Does Science Prove Things? – The Null Hypothesis

[JudoJosh]

There is a common misconception regarding what science is able to achieve via research. In science things aren’t really proven. They are disproven. I know that might sound odd at first or like I am playing semantics, but let me explain further.

Let me begin with a very brief explanation of the scientific research process. First, a researchers forms a hypothesis. Typically this expresses a relationship between two or more variables (Is A related to B?). When the hypothesis is formed, a null hypothesis is also formed. This is basically a “nothing happens” hypothesis. For example, if a researcher conceives the hypothesis that the compound Anacyclus pyrethrum (A. pyrethrum) has androgenic potential, the null hypothesis would be, A. pyrethrum has no androgenic potential. So now that the researcher has a hypothesis, their next step is to search the available literature for evidence that is COUNTER to their hypothesis. Searching for only evidence to support your hypothesis result in confirmation bias. Here we start to see the start of the process attempting to disprove and not prove.

Next comes the study. Again we see a process attempting to disprove, not prove. When designing the study, the researcher doesn’t attempt to prove his hypothesis, they attempt to disprove the null. This is because they are virtually unable to prove a hypothesis is true. No matter how many times an experiment is repeated and a relationship is found to be true, there will still exist the possibility the next time the experiment is tried, it could be false. On the other hand, only one observation is necessary to disprove a hypothesis. This is why when conducting experimental research the researchers will often attempt to assert a null hypothesis. So going with the example using A. pyrethrum, the research hypothesis is that A. pyrethrum has androgenic potential and the null hypothesis is A. pyrethrum has no effect. The study will be designed in a way to reject the null which would indicate that A. pyrethrum does have androgenic potential. You see, the null hypothesis actually complements the research hypothesis. By rejecting the null they are asserting that the research hypothesis is likely to be true.

Now, by rejecting the null hypothesis has the researcher disproved it? No they haven’t. What they have done is shown that there is enough current evidence to assume the null is false. And this brings us back to the beginning. A hypothesis cannot be proven true. However, a null hypothesis can be proven false. And the way we disprove the null is via the results of research. Is there a chance a rejected null hypothesis can actually be true? Yes, there is always a chance but with carefully designed research experiments we are able to minimize this chance.


TL;DR version- science cannot prove; it can only disprove.

 

[NewAgeMayan]

oh yes, love philosophy of science...Popper, falsification, critical realism...subd

 

[Aleksandar37]

In for a good discussion. Thank you for writing this up!

 

[JudoJosh]

feel free to correct, add to or follow up on anything put here guys.

 

[Piston Honda]

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

-- Christopher Hitchens

I feel this is the anti-"I Am For Phil" thread. Kudos, Judo!

 

[JudoJosh]

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

-- Christopher Hitchens

I feel this is the anti-"I Am For Phil" thread. Kudos, Judo!

Ohhhh.. I have a feeling you aren't going to like my next thread very much. :/

 

[Piston Honda]

The Chinese chopstick thread?

 

[JudoJosh]

Oh no, not that one. I have written it yet. The topic of that post is gonna be basically, just because something that has not been tested yet, does not mean it is not valid. It is an important concept that I think gets forgotten sometimes in the pro - science group.

 

[Piston Honda]

Valid if it's testable to arrive at the knowable

 

[NewAgeMayan]

feel free to correct, add to or follow up on anything put here guys.

I think it interesting just how counterintuitive scientific progress as a somewhat 'negative' endeavour is. The latter becomes more apparent, though, when one considers the history of science and the evolution of human knowledge; in many instances the key 'event' involved the disproving (or falsification) of a previously held (to be true) hypothesis.

 

[thebigt]

There is a common misconception regarding what science is able to achieve via research. In science things aren’t really proven. They are disproven. I know that might sound odd at first or like I am playing semantics, but let me explain further.

