Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Delano

Scientific proof is a myth

Recommended Posts

 

Quoting directly from the conclusions drawn in the article:

 

"This doesn't mean it's impossible to know anything at all. To the contrary, in many ways, scientific knowledge is the most "real" knowledge that we can possibly gain about the world. But in science, nothing is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt."

 

"...Every scientific theory will someday fail, and when it does, that will herald a new era of scientific inquiry and discovery. And of all the scientific theories we've ever come up with, the best ones succeed for the longest amounts of time and over the greatest ranges possible. In some sense, it's better than a proof: it's the most correct description of the physical world humanity has ever imagined."

 

The article yields nothing revelatory.

 

The problem we have today is that publishers craft headlines which are designed to attract attention and are often misleading.  They implication here is that scientific proof, a "myth," has no valve. 

 

What did you take away from the article @Delano?  Oops I forgot you are remaining neutral 😉  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the article does not use the word "fact," so be careful. The article addresses the terms "theory" and "proof."

 

You and I both know that some theories like the existence of a multiverse or what existed "before" the big bang are theories that can never be proven, because it would require measuring something outside our own universe.

 

Also, science is not math.  In math you can have "proof" and while theoretical physics is largely based upon math (as the article stated) science relies on tests and observations.  Theoreticians work closely with experientialists to test theories, which in turn help to understand the nature of the universe -- at lest as far as our limited intelligence will allow.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2018 at 1:35 PM, Troy said:

The article yields nothing revelatory.

 

The problem we have today is that publishers craft headlines which are designed to attract attention and are often misleading.  They implication here is that scientific proof, a "myth," has no valve. 

 

Thank you! That was my feelings exactly!

I am thinking, 'Are these money makers out of ideas that now, they are just trying to publish anything, just to make money or what?'

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a quote from that article:

 

In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/#3bbc5c072fb1

 

One of the first curriculum requirements in 7th Grade Math is to teach THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD which in involves developing a thesis statment and theory from a Hypothesis, then if a Controlled Environment can be achieved, do so. Then collect data that can be measured, then make conclusions. But his article implies that nothing can be proved? These are some of my thoughts:

 

**1**when you get on an airplane, you are indeed trusting in A SCIENTIFIC THEORY!!! – That is proven every time the pilot flies it and then lands safely.

**2** Astronomy is based on Scientific Theories [ie. FLIGHT THEORY]

**3** at one time, the Scientific Theory was that the Earth was round [ie or Flat] but now, we know that it is true, therefore it has been proven and is therefore not a theory anymore. That idea that it was flat proves how theories is falsifiable concept.

**4**It was theorized that man could fly to the moon and even walk on the moon; that is NOT a theory anymore, but it has been a proven theory

**5** Great Medical advances have been made due to Scientific Theories that were applied. Human reproduction has been proven to be similar to many, many, different kinds of animals therefore, many Medical Predictions have Medical Advances have been made regarding human reproduction, and treatments of cancer, tumors, and etc.

**6** HERE IS A BIG ONE!!! LOL—Because many animals have similar make up as us humans, they have been tested to prove SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. Animal testing such as in MICE of have been proven to have a similar makeup to humans have led to many medicines that have cured and/or treated diseases and have led to methods taught to prevent diseases.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another crazy quoite from this article:

 

Even at that, those quantities are only as good as the tools and equipment we use to make those observations and measurements.  … No matter how good our measurements and observations are, there's a limit to how good they are.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/#3bbc5c072fb1

 

My response:

 

Even though Hurricane Michael this year, started nearer to us than most tropical depressions which usually start nearer to Africa, nevertheless, scientist today detected and measured it capacity and movement very well, with the instruments they used!!! LOL! They did a pretty good job putting out information about it's movement and impact. As a result of their instruments and measurements, warnings were put out intensley for people to get out of its' pathway. 

 

SCIENTIFIC THEORIES are just that; they are theories because they have not been observed to become facts, but when it can be proven then, it is not a theory anymore! However, in FLIGHT THEORY, pilots have to know how to apply theories should they get into a situation in order to land safely. In this situation, Theories are proven everytime! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2018 at 3:28 PM, Delano said:

What scientific theories don't  involve mathematics? 

What testing have you heard of that isn't statistical that proves a theory. 

