proof?

[DrunkenArse]

Can someone name something that has been proven by science without being empirically proven? EDIT: a better way of putting this is: Name one theory of science that has ever been proven.

[Xei]

Obviously depends on if you're including the mathematical sciences.

[DrunkenArse]

Obviously depends on if you're including the mathematical sciences. I wouldn't consider the mathematics to be a science: they don't follow the scientific process.

[Xei]

Well, if you're only allowing fields which follow the scientific process, and empirical observation is the crucial element of that process, then you've just answered your own question.

[DrunkenArse]

As I originally (and poorly) framed it, yes i have. Has quantum theory been proven? Has general relativity been proven? Has the darwinian/mendelian synthesis been proven? I'm sorta curious as to what the responses will be. thanks for yours EDIT: has any theory of science been proven in its totality?

[Xei]

Of course they have, otherwise they wouldn't be a part of science. Quantum physics arose directly from observations which couldn't be explained by classical physics. Mendel's work also arose directly from observations which couldn't be explained by 'merging' of phenotypes. General relativity arose by realising that Newtonian mechanics had inherent contradictions and was later confirmed by observation. Natural selection was really the natural scientific conclusion one should have made from the evidence in the first place if there was no religion. It has now been confirmed explicitly by experiment. The question about any science being 'proven in its totality' runs rather contrary to the whole idea of science, which is that you make a model which explains all relevant explanations, but that model must always be open to change if a new and contradictory piece of evidence emerges. The classical example is Newtonian dynamics, which in itself is basically finished to completion, but was later found not to apply to extremely high velocities.

[DrunkenArse]

thanks for ruining my fun with an intelligent answer. I would just emphasize that, as you pointed out: They have not been proven. They have just not yet been disproven.

[Specialis Sapientia]

I am not sure your question is anwered by this, but it seems related. "There's a lot of confusion around what scientific theories are. The common-use definition of the word is "guess" but in science, a theory is a comprehensive explanation of a complex phenomenon, supported by extensive evidence. A law, on the other hand, describes behavior under specific circumstances. It's a difference of scale. Newton's laws describe motion. The law of gravity states that all objects experience the same acceleration due to gravity. A theory of gravity would take into account curvature of space-time, force-carrying particles, and other complex features, as well as multiple laws. If you reduce it to the most basic, a law describes *what* happens, while a theory explains *how* and *why.* In terms of evidence, they're both equal (and since a theory is more complex, it would require more evidence across a broader spectrum). A theory is *not* unproven, or somehow less than a law - it's just on a different scale." http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...8123119AAeK2gd

[DrunkenArse]

It's a difference of scale. Newton's laws describe motion. The law of gravity states that all objects experience the same acceleration due to gravity. A theory of gravity would take into account curvature of space-time, force-carrying particles, and other complex features, as well as multiple laws. If you reduce it to the most basic, a law describes *what* happens, while a theory explains *how* and *why.* In terms of evidence, they're both equal (and since a theory is more complex, it would require more evidence across a broader spectrum) I disagree that science can answer how and why questions. Saying that the bending of spacetime creates gravity because objects move along geodesics (inertia) unless an outside force acts on them does not provide a conclusive answer to how and why unless we regard that as a definitive and final answer. This is contrary to the nature of science. A theory of gravity could emerge with a flat spacetime. It is useful to pretend that we have a how or why answer for the sake of intuition but at the end of the day, we have formulae and numbers. It is important for people of a scientific mindset to keep that in mind. . A theory is *not* unproven, or somehow less than a law - it's just on a different scale." Any theory (please grant me an exception for natural selection here which is almost mathematical in nature: Its true on its face and wouldn't be considered any more radical than the observation that gravity exists were it not for religion, as Xei pointed out) worthy of consideration will always remain mostly unproven until it is disproven. This is for the simple reason that we will never be able to test every one of it's predictions and that that is a necessary precondition for an emperical proof. Even with my exception of natural selection, it will never be proven that natural selection is the only mechanism by which evolution occurs. The classic example is the difference between the statements: 1) There are no white ravens in the world 2) There exists a white raven in world 1) can never be proven: it can only go long enough without being disproven to be accepted as part of our working view of the world. It can be easily disproven. 2) can be easily proven assuming that it's true. It would be almost impossible to disprove.

[Specialis Sapientia]

(Note that I did not write the next and don't nessecarily agree with it all) First we must understand that science don't try to come off as it has the final or definitive answer If that was the case we would see no progress in the realm of science. Science is by no means the ultimate truth, it is just striving for it. Assumptions are also givin when working with the scientific theory. "As an example of the use of assumptions to formulate a theory, consider how Albert Einstein put forth his Special Theory of Relativity. He took two phenomena that had been observed — that the "addition of velocities" is valid (Galilean transformation), and that light did not appear to have an "addition of velocities" (Michelson-Morley experiment). He assumed both observations to be correct, and formulated his theory, based on these assumptions, by simply altering the Galilean transformation to accommodate the lack of addition of velocities with regard to the speed of light. The model created in his theory is, therefore, based on the assumption that light maintains a constant velocity (or more commonly: the speed of light is a constant)." The fact that a scientific theory has to be falsifiable. In essence science cannot prove anything, only disprove.

