On the word 'proof' or to 'prove'

[Dr B]

Is the word 'proof' or the statement 'to prove' a nonsense in science? As we know most science is probabilistic (with some exceptions being certain aspects of Mathematics) - which means we can only make probabilistic statements. Proof or prove are not probabilistic terms (unless coupled with qualifiers).

So when someone asks for 'proof' is it just a shorthand for 'provide a reasoned case'? Does this also underlying some confusion people have about what science is and what it does - as many think science is about 'proving' one idea over another. This might underlying the woo idea that science is weak because it cannot 100% 'prove' something (for example).... :D

(for the purpose of this discussion here i take the words 'proof' and 'prove' to be absolute)

Anyone have any comments on this.

[median]

Definitions from the Collins concise dictionary

prove: to demonstrate the truth or validity of esp. by using an established sequence of procedures

proof; any evidence that establishes or helps to establish the truth, validity etc. of something

Personally, I think that the idea 'to prove' is to provide substantial evidence in favour of something (taking into account evidence against, of course). It is, by no means, exhaustive or ultimate.

[Dr B]

Indeed and quite right O0 - but i think that common parlance means woo think prove or proof are 100%. Would you agree that this is a source of confusion?

[Araneus]

I would never use the phrase "scientific proof" for this reason. Science does not prove, it creates theories that are repeatedly supported by evidence or possibly even disproved.

[Dr B]

I would never use the phrase "scientific proof" for this reason. Science does not prove, it creates theories that are repeatedly supported by evidence or possibly even disproved.


I agree and this is where i think the confusion comes from. I can catch myself thinking from time-to-time (when hearing a claim) 'prove it' - i know what I mean - I really mean "do you have a reason or any evidence....etc"

I know not to actually say 'prove it' because of these distinctions - but i think the public at large might be confused over this. Dunno - just my thoughts

[Lord Muck oGentry]

On a lighthearted note: OED offers Probabiliorism " according to which it is claimed, in opposition to probabilism, that that side on which the evidence preponderates is more probably right and therefore ought to be followed."

Astounding, Holmes! ???

You know my methods, Watson. :)

[Hazen]

'Science does not have all the answers to the really interesting questions.'
Old wives tales from pre-historic moronic drivel, however, does.
Did you not know this?

"I realised that science could not answer any of the really interesting questions, so I turned to philosophy, and I've been searching for god ever since"
(guess the movie quote)

[Admin]

You can't say that it's 100% correct? Then you could be wrong and my idea could be right then!

Typical woo stance. ;D

I think we often do talk about proof when we really mean evidence.

The trouble is that woos tend to think in absolutes so when science doesn't offer absolute proof, they see it as a chink in the armour.

[median]

I think we often do talk about proof when we really mean evidence.

The trouble is that woos tend to think in absolutes so when science doesn't offer absolute proof, they see it as a chink in the armour.



In addition to this, firstly, I think it is a case of (mis)understanding what evidence actually is, in rigorous terms and secondly, people believe thata particular phenomenon needs a singular cause, rather than accepting that a multitude of contributory factors may be needed for a fuller explanation or indeed an explanation that is location dependent (such as the criticism often levelled at the possible link between dynamic magnetic fields and ghost sightings)

[Outsider]

I think we often do talk about proof when we really mean evidence.

The trouble is that woos tend to think in absolutes so when science doesn't offer absolute proof, they see it as a chink in the armour.



In addition to this, firstly, I think it is a case of (mis)understanding what evidence actually is, in rigorous terms and secondly, people believe thata particular phenomenon needs a singular cause, rather than accepting that a multitude of contributory factors may be needed for a fuller explanation or indeed an explanation that is location dependent (such as the criticism often levelled at the possible link between dynamic magnetic fields and ghost sightings)


I agree. Also, I'm amazed at the amount of apparent 'scientific' research being done which comes from a position of bias. For instance, how can any phenomenon be proven to be paranormal when the premise itself has not been proven? It bothers me. It does.
examples...I've seen a couple of things lately which illustrate what I'm banging on about:

EVP researchers coming from the premise that the noise they captured on audio is actually a voice because it just can't be anything else;
OUIJA research which has no mention of the ideomotor effect...and the conclusion that the effect must be a paranormal one.

Therefore the conclusion has effectively already been made before any research has been done and the evidence is already proven to be of paranormal origin. >:( Doh! Are they thinking that science won't prove that it's paranormal therefore they won't use it?
I wonder, do they know that their reasoning is flawed, or are they really blinded by their beliefs?

[/rant] sorry if that went a bit off topic.

[median]

I agree. Also, I'm amazed at the amount of apparent 'scientific' research being done which comes from a position of bias. For instance, how can any phenomenon be proven to be paranormal when the premise itself has not been proven? It bothers me. It does.
examples...I've seen a couple of things lately which illustrate what I'm banging on about:

EVP researchers coming from the premise that the noise they captured on audio is actually a voice because it just can't be anything else;
OUIJA research which has no mention of the ideomotor effect...and the conclusion that the effect must be a paranormal one.


I don't think bias is a problem, per se. After all science moves from observation to hypothesis testing/experimentation and this usually comes from an investigator having a particular angle ( 'I think that this effect is caused by...etc)

Thinking a noise on a tape is a voice is perfectly acceptable providing there are ways to substantiate or show this is indeed the case

I do think though that in the case of ascribing paranormal cause, simpler and alternative viewpoints are, in many cases, not considered. ???