Let me begin with a very brief explanation of the scientific research process. First, a researchers forms a hypothesis. Typically this expresses a relationship between two or more variables (Is A related to B?). When the hypothesis is formed, a null hypothesis is also formed. This is basically a “nothing happens” hypothesis. For example, if a researcher conceives the hypothesis that the compound Anacyclus pyrethrum (A. pyrethrum) has androgenic potential, the null hypothesis would be, A. pyrethrum has no androgenic potential. So now that the researcher has a hypothesis, their next step is to search the available literature for evidence that is COUNTER to their hypothesis. Searching for only evidence to support your hypothesis result in confirmation bias. Here we start to see the start of the process attempting to disprove and not prove.

Next comes the study. Again we see a process attempting to disprove, not prove. When designing the study, the researcher doesn’t attempt to prove his hypothesis, they attempt to disprove the null. This is because they are virtually unable to prove a hypothesis is true. No matter how many times an experiment is repeated and a relationship is found to be true, there will still exist the possibility the next time the experiment is tried, it could be false. On the other hand, only one observation is necessary to disprove a hypothesis. This is why when conducting experimental research the researchers will often attempt to assert a null hypothesis. So going with the example using A. pyrethrum, the research hypothesis is that A. pyrethrum has androgenic potential and the null hypothesis is A. pyrethrum has no effect. The study will be designed in a way to reject the null which would indicate that A. pyrethrum does have androgenic potential. You see, the null hypothesis actually complements the research hypothesis. By rejecting the null they are asserting that the research hypothesis is likely to be true.

Now, by rejecting the null hypothesis has the researcher disproved it? No they haven’t. What they have done is shown that there is enough current evidence to assume the null is false. And this brings us back to the beginning. A hypothesis cannot be proven true. However, a null hypothesis can be proven false. And the way we disprove the null is via the results of research. Is there a chance a rejected null hypothesis can actually be true? Yes, there is always a chance but with carefully designed research experiments we are able to minimize this chance.


TL;DR version- science cannot prove; it can only disprove.

in 2012 64.8 percent of american's did NOT get flu shots....even after science told americans they were safe and effective, and ran a campaign to get people vaccinated.

science says generics work just as good as name brands at a third of cost, but name brands continue to be prefered by those who can afford them-if given a choice i think the majority would chose name brand over generics.

just two examples of the publics mistrust of what science tells them.

 

[whyteboi]

As an engineer with a M.S., most things are proven... mathematically/scientifically (more mathematically than scientifically), not experimentally. You use fundamental laws such as conservation of mass/momentum with basic physics, and can prove relations of certain things. That branch of engineering/thinking is called continuum mechanics.

Even experimentally.... Dare I say science can prove that friction is a real thing? I admit that there is a possibility 'they could do an experiment where it wouln't exist, but I would also contend it is equal likely that gravity would reverse and we would all fall up

in 2012 64.8 percent of american's did NOT get flu shots....even after science told americans they were safe and effective, and ran a campaign to get people vaccinated.

science says generics work just as good as name brands at a third of cost, but name brands continue to be prefered by those who can afford them-if given a choice i think the majority would chose name brand over generics.

just two examples of the publics mistrust of what science tells them.

You're not accounting for all reasons... my reason for not getting it was because I'm too lazy to get it

 

[thebigt]

As an engineer with a M.S., most things are proven... mathematically/scientifically (more mathematically than scientifically), not experimentally. You use fundamental laws such as conservation of mass/momentum with basic physics, and can prove relations of certain things. That branch of engineering/thinking is called continuum mechanics.

Even experimentally.... Dare I say science can prove that friction is a real thing? I admit that there is a possibility 'they could do an experiment where it wouln't exist, but I would also contend it is equal likely that gravity would reverse and we would all fall up



You're not accounting for all reasons... my reason for not getting it was because I'm too lazy to get it

the vast majority of americans will see a doctor at least once a year, and be offered a flu shot.

 

[kisaj]

Do you even have studies, bro?

 

[NewAgeMayan]

As an engineer with a M.S., most things are proven... mathematically/scientifically (more mathematically than scientifically), not experimentally. You use fundamental laws such as conservation of mass/momentum with basic physics, and can prove relations of certain things. That branch of engineering/thinking is called continuum mechanics.