[DrunkenArse]

First we must understand that science don't try to come off as it has the final or definitive answer absolutely. The reason I started this thread was that many people behave as if it does. At that point we might as well join the taliban and start praying to allah. Assumptions are also givin when working with the scientific theory. Even when testing a theory. This is the content of the duhem-quine thesis.

[Taosaur]

thanks for ruining my fun with an intelligent answer. I would just emphasize that, as you pointed out: They have not been proven. They have just not yet been disproven. But what's the point? Where does the "just" come into it? It's the nature of science and the scope of existence that there is always more to be known, finer details to be examined and larger cosmos 'outside' what we now know, but their discovery does not "disprove" current paradigms so much as fix them in a frame of reference, establishing the boundaries of their sphere of relevance. Theories are tools to organize data, guide inquiry, and yield modalities ("levers to move the earth"). A theory (not amateur speculation, but the organizing framework that best fits a large body of data) is not disproven any more than airplanes disprove bicycles. Instead, new theories or refinements on the old become more useful than the original and open a larger field of inquiry, fixing the boundaries within which the old theories operate. Even flat-earth theory was only proven local, not false; in any given locality on earth, for nearly all intents and purposes, it is more useful to consider one's surroundings as a two dimensional surface with topography than a patch of globe. We were mistaken to extrapolate our locality as the whole of the universe, yes, and again with the heliocentric model, and again placing the boundaries of existence at our galaxy, and then our cluster of galaxies, and now our three spatial plus x temporal dimensions. It's very likely that all we now know will be proven "local" in time, but I'd call that a measure of success for a theory, to yield such a mass of knowledge that no significant work remains and a larger paradigm is required to move on.

[DrunkenArse]

But what's the point? Where does the "just" come into it? It's the nature of science and the scope of existence that there is always more to be known, finer details to be examined and larger cosmos 'outside' what we now know, but their discovery does not "disprove" current paradigms so much as fix them in a frame of reference, establishing the boundaries of their sphere of relevance. Well said and I fully agree. I was just troll-baiting for people, and their are a few of them at least on this forum and many more elsewhere, that believe that science consists of statements pertaining to an absolute view reality. As I said, Xei ruined my fun before it even got started. Pointing that out is important however because, as religion falls by the wayside, more and more people are turning to science for their sense of 'certainty'. Call me an asshole but It's a pet peave of mine and I like fucking with them. Seems as if they all got off the hook here. I'll try again at a later date no doubt. It's very likely that all we now know will be proven "local" in time, but I'd call that a measure of success for a theory, to yield such a mass of knowledge that no significant work remains and a larger paradigm is required to move on. I don't think I said that newtonian physics failed. It's investigations laid the mathematical groundwork for quantum physics and it is still the most practical way to get around the solar system. It's predictions have, strictly speaking, been disproven however. No one will claim that it is a canidate for the theory of everything whereas in the early 1800s, it seemed like it might be. As i said, just troll-baiting. Dont mind me.

[Kromoh]

I wouldn't consider the mathematics to be a science: they don't follow the scientific process. False. Anything that is mathematically true is also scientifically true. Mathematics is contained in science, but stricter than science. Also, it's hard to talk about "proving" things in science. Scientists don't just come up with ideas and try to prove them. They observe the facts and make explanations for them.

[DrunkenArse]

False. Anything that is mathematically true is also scientifically true. Mathematics is contained in science, but stricter than science. So it's scientifically true that any finite group that has order divisible by p^n where p is a prime number, contains at least one subgroup of order p^n, referred to as the p-sylow subgroups and that the amount of such sub-groups is congruent to 1 mod p and that all such p-sylow subgroups are conjugate? (it's been a while, i had to look the last part up) The problem with answering yes to that is that none of those concepts exist. Science uses the scientific method to deal with the empirical world. Mathematics (and logic) deal with ideas. They are seperate. Mathematics is of great and direct help in science. Science is of only limited use in mathematics: it spurs the mathematicians to ask new questions. Also, it's hard to talk about "proving" things in science. Scientists don't just come up with ideas and try to prove them. They observe the facts and make explanations for them. That is precisely my point. They then take the explanations and use them to create predictions. If the predictions are wrong, then the theory is. Or non-applicable to that domain as Taosaur pointed out.