 

Are you just looking to be contrary to me? You drew a conclusion about facts from the article and when i pointed out that the article did not even mention facts you now raise another unrelated issue.

 

The theory of evolution did not involve math. It was based upon methodical observation. If you went to Brooklyn Tech you would know these things 😉

 

Yes, @Chevdove there are theories that will never be "proven" to be fact, and will always remain theories.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been saying similar things on here for months and probably over a year now.

I've BEEN saying that there's a difference between KNOWLEDGE and mere "information" or data that you get from 2nd, 3rd, and even 15th hand sources.

I also said knowledge is what YOU experience or observe, verified by YOU.


But see, when a BLACK MAN says it....some of you don't want to take it seriously.

:lol: "Ah....some half drunk nicca on the internet running his mouth. He NEEDS to take his ass to school and get some education before displaying his ignorance all over the place."

 


But when Caucasian....or Caucasian trained...people come along and say the same thing,  it's :o"amazing" and considered worthy of consideration, lol.

All of a suddent it becomes a centerpiece for philosophical discussion.

It's just like the "voodoo" thing.
As long as it was just Black people doing it, many Black folks called it crazy and satanic.
But as soon as White folks took notice, started studying it, and got into it then all of a sudden you have a crowd of negroes tying to "reclaim their spirituality"....lol.

But anyway......

I think that "science" can prove SOME things but most things they espouse are NOT proven.
I've heard that they really haven't even seen an atom yet.
Much of Caucasian so-called "science" is based on lies and myths.
And they KNOW it because they KNOW eachother, which is why the main people you here questioning official "science" is other Caucasians, but not so much people of color who are educated by them.
When was the last time you heard an educated AfroAmerican question anything scientific?
Often times it takes another Caucasian to challenge the establishment because many negroes are too scared to.


A good example.....
For weeks now I've heard in mainstream publications that Russia is planning on sending a probe up to the moon to see if the United States actually landed there.

 

http://fortune.com/2018/11/24/russia-us-moon-landing-conspiracy/

 

I thought the idea that the United States didn't really land on the moon was mere "conspiratorial talk" until I found out that the Russians themselves are questioning it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 sure I won't dispute the notion that much what what Black people find worthy of attention or even praise worthy must be validated by white folks first.  I get it.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

When was the last time you heard an educated AfroAmerican question anything scientific?

 

Theories like string theory, for example, are theories and there are Black physics that don't buy into it. You are unaware of these folks because you don't usually see them on TV or social media.  

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

For weeks now I've heard in mainstream publications that Russia is planning on sending a probe up to the moon to see if the United States actually landed there

 

I have not heard this where did you learn this? 

 

Have you considered that Russia is simply trying to undermine the US.  There are people who do not believe we landed on the Moon and Russia apparently are taking advantage of this.  I seriously doubt Russia would actually do what you say they are doing.  I suspect you got this from the same place Del got the info on MLK's homosexual affairs. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Much of Caucasian so-called "science" is based on lies and myths.

 

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

"Ah....some half drunk nicca on the internet running his mouth. He NEEDS to take his ass to school and get some education before displaying his ignorance all over the place.

And you want to replace these white lies and myths with black ones. And the reason folks on the internet say what you accused them of above could have something to do with the idea that until "niccas" get scientifically superior enough to dismantle white supremacy, then there's no reason to believe they are exceptional enough to supplant existing scientific theories.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique

 

And you want to replace these white lies and myths with black ones


Mythology has it's place but I want to replace lies with TRUTH, which has no color.
 


 

And the reason folks on the internet say what you accused them of above could have something to do with the idea that until "niccas" get scientifically superior enough to dismantle white supremacy, then there's no reason to believe they are exceptional enough to supplant existing scientific theories.


You're actually correct....lol....for a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Mythology has it's place but I want to replace lies with TRUTH, which has no color.

And when did you acquire a hot-line to the truth?

 

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

You're actually correct....lol....for a change.

I prefer you wouldn't verbalize your agreement with me; it taints my credibility

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may want to reacquaint yourself with Francis Galton. Darwin's half cousin and a pioneer in genetics and statistics. 

 

February 1822 – 17 January 1911) was an English Victorian era statistician, progressive, polymath, sociologist, psychologist,[1][2] anthropologist, eugenicist, tropical explorer, geographer, inventor, meteorologist, proto-geneticist, and psychometrician. He was knighted in 1909

@Troy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cynique said:

 

I prefer you wouldn't verbalize your agreement with me; it taints my credibility

 

 


I wouldn't worry if I were you.