Even experimentally.... Dare I say science can prove that friction is a real thing? I admit that there is a possibility 'they could do an experiment where it wouln't exist, but I would also contend it is equal likely that gravity would reverse and we would all fall up

I think science (or, at least philosophy of science) has more rigorous/demanding criteria for something to be 'proven true' than, say, law, or especially everyday common use. As long as there is the possibility of a hypothesis being falsified, then how could that hypothesis be proven true? There is a difference between the practicalities of 'proven true', and a more theoretical understanding of it. This whole discussion could also get quite involved as there are differing schools on what we should take concepts like 'truth' to mean.

I think there is a significant difference here between something being proven true, and evidence (or observations, phenomena) which support some hypothesis or theory. No matter how consistent some hypothesis is with all the current observations/phenomena made, it is not proven true if it is possibly falsifiable (and if it is not falsifiable then it is outside the field of science).

It might be worth pointing out that mathematics involves a priori truth, whereas science is a posteriori.

 

[Aleksandar37]

in 2012 64.8 percent of american's did NOT get flu shots....even after science told americans they were safe and effective, and ran a campaign to get people vaccinated.

science says generics work just as good as name brands at a third of cost, but name brands continue to be prefered by those who can afford them-if given a choice i think the majority would chose name brand over generics.

just two examples of the publics mistrust of what science tells them.

In regards to the flu shot: people are generally lazy/busy/forgetful if they even have access to appropriate health care. That value isn't a fair measurement of distrust in science.

In regards to generics: a blanket statement that all generics work as well as their respective brand names is false. A regular aspirin might be pretty close, but if you get into medicines that are long-acting/extended-release things get a bit more tricky and are not always so easy to cheaply reproduce.

 

[thebigt]

In regards to the flu shot: people are generally lazy/busy/forgetful if they even have access to appropriate health care. That value isn't a fair measurement of distrust in science.

In regards to generics: a blanket statement that all generics work as well as their respective brand names is false. A regular aspirin might be pretty close, but if you get into medicines that are long-acting/extended-release things get a bit more tricky and are not always so easy to cheaply reproduce.

generics are a scam?

 

[NewAgeMayan]

In regards to the flu shot: people are generally lazy/busy/forgetful if they even have access to appropriate health care. That value isn't a fair measurement of distrust in science.

In many respects I think that because science can be so deeply counterintuitive for people, for practical reasons they would (understandably) stick with their prejudices.

Consider the resistance heliocentrism faced, or evolution nowadays. Hell, there are still Young Earthers and Flat Earthers.

 

[JudoJosh]

in 2012 64.8 percent of american's did NOT get flu shots....even after science told americans they were safe and effective, and ran a campaign to get people vaccinated.

science says generics work just as good as name brands at a third of cost, but name brands continue to be prefered by those who can afford them-if given a choice i think the majority would chose name brand over generics.

just two examples of the public's mistrust of what science tells them.

These aren't really a mistrust in science per se. The vaccine statistic can be attributed to the vaccines are evil movement but when it comes down to it, I doubt many people will actually distrust medicine. If so this -> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/herbert-catherine-schaible_n_3138001.html , would be a more frequent occurrence. The distrust in vaccines is a distrust in pharma companies, not really in science. When people are faced with illness the overwhelming majority of them will turn to medicine, especially when their lives or a loved ones is on the line.

The second example I would think is more of a economical one and not a mistrust in science. Just because McDonalds sells more burgers, doesn't mean people prefer a McDonalds cheeseburger to gourmet one.

Now, while I do disagree with your two examples, I do agree overall that there is a severe mistrust in science in our society. I feel this is mostly due to the majority of people not having a basic level of understanding of what science actually is. We are a scientifically illiterate country overall. This is the overriding problem. Once this is corrected, trust in science will increase IMO

 

[JudoJosh]

As an engineer with a M.S., most things are proven... mathematically/scientifically (more mathematically than scientifically), not experimentally. You use fundamental laws such as conservation of mass/momentum with basic physics, and can prove relations of certain things. That branch of engineering/thinking is called continuum mechanics.

Even experimentally.... Dare I say science can prove that friction is a real thing? I admit that there is a possibility 'they could do an experiment where it wouln't exist, but I would also contend it is equal likely that gravity would reverse and we would all fall up



You're not accounting for all reasons... my reason for not getting it was because I'm too lazy to get it

As someone who completed graduate school in a science field, you surprisingly lack understanding of some basic concepts here.

