Can science actually prove ANYTHING to be 100% fact?

[Thinkbigger!!!!!]

Looking for ANY evidence that science has proven ANYTHING to be absolutely 100% fact.

[studiot]

Well that depends upon if you include Mathematics and mathematical proofs as part of Science.

Proofs belong in Maths, Logic and Philosophy.

The rest of Science doesn't prove anything, it evaluates evidence and reaches a conclusion, which may change in the light of new evidence, accordingly.

 

[Strange]

27 minutes ago, Thinkbigger!!!!! said:

Looking for ANY evidence that science has proven ANYTHING to be absolutely 100% fact.

It depends on your definition of "fact". And "prove". 

Science usually starts with "facts" as evidence and then builds models to explain them. So, for example, gravity is a "fact" (things fall down) and then we have various theories of gravity that explain why things fall as they do. Similarly for evolution (a fact) and the theory of evolution (an explanation).

I would say that science doesn't prove anything at all. It just describes or models and then tests those descriptions and models against the evidence. The best it can do is disprove a model.

[Thinkbigger!!!!!]

Is there a more reliable method of understanding the universe than science? If not can we make one?

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Thinkbigger!!!!! said:

Is there a more reliable method of understanding the universe than science? If not can we make one?

Well, science has been shown to work very effectively.

If you have an idea for an alternative method, you need to demonstrate that it is better. Can you do that?

[Thinkbigger!!!!!]

Just trying to spark some new thinking into a concept that can currently do nothing more than repeatedly prove itself wrong. 

Edited December 20, 2017 by Thinkbigger!!!!!

[DrP]

6 minutes ago, Thinkbigger!!!!! said:

Just trying to spark some new thinking into a concept that can currently do nothing more than repeatedly prove itself wrong. 

That is kind of the point isn't it?  To continually reassess when new information comes to light and build the best modal of reality we have based on the most up to date information we have....  until new or fresh evidence comes to light.  Better than believing any old clap trap people spout out because of what they 'feel' is right....  we test what we know constantly against reality. If you can't see that then you don't understand it's goals.

 

 

[Sensei]

8 minutes ago, Thinkbigger!!!!! said:

Just trying to spark some new thinking into a concept that can currently do nothing more than repeatedly prove itself wrong. 

Do you disagree with some quantum theory?

 

Did you see Cloud Chamber? This is how quantum physicists were/are analyzing quantum particles.. you can see traces leaved by quantum particles on your own eyes..

 

[Strange]

19 minutes ago, Thinkbigger!!!!! said:

Just trying to spark some new thinking into a concept that can currently do nothing more than repeatedly prove itself wrong. 

Science proceeds by proving itself wrong. That is its great strength; that is how it is able to be so successful. Do you have any alternative suggestions?

Actually, science very rarely shows a theory to be completely wrong. Usually it is just found to be inaccurate, incomplete or not applicable in some context. I can only think of a couple of examples of theories that were completely wrong and had to be rejected outright: phlogiston and the steady state universe. There may be a few more, but not many.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Strange

[Phi for All]

11 hours ago, Thinkbigger!!!!! said:

Just trying to spark some new thinking into a concept that can currently do nothing more than repeatedly prove itself wrong. 

Think of all the ideas intelligent humans have, and understand that almost all of them have to be wrong, and you begin to see the power of theory. Methodology keeps our feet on the ground while our heads are in the clouds, and limits guesswork and bias that ruin our understanding.

This argument sounds like someone didn't invest in the right commodity, and is now trying to convince everyone that corn is bad for you. I suspect we're going to hear a rant about frozen concentrated orange juice soon.

[Lord Antares]

7 hours ago, Thinkbigger!!!!! said:

Looking for ANY evidence that science has proven ANYTHING to be absolutely 100% fact.

As others have noted, it depends on your definition of ''proof''.

As studiot has noted, if you exclude mathematics, you really can't say whether something has been ''100%'' proven or not. For example:
Gravity. Do you think it has been 100% proven that everything you toss on the earth will fall down in the direction of the surface? Every time we have tested, it has held true. But maybe once every 2424^5653 tosses, an object will fly up in the opposite direction of the earth instead of falling down, and we haven't had enough of a sample size of things falling down for that to happen yet. Do you see what I mean?