Everyone already knows how IN-credible you are, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I wouldn't worry if I were you.

Well, you're not me. so just be content with being your deluded wanna-be self.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Troy said:

OK @Delano please elucidate us on how Darwin's 1/2 cousin helped create Darwin's theory of evolution. 

Read up on who he is form your own opinion then tell me that he wasn't relevant. 

Or tell me how genetics and inheriting traits has no bearing in the theory of evolution . 

Dalton added ti the field of statistics. 

Perhaps you had a better education than I and you were probaby a better student. So I look forward to your response. I know that you will evade the question. Under some pretext or the other. 

If you remove math and statistics you have very little science left in any field. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 12:29 PM, Cynique said:

Well, you're not me. so just be content with being your deluded wanna-be self.  


Well.....SHOULDN'T a person "wanna-be" self, since that's who they already are ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Well.....SHOULDN'T a person "wanna-be" self, since that's who they already are ???

 

@Pioneer1Depends on who the person is.  In your case, you being yourself is so mediocre that you "wanna-be" something better. But you don't have what it takes.  So,  the compound adjective "wanna-be" applies to the self who you are stuck with being. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique

Depends on who the person is. In your case, you being yourself is so mediocre that you "wanna-be" something better. But you don't have what it takes. So, the compound adjective "wanna-be" applies to the self who you are stuck with being


If that is the case......lol....then there is no need for you to criticize or insult me nor anything I post.

Why waste time criticizing and insulting a person who is stuck where they are and can't do any better than what they'e doing?

The wisest thing to do with a person like that is to just compliment them and encourage them on any good that they manage to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Why waste time criticizing and insulting a person who is stuck where they are and can't do any better than what they'e doing?

OK, I'll compliment you on making an argument for "ignorance being bliss".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Why waste time criticizing and insulting a person who is stuck where they are and can't do any better than what they'e doing?

The wisest thing to do with a person like that is to just compliment them and encourage them on any good that they manage to do.

And ignore them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now you want ME to research some dude you brought up our of thin air?  Dude, if make a point YOU have to explain it.  If you don't want to, or can't, do it, that is fine, but don't expect me to.  

 

Look saying, "If you remove math and statistics you have very little science left in any field." is very different that saying, "What scientific theories don't involve mathematics?"  You can construe almost anything to involve math.  If that is you point, I'm not going to argue it.

 

So if you want to say evolution was based upon math rather than observation, fine.  I'm not going to debate, it we'll just agree to disagree 🙂

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2018 at 9:05 AM, Delano said:

@Troy had you heard of Francis Galton before i mentioned him?

 

8 hours ago, Troy said:

So now you want ME to research some dude you brought up our of thin air?  Dude, if make a point YOU have to explain it.  If you don't want to, or can't, do it, that is fine, but don't expect me to.  

Perhaps someone else can explain the question you are evading? Or I can assume the question was too complicated for a yes or no answer from Troy. 

Happy New Year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2018 at 12:52 PM, Troy said:

The theory of evolution did not involve math. It was based upon methodical observation. If you went to Brooklyn Tech you would know these things 😉

 

8 hours ago, Troy said:

So now you want ME to research some dude you brought up our of thin air

 

On 12/24/2018 at 10:40 PM, Delano said:

You may want to reacquaint yourself with Francis Galton. Darwin's half cousin and a pioneer in genetics and statistics

I will stop encouraging you to fill in the gaps in your knowledge. @Troyineer. I gave you top billing plus Piontroy sounds silly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Delano if you spent more time justifying your responses rather than copying and pasting what I wrote, this conversation could advance.

 

Because according to you the theory of evolution was not based upon Darwin's observations but "math" from a 2nd cousin -- another unsupported claim which you can not substantiate. 

 

Again I'm fine with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2018 at 7:28 AM, Delano said:

What scientific theories don't  involve mathematics? 

What testing have you heard of that isn't statistical that proves a theory. 

 

On 12/23/2018 at 12:52 PM, Troy said:

The theory of evolution did not involve math. It was based upon methodical observation. If you went to Brooklyn Tech you would know these things 😉

 

On 12/24/2018 at 10:40 PM, Delano said:

You may want to reacquaint yourself with Francis Galton. Darwin's half cousin and a pioneer in genetics and statistics. 

