Can science actually prove ANYTHING to be 100% fact?

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

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

 

There are several billion humans, to show your hypothesis 100% accurate you'd have to cut off all our heads, who's going to check?

[Country Boy]

"Science proceeds by proving itself wrong. "

I wouldn't put it that way- science does  not prove that science is wrong, it proves that certain hypotheses are wrong.

The "scientific method" works by:

1.  Observe and gather evidence.

2.  Find as many different theories and hypotheses that fit that evidence as possible.

3.  Extrapolate from those theories to find situations where different theories would give different results.

4.  Run experiments that emulate those situations to see whether or not you get the appropriate results.  Discard those theories that do not give the expected results.

5. Repeat!

No, science will never give 100% assurance that a theory is correct.  It works by successive approximations to reality.

If you know a better way, please tell us!

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, HallsofIvy said:

"Science proceeds by proving itself wrong. "

I wouldn't put it that way- science does  not prove that science is wrong, it proves that certain hypotheses are wrong.

The "scientific method" works by:

1.  Observe and gather evidence.

2.  Find as many different theories and hypotheses that fit that evidence as possible.

3.  Extrapolate from those theories to find situations where different theories would give different results.

4.  Run experiments that emulate those situations to see whether or not you get the appropriate results.  Discard those theories that do not give the expected results.

5. Repeat!

No, science will never give 100% assurance that a theory is correct.  It works by successive approximations to reality.

If you know a better way, please tell us!

The day science thinks it's certain is the day it becomes a Faith.

[universaltheory]

On 20/12/2017 at 11:49 AM, Thinkbigger!!!!! said:

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

Science does not establish facts-its reality that does this! Neither does it prove any thing for its proof to be 100%correct- its math.that does this absolutely that's why mathmatical proofs are either true or false but not in betweenh!

What science does is to refute(through evidence)explore; analyse; formulate; implement verifiable claims about reality-andt these verifications are challengeable or questionable based on reality; it is only reality that is unquestionable inform of existing facts.

Does this make science unreliable? No! And above.all we have no better alternative through which our knowledge of reality.can be questioned and challenged and our ignorance of reality can be solved!

Take for example when data shows that the cosmic scale appear to be anthropic;isotropic; flat and homogeneous. This becomes a big blow to the mechanical scientific point of view of the universe but not a scientific blow since cybernetics comes at the fore front of solving this puzzle of reality in a scientific way. With mechanics you find that you have to fix some causal intent or goal or purpose or meaning to solve this cosmogenesis puzzle in a dynamical universe and worse still when you have to fix the puzzle  of intent; purpose; goal and meaning inherent in the evolutionary game of.anthropic agents through things like anthropic principle or emergency-only to violate the law of energy conservation. And this is not a scientific problem but a mechanical problem cause it is not the case with cybernetics.

With cybernetics; mechanics is just part of a bigger cybernetic puzzle; such that;semiclassical mechanical paradigm is a special case of relative gravity in relativity limits through thermodynamics; and relative paradigm is a special case of complex interactions in complex limits through complex dynamics; and complexity paradigm as synchronous and asynchronous responsiveness of variant and invariant proportions in classical limits(proportional limits)through fluid dynamics in proportional limits; and roportionality paradigm as asymptotic distributions of changing configurations in utility limits through chaotic inflation; and the paradigm of utility as decidable changing configurations of reality through cybernetcs!

There are two challenges with this decidability

The first one is technical:what does consistent and complete realities  mean? It has nothing to do with absolutism or finality: but that reality is efficient and effective. Such that;  even though some systems conserve information but cannot retrieve it; the physical properties of infirmation can not be deterched from physical dynamics! Because information is just the pattern of existence. When we say.that this "is"; we simply refer to the predictive capacity of a given data which is justified;proved and verified inform of existing patterns. And it is these patterns that provides the template upon which the reality of the universe is recognised! And that the old mechanical view of assuming that reality is moving out of control and we can only use.force to put it back under control is substuted by the cybernetic view where there is a reason behind what ever happens! And the more we discover these reasons the more chances we have to check our civilisation and balance it with reality through communication and self control!

The second challenge of this decidability is just psychological! And it centres around the time bound of this decidability. Though the communication space of conserving this information seems to be exponential and sometimes measured in light years; the communication time of conserving this information is polynomial! Else no one would have observed any star from earth and communications based on GPS; internet; self driving cars; automated mechanics; ubba etc would be impossible and meaningless

[Itoero]

Everything in science needs to be able to change.