice when it got cold enough once before, corn needed water and sunlight to grow once before, there was a placebo effect once before, etc," then it would be harder to argue against and require a stricter standard of skepticism going beyond something baseline like we've done here (though in cases 1, 3, and especially 4, someone could make the argument based on unobserved influences due to the way the statements are worded and avoid any more skepticism).

No, people just bastardize language when they are motivated to. It's a sick side of philosophy and reason in general.

[Reenk Roink]

We do prove them, technically. If you doubted that gasoline was flammable I could prove it to you.

No, people just bastardize language when they are motivated to. It's a sick side of philosophy and reason in general.

[a completely inoffensive name]

We do prove them, technically. If you doubted that gasoline was flammable I could prove it to you.

Please do.

[Greyblades]

Please do.

Here: http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/3140959

[a completely inoffensive name]

Here: http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/3140959

That did not involve "proving" in any way. We simply observed the effect take place.

[drone]

Technically, gasoline is not flammable. Toss a match into a bucket of gas, and watch it fizzle. Gasoline vapor is flammable, but only in an properly oxygenated environment.

[Greyblades]

That did not involve "proving" in any way. We simply observed the effect take place.

Indeed and what do we get from that? That the gasolene in the video combusted, I think that proves that gasolene or at least the gasolene in the video is flamable. It would seem that you just dont want to acknowledge any point that disagrees with your viewpoint. Hardly worth arguing when your so dead set.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well I guess you could say that if you don't believe the scientific has any value in proving things, why live your life as if it does?

Even as you reach for your keyboard to type a response to this, you're probably only doing it because you've done it repeatedly before and are fairly confident that you'll get the desired outcome.

[The Stranger]

Well I guess you could say that if you don't believe the scientific has any value in proving things, why live your life as if it does?

Even as you reach for your keyboard to type a response to this, you're probably only doing it because you've done it repeatedly before and are fairly confident that you'll get the desired outcome.

because it has pragmatic value as said before. besides one thing that one must not mistake is science and technology. wether the keyboard functions or not is technology

as for your last thing the same thing goes. wether it has worked in the past is not proof that it will work in the future. were not disputing that things work only what proof means etc.

[Husar]

Indeed and what do we get from that? That the gasolene in the video combusted, I think that proves that gasolene or at least the gasolene in the video is flamable. It would seem that you just dont want to acknowledge any point that disagrees with your viewpoint. Hardly worth arguing when your so dead set.

No, that's completely incorrect, first of all there is what drone said, but even beyond that the video is no proof whatsoever, the only reason to think that there is actually gasoline in the video is that the title/creator says so, who is to say that they are not burning something else?
But now we assume that we don't know that gasoline fumes can burn yet and that there is actually gasoline on the ground: My theory now is that the gasoline binds certain flammable gases from the air around it that will burn right above the gasoline. The gasoline then disappears without burning because it evaporates due to the heat. Just from watching the video, how can we determine whether your or my theory is the correct one?
I could even create a more whacky theory that there are fire ghosts that are attracted by the gasoline fumes and they dance above the gasoline, heating it up until it's completely evaporated, then they disappear, going by that video alone this theory seems entirely plausible, doesn't it?

[The Stranger]

when you challenge the method of science you shouldnt give examples in which you use that method it doesnt work.

there are and have been different methods of gaining knowledge the scientific one is the latest in that line.

there have been methods of revelation (usually tied to a religion), methods of reflection (apriori method usually tied to logic and math) and then the scientific method (testing phenomenon using trial and error and deduction)

besides no scientist would settle for just that video as proof. lets not make it to easy for ourself. both sides can do better!

[Greyblades]

I could even create a more whacky theory that there are fire ghosts that are attracted by the gasoline fumes and they dance above the gasoline, heating it up until it's completely evaporated, then they disappear, going by that video alone this theory seems entirely plausible, doesn't it?

Yeah if you were to pull out ghosts any credability you have is gone. The rest of it is too advanced for me to argue.

[gaelic cowboy]

Indeed and what do we get from that? That the gasolene in the video combusted, I think that proves that gasolene or at least the gasolene in the video is flamable. It would seem that you just dont want to acknowledge any point that disagrees with your viewpoint. Hardly worth arguing when your so dead set.

If you like I can try and do a stoichiometric calculation for gasoline/petrol but seeing as there is loads of chemicals in standard petrol the balanced equation would be massive.

Frankly I dont fancy working all that out so take it that the reson petrol burns is due to a certain fuel air mix plus heat.

remove anyone of those three ie Fuel, Air or Heat and fire goes out.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Indeed and what do we get from that? That the gasolene in the video combusted, I think that proves that gasolene or at least the gasolene in the video is flamable. It would seem that you just dont want to acknowledge any point that disagrees with your viewpoint. Hardly worth arguing when your so dead set.

Well this post is just silly. I don't know where exactly I have shown myself to be unwilling to acknowledge a viewpoint different from my own. And I don't see how I have been so "dead set" in what I am saying. I started my first post of with "technically: this but practically: this". Is this not a reasonable view of distinguishing the two?

Your conclusion from the video is just flawed, I'm sorry to say that but it is. First of all you seem to think that "prove" and "provide evidence for" are the same. They are not. This video provided strong evidence that gasoline is flammable, but unless we examine what is happening on a more molecular level, we really cannot say anything for sure about the flammability of gasoline solely from this one video. Anyone can tell you can pointing to one piece of evidence and saying, "Here is the proof." is not only bad science but it is bad arguing period.

Now for the most part, most things up through quantum mechanics, subatomic structures etc...have been more or less proven. Period. From the early 20th Century on, there have been more and more models which are very accurate at predicting phenomena that we cannot see for ourselves with the naked eye or even a powerful optical microscrope. These however, are models.

We have "proven" that gasoline is flammable because a couple hundred years ago, a bunch of scientific pioneers started meticulously measuring the mass of compounds before and after burning/heating and measuring the amount of air that was removed in the process. Then the particular element in the air that was being removed was isolated from the rest from even more meticulous experiments, and etc...

As I said before, technically the things we have "proven" are not without a doubt absolutely correct and not flawed in any way. We just have established years, decades, centuries of supporting evidence explaining our reasoning for it.

Practically what all this evidence means is that we have pretty much proved it. But I feel that it is a bad mindset to take anything you learn in science as "granted" as you would in sunday school. Always be skeptical, but trust the evidence.