While mathematics is the language of science, mathematics is not the same as science. The two can not be meshed together as one in the way you are using it. The mistake you are making is you are thinking mistake thinking mathematical proofs are scientifically proven facts. They are not. Science cannot necessarily prove something the way mathematics proves a proposition. If A then B can not be proven as a absolute fact, and as I explain in the first post, it is not even the goal of science to proven it as such. The very test that qualifies weather or not a theory is scientific or not is if it has the ability to be falsified. If a theory is not refutable that it is nonscientific (RE: Popper) In science, every test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it. This alone means that science does not find facts and further supports my original post that the goal of science is to disprove.

You also do not appear to really quite understand what laws are in science. In the language of science, laws describe an analytic statement. That is, it gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example you mentioned gravity, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." Now, this formula will allow us to calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and an object that is falling. Now, while this law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, it doesn't say anything about WHY it happens. This is where science comes in. Science attempts to explain the how and why about the phenomenon that we are observing. For gravity, the theory we use is Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. This is a theory of why things fall. A theory that is capable of being refuted, hence making it not a fact. Laws and theories are not the same. And again, while mathematics is the language of science, science is unable to prove a proposition the same way mathematics can.

Sidenote: Sorry if I read too much into your post. In hindsight I realize you may not be even disagreeing with me (in my defense I just spent the entire day painting and inhaling fumes while only getting 3 hours sleep). If so, I apologize. I left the post because I figured the general population of the board could benefit from what was said as this is another misunderstanding I often encounter with people.

 

[JudoJosh]

I think science (or, at least philosophy of science) has more rigorous/demanding criteria for something to be 'proven true' than, say, law, or especially everyday common use. As long as there is the possibility of a hypothesis being falsified, then how could that hypothesis be proven true? There is a difference between the practicalities of 'proven true', and a more theoretical understanding of it. This whole discussion could also get quite involved as there are differing schools on what we should take concepts like 'truth' to mean.

I think there is a significant difference here between something being proven true, and evidence (or observations, phenomena) which support some hypothesis or theory. No matter how consistent some hypothesis is with all the current observations/phenomena made, it is not proven true if it is possibly falsifiable (and if it is not falsifiable then it is outside the field of science).

It might be worth pointing out that mathematics involves a priori truth, whereas science is a posteriori.

Great post man! Reps! :thumbsup:

 

[Aleksandar37]

generics are a scam?

Not even close to what I actually said. You stated "science says generics work just as good as name brands at a third of cost" and I am simply saying that isn't true for every generic/brand name.

 

[thebigt]

Not even close to what I actually said. You stated "science says generics work just as good as name brands at a third of cost" and I am simply saying that isn't true for every generic/brand name.

the FDA assures us that generics are as safe and effective as brand names. so either you or the FDA are wrong here---btw, i agree with you. i think the FDA is full of crap to make that statement!!!

look it up-'generic drugs, are they as good as name brands'....

i think everyone has used a brand name then been prescribed a generic that didn't work as well-particularly pain meds....i will spend the extra $40 for name brand pain meds, because they work that much better!!!

 

[JudoJosh]

the FDA assures us that generics are as safe and effective as brand names. so either you or the FDA are wrong here---btw, i agree with you. i think the FDA is full of crap to make that statement!!!

look it up-'generic drugs, are they as good as name brands'....

i think everyone has used a brand name then been prescribed a generic that didn't work as well-particularly pain meds....i will spend the extra $40 for name brand pain meds, because they work that much better!!!

You are confounding your statement with extra things.

Your original statement was that science says generic is just as good as brand name

Alex responded explaining that isn't what science says.

Now you are saying, well it is what the FDA says. (Which BTW, I don't think the FDA actually says that. They says something is safe and for generics say it is comparative to their brand name counters. This isn't the same as saying generic = brand name but that generic is similar to brand name)

back to your original point, does science say generics are equal to brand names? The answer is no. Remember what the FDA says or even what researchers say isn't necessarily the same as what science tells us.