 

1 hour ago, Troy said:

Because according to you the theory of evolution was not based upon Darwin's observations but "math" from a 2nd cousin -- another unsupported claim which you can not substantiate. 

@Troy do you know who Francis Galton is. 

Second question is genetics important in the theory of evolution. 

Is the field of genetics devoid of mathematics? 

If you cant answer those questions correctly you are missing some information. 

But you will find some excuse nit ti answer the question although you will respond. 

 

2 hours ago, Troy said:

@Delano if you spent more time justifying your responses rather than copying and pasting what I wrote, this conversation could advance.

 

Because according to you the theory of evolution was not based upon Darwin's observations but "math" from a 2nd cousin -- another unsupported claim which you can not substantiate. 

 

Again I'm fine with that. 

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. http://www.genetics.org/content/183/3/757

 

Darwin's theory of natural selection lacked an adequate account of inheritance, making it logically incomplete. We review the interaction between evolution and genetics, showing how, unlike Mendel, Darwin's lack of a model of the mechanism of inheritance left him unable to interpret his own data that showed Mendelian ratios, even though he shared with Mendel a more mathematical and probabilistic outlook than most biologists of his time

http://www.genetics.org/content/183/3/757

 

Soon after publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, Francis Galton undertook studies of how various traits might be transmitted from parent to offspring... Galton, in his personal correspondence with Darwin, came close to this conception, but never proceeded to a testable formulation.

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/timeline/1876_Galton.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy Brooklyn Tech and Syracuse University did a great job with educating you.

 

How did you think genetics has no place in evolution. Oh wait that's the bit Charles Darwin  missed. 

 

The other major factor, of course, was the fact that Darwin failed to arrive at an understanding of the mechanism of inheritance, despite realizing its importance and devoting a vast effort to assembling evidence in his Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication (Darwin 1868). Unfortunately, he was unaware of Mendel's work, despite its publication 2 years earlier (Mendel 1866). Mendel's work has now, of course, permanently revolutionized our understanding of heredity, and his tragic failure to obtain recognition in his lifetime is a well-known story. It is less well known that Mendel was well aware of the importance for evolution of understanding genetics:

 

Gregor Mendel is also important in statistics. 

 

 

So I'll paraphrase that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was incomplete because he didn't know  how to interpret his data. And it didn't take genetics into account. 

 

Congratulations Troy you are wrong on three counts. I don't think it is possible to be more wrong. Thanks i have learned something about science and human nature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man @Delano this would be much easier if you stopped going off on tangents and answered simple questions.

 

After pointing out that your conclusion from the article was baseless

 

On 12/21/2018 at 1:38 PM, Delano said:

Apparently facts are not based in Bedrock. 

 

The article never even used the word "fact." You failed to acknowledge this point and proceed to find some other point to take issue with -- even going as far as to discount the importance of Darwin's observations regarding the theory of evolution -- a first as far as I'm aware.  Then again you are the first to assert MLK and homosexual affairs, so anything is possible.

 

On 12/28/2018 at 2:24 AM, Delano said:

How did you think genetics has no place in evolution. Oh wait that's the bit Charles Darwin  missed. 

 

What?  So you dismiss the importance of Darwin's work because he was unaware of someone else's -- a contemporary no less?  That would be like dismissing Newton's work because he was unaware of the relationship between space time. Even Mendel's work started with observations indeed most scientific theories do.

 

Math is a tool brother Newton's laws was ultimately found be be incorrect because of observations.   The math supported his theory until it didn't. Now we have new math to explain the force of gravity that works under more conditions.  Ultimately even these formal will change to account for the quantum world...

 

Again, you seem to be more concerned with finding me wrong.

 

On 12/28/2018 at 2:24 AM, Delano said:

Congratulations Troy you are wrong on three counts. I don't think it is possible to be more wrong.

 

Indeed, the above statement is a testament to that. 

 

If it helps, you win.  Facts are not based in bedrock, all science is based upon math, and I could not be more wrong about everything 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well played you didn't seriously answer any question I posed  to you Troy. Whats interesting is thise post are from peooke more knowledgeable than you. Okay going from neutral to nothing. You won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...