So, practically, I would say it has been proven that things fall down, but mathematically speaking, it's not technically proof. There's just a great deal of evidence that objects will fall down every time you toss them. (also, I'm excluding trickery like helium balloons etc. Think, rocks).

[StringJunky]

OP: You can't have absolute proof in science because there must be a mechanism by which something  can be shown to be wrong i.e.falsified, otherwise it's not science. If you think something is absolutely true that means you've closed your mind to alternative outcomes, if and when they arrive; preserving a degree of uncertainty by adopting this approach keeps science in a state of steady and solid progress.

Edited December 20, 2017 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

If you think something is absolutely true that means you've closed your mind to alternative outcomes if and when they arrive; preserving a degree of uncertainty keeps science in a state of steady and solid progress.

This is critical. It's the nature of our intelligence to look for patterns in phenomena so we can explain and dismiss them, constantly managing the brain's resources. We treat "answers" and "proof" the same way we recognize the refrigerator when we see it; you know what it is and you don't give it a second thought, much less question it. 

But when we use theory, our best current explanation for a phenomenon, it has to be updated constantly. It's not a pattern that can be exactly understood and dismissed. As more and more supportive evidence piles up for the explanation, the theory is further strengthened but never taken as fact. The mechanisms can be thought of as fact, but not the theory. Like evolution is an observable fact, but the theory that describes it is constantly being supported by experiment and observation. This way the explanations we believe are based on trust rather than hope, faith, or guesswork.

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I suspect we're going to hear a rant about frozen concentrated orange juice soon.

 

Someone has

 

 

[Raider5678]

10 hours ago, Thinkbigger!!!!! said:

Looking for ANY evidence that science has proven ANYTHING to be absolutely 100% fact.

If you cut off a man's head, and bury his body without his head, within 2000 years he will be dead.

Evidence provided by beheadings during the rule of Rome.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

If you cut off a man's head, and bury his body without his head, within 2000 years he will be dead.

Evidence provided by beheadings during the rule of Rome.

There is a non-zero possibility that only works with Romans.

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

There is a non-zero possibility that only works with Romans.

The Ottoman's beheaded hundreds of people too. Their empire ended in 1922.

So in 3922, we'll know if it works for Ottoman's too.

[Phi for All]

26 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The Ottoman's beheaded hundreds of people too. Their empire ended in 1922.

So in 3922, we'll know if it works for Ottoman's too.

Which still won't make your original statement 100% fact.

[Strange]

12 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

The Ottoman's beheaded hundreds of people too. Their empire ended in 1922.

So in 3922, we'll know if it works for Ottoman's too.

This is the scientific method in action: make observations, propose a hypothesis and make observations to test it.

[Raider5678]

12 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Which still won't make your original statement 100% fact.

What experiment do you propose?

 

[swansont]

18 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

If you cut off a man's head, and bury his body without his head, within 2000 years he will be dead.

Evidence provided by beheadings during the rule of Rome.

Do you have access to every person beheaded during the rule of Rome?

[studiot]

I'm sure he doesn't because there was a Roman coffin find announced today near me (Ilchester).

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

What experiment do you propose?

Something empirical that adds to the body of evidence and avoids attempts to justify the conclusion as 100% fact. 

[Raider5678]

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Something empirical that adds to the body of evidence and avoids attempts to justify the conclusion as 100% fact. 

I have no idea how I'd test that.

I can't believe it's so hard to prove cutting off a guy's head mean's he's dead in 2000 years.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Reminds me of this joke.

An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician are on a train in Scotland. The astronomer looks out of the window, sees a black sheep standing in a field, and remarks, "How odd. All the sheep in Scotland are black!" "No, no, no!" says the physicist. "Only some Scottish sheep are black." The mathematician rolls his eyes at his companions' muddled thinking and says, "In Scotland, there is at least one sheep, at least one side of which appears to be black from here some of the time."