[Kromoh]

So it's scientifically true that any finite group that has order divisible by p^n where p is a prime number, contains at least one subgroup of order p^n, referred to as the p-sylow subgroups and that the amount of such sub-groups is congruent to 1 mod p and that all such p-sylow subgroups are conjugate? (it's been a while, i had to look the last part up) The problem with answering yes to that is that none of those concepts exist. Science uses the scientific method to deal with the empirical world. Mathematics (and logic) deal with ideas. They are seperate. Mathematics is of great and direct help in science. Science is of only limited use in mathematics: it spurs the mathematicians to ask new questions. I didn't say science is of use to mathematics - much to the contrary, mathematics is of use to science, because it's scientific. Mathematics is a bunch of models and methods applicable to the models. If algebra is applicable to a system, all algebraic conclusions are true to that system. That is precisely my point. They then take the explanations and use them to create predictions. If the predictions are wrong, then the theory is. Or non-applicable to that domain as Taosaur pointed out. The whole "scientifically proven" thing is just a simplistic method to say something. Best term would be "scientifically observed", or "scientifically explained".

[DrunkenArse]

I didn't say science is of use to mathematics - much to the contrary, mathematics is of use to science, because it's scientific. Mathematics is a bunch of models and methods applicable to the models. If algebra is applicable to a system, all algebraic conclusions are true to that system. The point is that their does not exist a non-trivial physical system which is a model for an algebraic system. I suppose that I'll grant you that it's a matter of definitions but it seems to me, and a lot of scientists and mathematicians as well, silly to consider mathematics a part of science when there is nothing in common between them other then the need to use math.

[Licity]

The point is that their does not exist a non-trivial physical system which is a model for an algebraic system. I suppose that I'll grant you that it's a matter of definitions but it seems to me, and a lot of scientists and mathematicians as well, silly to consider mathematics a part of science when there is nothing in common between them other then the need to use math. But the formulation of mathematical formulas is done much in the same way as scientific theories are. Let's say I want to derive the formula for area of a square. I go out and measure a square, let's say it has 1 meter sides. I write a hypothesis detailing what measurements I need to take and what calculations to perform. My first guess is that I need to divide the perimeter by 4 to get the area. I test the hypothesis by trying it on a few different squares. Failure! I revise it with the new information, this time proposing that the proper method is to take the square of any side. I test this more, and find it works on every square. I declare this hypothesis to be the correct way of finding the area. That's the scientific method, applied to mathematics.

[DrunkenArse]

I declare this hypothesis to be the correct way of finding the area. . I think that you forgot the step that makes it mathematics.... the point is that it doesn't matter if a fairy visited youi in your dream and told you. The process by which a hypothesis is arrived as immaterial as the amount of 'tests' you run. It's still not mathematics. What you described could be called the scientific theory of numbers but if you were to present that to a mathematician as mathematics they would die laughing.

[Kromoh]

Mathematics is made of hypotheses and theses. If the hypothesis is true, the thesis is also true, because mathematics is a consequence of logic alone. Mathematics is not only scientific, but also more rigorous, more determinable, more accurate than science. Mathematics has scientific validity. In group theory, mathematics would be placed inside science.

[DrunkenArse]

Mathematics is made of hypotheses and theses. If the hypothesis is true, the thesis is also true, because mathematics is a consequence of logic alone. Technically, it consists of theorems and proofs. The capacity for proof is what separates mathematics from science and is of course the step that licity left out in his argument. Mathematics is not only scientific, but also more rigorous, more determinable, more accurate than science. Mathematics has scientific validity. I'm not sure what scientific validity is supposed to mean other a statement that is falsifiable and not yet falsified. In truth, there are some scientists that would claim that it is science. But not many mathematicians would and I side with them. If you want to believe that it is science, then that certainly doesn't make you an idiot, you are in good company. I would however look a little more deeply into it. In the end, I suppose that it comes down to definitions.

[Carôusoul]

Why is this thread still on. Xei solved it with his Xei power.

[DrunkenArse]

The point is that their does not exist a non-trivial physical system which is a model for an algebraic system. I should point out that, while I believe that this is technically true, it is possible to construct algebraic models for physical systems which was, i believe, your point. I jumped to conclusions.

[Licity]

I think that you forgot the step that makes it mathematics.... the point is that it doesn't matter if a fairy visited youi in your dream and told you. The process by which a hypothesis is arrived as immaterial as the amount of 'tests' you run. It's still not mathematics. What you described could be called the scientific theory of numbers but if you were to present that to a mathematician as mathematics they would die laughing. But that is how many formulas are arrived at. Why would a mathematician laugh?

[DrunkenArse]

But that is how many formulas are arrived at. Why would a mathematician laugh? It was a bit harsh to say that they would die laughing. One as arrogant as me would no doubt have a good chuckle. When you have tested a 1000 squares, how do you know that it will work for the next one? Spoiler for answer: You prove it This is the fundamental difference between math and science. It is true that trial and error play a large role in arriving at hypothesis but stating formulas and calculating their values on given inputs is not mathematics. Mathematics possesses the certainty that many people try to ascribe to science.