 

[BCseacow83]

I know there was issue with extended release bupropion in generic form did not deliver the same blood levels for the same length of time as the brand name wellbutrin. I take the stance of this on generic: as far as the raw, material the drug molecule it self, assuming you have two samples one made by the brand name and a generic and both are the same purity they are the same. What the brand name does to the raws vs what the generic does to the raws can make a difference. Getting absorption and blood levels the same would be tough if the brand name has a delivery system above and beyond a run of the mill tablet or capsule.

 

[whyteboi]

I think science (or, at least philosophy of science) has more rigorous/demanding criteria for something to be 'proven true' than, say, law, or especially everyday common use. As long as there is the possibility of a hypothesis being falsified, then how could that hypothesis be proven true? There is a difference between the practicalities of 'proven true', and a more theoretical understanding of it. This whole discussion could also get quite involved as there are differing schools on what we should take concepts like 'truth' to mean.
I think there is a significant difference here between something being proven true, and evidence (or observations, phenomena) which support some hypothesis or theory. No matter how consistent some hypothesis is with all the current observations/phenomena made, it is not proven true if it is possibly falsifiable (and if it is not falsifiable then it is outside the field of science).
It might be worth pointing out that mathematics involves a priori truth, whereas science is a posteriori.

I had typed up such a beautiful response to this, but realized it would just turn into an argument about wording and semantics (which this argument is already bordering to dangerously close)

As someone who completed graduate school in a science field, you surprisingly lack understanding of some basic concepts here.

People call math proofs… math proofs. You guys are scrutinizing the definition of what “proven”, “proof”, “truth” are to a level that serves no practical purpose other than to argue semantics of the definition of these words. I guess I should have chosen my verbiage with a more tantalizing effort and spent more than 2 minutes writing my post.

While mathematics is the language of science, mathematics is not the same as science. The two can not be meshed together as one in the way you are using it. The mistake you are making is you are thinking mistake thinking mathematical proofs are scientifically proven facts. They are not. Science cannot necessarily prove something the way mathematics proves a proposition. If A then B can not be proven as a absolute fact, and as I explain in the first post, it is not even the goal of science to proven it as such. The very test that qualifies weather or not a theory is scientific or not is if it has the ability to be falsified. If a theory is not refutable that it is nonscientific (RE: Popper) In science, every test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it. This alone means that science does not find facts and further supports my original post that the goal of science is to disprove.

I completely follow what you’re saying but get lost as soon as your reach your conclusion. All I was trying to say is that scientific observations are then written in a mathematical language such as navier-stokes equations, but I think following your logic, nothing in math or science are provable, so maybe I wasn’t so wrong for using them ubiquitously.
And I disagree with your statement “In science, every test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it.” I think every test’s goal is to either verify, get a better idea of, or falsify a theory, not JUST falsify a theory. Science certainly seems welcomed to being wrong, but I think it’s quite wrong to say “every test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it”. Again, we might be clashing on a verbiage issue and not a practical disagreement

You also do not appear to really quite understand what laws are in science. In the language of science, laws describe an analytic statement. That is, it gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example you mentioned gravity, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." Now, this formula will allow us to calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and an object that is falling. Now, while this law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, it doesn't say anything about WHY it happens. This is where science comes in. Science attempts to explain the how and why about the phenomenon that we are observing. For gravity, the theory we use is Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. This is a theory of why things fall. A theory that is capable of being refuted, hence making it not a fact. Laws and theories are not the same. And again, while mathematics is the language of science, science is unable to prove a proposition the same way mathematics can.

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the god particle? Science “proved” it to a five-sigma level of confidence, but I don’t even know if you guys would call that “proven” or a “truth” that it exists.
Edit: I think I may have mixed up your guys points up a little, so my argument may just stand as a pile of monumental **** as I couldn’t even correctly comprehend the unique point each of you were making up as a result of reading your posts in succession, then responding to them in succession.

 

[thebigt]

You are confounding your statement with extra things.

Your original statement was that science says generic is just as good as brand name

Alex responded explaining that isn't what science says.

Now you are saying, well it is what the FDA says. (Which BTW, I don't think the FDA actually says that. They says something is safe and for generics say it is comparative to their brand name counters. This isn't the same as saying generic = brand name but that generic is similar to brand name)

back to your original point, does science say generics are equal to brand names? The answer is no. Remember what the FDA says or even what researchers say isn't necessarily the same as what science tells us.

this is exactly why there is mistrust about science, many non-scientific types think that the FDA represents science, at least in the field of pharmaceuticals!!!

 

[andrew732]

a good but unresolved theoretical point that will never go anywhere

 

[whyteboi]

Not even close to what I actually said. You stated "science says generics work just as good as name brands at a third of cost" and I am simply saying that isn't true for every generic/brand name.

the FDA assures us that generics are as safe and effective as brand names. so either you or the FDA are wrong here---btw, i agree with you. i think the FDA is full of crap to make that statement!!!

look it up-'generic drugs, are they as good as name brands'....

i think everyone has used a brand name then been prescribed a generic that didn't work as well-particularly pain meds....i will spend the extra $40 for name brand pain meds, because they work that much better!!!

Generics and Name brands are the same as far as the active ingredient. As someone who works at a pharma manufacturing site, you're mandated by law to have the same active ingredient at the exact same dose. Not only do the manufacturers test their product, but so do the companies selling them.

To the people mentioning XR... the ingredients that compose the "XR" to slow down the absorption are not the active drug, and can therefore differ between the name-brand and generic

 

[thebigt]

Generics and Name brands are the same as far as the active ingredient. As someone who works at a pharma manufacturing site, you're mandated by law to have the same active ingredient at the exact same dose. Not only do the manufacturers test their product, but so do the companies selling them.

To the people mentioning XR... the ingredients that compose the "XR" to slow down the absorption are not the active drug, and can therefore differ between the name-brand and generic

if you took a poll...
yes--- generics works as well as name brands....
no---- generics do not work as well as name brands....


what do you think the poll would look like?

 

[Aleksandar37]

Generics and Name brands are the same as far as the active ingredient. As someone who works at a pharma manufacturing site, you're mandated by law to have the same active ingredient at the exact same dose. Not only do the manufacturers test their product, but so do the companies selling them.

To the people mentioning XR... the ingredients that compose the "XR" to slow down the absorption are not the active drug, and can therefore differ between the name-brand and generic

I agree I did 4 years of QA at Abbott Labs before grad school and now do consulting for several pharm companies. The active ingredient is the same, but things get tricky with the XR/LA drugs. The FDA will tell you that everything is equal even then, and I will respectfully disagree with them

 

[Aleksandar37]

this is exactly why there is mistrust about science, many non-scientific types think that the FDA represents science, at least in the field of pharmaceuticals!!!

And in an attempt to get the thread back on track My experience has been that scientific mistrust comes from people abusing science for their own purposes whether it be the topic of vaccines or GMOs or whatever. Science "proves" through statistical probability and theories are continually revised, but some people (due to a lack of understanding) see that as admitting wrong and then use it make arguments against science. The scientific method is a fairly easy concept to understand, but a lot of people make major decisions based on Facebook posts rather than science-based concepts.

 

[thebigt]

I agree I did 4 years of QA at Abbott Labs before grad school and now do consulting for several pharm companies. The active ingredient is the same, but things get tricky with the XR/LA drugs. The FDA will tell you that everything is equal even then, and I will respectfully disagree with them

have you ever compared the effects of vicodin v generic hydrocodone? i have, and am willing to pay the extra $40 bucks for the vicodin!!!

think about it, if generics are a third of the price why do people still buy name brands?

 

[thebigt]

And in an attempt to get the thread back on track My experience has been that scientific mistrust comes from people abusing science for their own purposes whether it be the topic of vaccines or GMOs or whatever. Science "proves" through statistical probability and theories are continually revised, but some people (due to a lack of understanding) see that as admitting wrong and then use it make arguments against science. The scientific method is a fairly easy concept to understand, but a lot of people make major decisions based on Facebook posts rather than science-based concepts.

i think the mistrust comes from people inside the scientific community who corrupt the science to further their own ends...there is corruption in every field but when it comes to peoples health and well being a higher standard is set. i actually think that the scientific community does a very good job of policing itself, and i give kudos for that. what pisses me off is when i hear that science is infallible, as long as people are involved with science errors, misrepresentation, and corruption will always be possible!!!

 

[JudoJosh]

I completely follow what you’re saying but get lost as soon as your reach your conclusion. All I was trying to say is that scientific observations are then written in a mathematical language such as navier-stokes equations, but I think following your logic, nothing in math or science are provable, so maybe I wasn’t so wrong for using them ubiquitously.

No, math is provable.

I can see how this can be an issue of semantics but I dont feel I am going down that rabbit hole in my post. So real quick, let us define proof. In mathematics we have agreed elements and procedures and when those are used we get an answer that is perfect, unquestionable and absolute (1+1=2). Now, in the scientific context, are you able to reach a proof that is perfect, unquestionable,and an absolute assertions about the why and how to an observed phenomenon? (Can if A then B be a definitive where you will never have B without first A?). In science no such proof is to possible be had. We can presume that the future will be like the past but we are unable to absolutely guarantee it. The very nature of science doesn't allow for it to be.

And I disagree with your statement “In science, every test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it.” I think every test’s goal is to either verify, get a better idea of, or falsify a theory, not JUST falsify a theory. Science certainly seems welcomed to being wrong, but I think it’s quite wrong to say “every test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it”. Again, we might be clashing on a verbiage issue and not a practical disagreement

you aren't disagreeing with me here, but with the very fundamentals of science.

Here are some quotes from Popper

"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." — Karl Raimund Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

"It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions... A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or refute it." — Karl Raimund Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1963)

"There can be no ultimate statements science: there can be no statements in science which can not be tested, and therefore none which cannot in principle be refuted, by falsifying some of the conclusions which can be deduced from them." — Karl Raimund Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959)

"It is the rule which says that the other rules of scientific procedure must be designed in such a way that they do not protect any statement in science against falsification. (1959)" — Karl Raimund Popper,The Logic of Scientific Discovery: Logik Der Forschung ​

Re-read the first post. Research (at least good research) isn't conducted to "prove" something to be true. It attempts to disprove the null, which in a round about way kinda "proves" the research hypothesis. (if the null is false then the research hypothesis is likely to be true).

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the god particle? Science “proved” it to a five-sigma level of confidence, but I don’t even know if you guys would call that “proven” or a “truth” that it exists.

I can't comment too much on this, since it is a specific that is out of my field of study but it is an interesting point for you to raise up. You see, pretty much ALL of particle physics rested on the belief that the Higgs Boson existed. Everything that was done in that field operated based off that assumption. Ultimately it was found but the part here that is most interesting for our discussion is, what if it wasn't? What would happen to the field of particle physics if the Higgs Boson did not actually exist? The observed phenomenons would still be true but the justification for the why and how behind them (re: particle physics) would then become very shaky. Another example of how science operates in a manner that accepts the reality it can be wrong.

If it is not falsifiable then it isn't science and if there is a chance it can be falsifiable then it can't be a proven fact.

 

[JudoJosh]

In many respects I think that because science can be so deeply counterintuitive for people, for practical reasons they would (understandably) stick with their prejudices.

Consider the resistance heliocentrism faced, or evolution nowadays. Hell, there are still Young Earthers and Flat Earthers.

this x1000!

we all have preconceived notions. Science challenges those, and when science says we are wrong, it is uncomfortable. I can reconcile those feelings myself but I feel others have a harder time with it.

 

[NewAgeMayan]

JJ's post above nicely covers much of my response, but there's a couple of points Id like to make in addition to hopefully further clarify my own position.

People call math proofs… math proofs. You guys are scrutinizing the definition of what “proven”, “proof”, “truth” are to a level that serves no practical purpose other than to argue semantics of the definition of these words. I guess I should have chosen my verbiage with a more tantalizing effort and spent more than 2 minutes writing my post.

what pisses me off is when i hear that science is infallible, as long as people are involved with science errors, misrepresentation, and corruption will always be possible!!!

To me, the idea that science dosnt (cant) prove things to be true is, simply, a nod to humility. That is, we are "human, all too human". We are fallible, our senses are fallible, and despite our clever technologies and instruments, we remain fallible and prone to error.

The claim that science can prove things to be true suggests that we are not fallible, and that our knowledge is in some sense exhaustive. In a word, that we are omniscient.

If this strikes you as a tad extreme, consider a few points. As fallible error prone humans, can we ever be sure, absolutely certain, that all the conditions/criteria necessary and sufficient for some hypothesis or theory to be true are ALL met? There are not many contemporary philosophers nor scientists who would answer that in the affirmative (at least not in any 'official' or 'strict' setting).

Again one need only consider the history of science to appreciate that it is folly to hold some contemporary theory to be 'proven true'; at any given time there are any number of possible observations which could provide evidence in favour some hypothesis or theory, but wouldnt it be shortsighted to assume from the limited/finite set of what has been observed that one has exhausted ALL possible observations and therefore excluded the possibility of falsehood?

And I disagree with your statement “In science, every test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it.” I think every test’s goal is to either verify, get a better idea of, or falsify a theory, not JUST falsify a theory. Science certainly seems welcomed to being wrong, but I think it’s quite wrong to say “every test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it”.

There's two ways one can look at that. On one hand, I find Kuhn's idea that the bulk of science is spent confirming hypotheses somewhat correct. However on the other hand, just because some experiment leads to an observation that confirms a hypothesis or theory, dosnt exclude the possibility that the very same experiment could have (for all intents and purposes) falsified the hypothesis, or at least revealed an anomaly which the hypothesis (or wider theory) could not adequately account for.

One could argue that perhaps the initial variables specific to any experiment might have been set up differently depending on whether one's aim was to confirm or to falsify a hypothesis, but the important thing is that the hypothesis remains falsifiable either way. Again, any observation which confirms the hypothesis does not prove it to be true, simply because:

1) the set of all possible observations is not exhaustible
2) even if that set were to be exhaustible, there are certain epistemic limits (human fallibility) which would still not assure a hypothesis to be proven true

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the god particle? Science “proved” it to a five-sigma level of confidence, but I don’t even know if you guys would call that “proven” or a “truth” that it exists.

No, I dont think science can 'prove something exists'. To be clear, I certainly think it (science) is the best tool/methodology we humans have for measuring and theorising about 'existence', but I dont think it turns us into 'transcendental beings' (read: Gods). That is, we cannot escape our "human, all too human" predicament.

Crudely, I think science involves observations (duh), and trying to come up with theories regarding those observations, and hypotheses which test them and expand on them (not necessarily in that order). Science is, really, to aid us in making the best, most informed predictions we can make (if I do X, then Y). The best theories are the ones that account for (or encompass) the most observations, whether actually made or not, with minimal anomalies.

So for me, science dosnt claim that X-exists; rather, some observations are made and theories are developed which attempt to tie those observations together in such a way that successful predictions can be made in the future.

...theories are continually revised, some people (due to a lack of understanding) see that as admitting wrong and then use it make arguments against science.

meh, people want definites because it makes them feel better, it is comforting. But thats why we (humans) invented religion, right?

 

[saggy321]

in 2012 64.8 percent of american's did NOT get flu shots....even after science told americans they were safe and effective, and ran a campaign to get people vaccinated.

science says generics work just as good as name brands at a third of cost, but name brands continue to be prefered by those who can afford them-if given a choice i think the majority would chose name brand over generics.

just two examples of the publics mistrust of what science tells them.

Also I don't think there is mustrust of science at least here in the UK. The feeling that it will provide an answer to all of man's woes is still prevalent albiet weakened. However there is a definite mistrust of big business and feeling that it now controls and misapplies science for profit. This thinking is growing.

 

[thebigt]

Also I don't think there is mustrust of science at least here in the UK. The feeling that it will provide an answer to all of man's woes is still prevalent albiet weakened. However there is a definite mistrust of big business and feeling that it now controls and misapplies science for profit. This thinking is growing.

you nailed it...i completely agree with this. great post!!!!!!!!

 

[NewAgeMayan]

Ohhhh.. I have a feeling you aren't going to like my next thread very much. :/

Oh no, not that one. I have written it yet. The topic of that post is gonna be basically, just because something that has not been tested yet, does not mean it is not valid. It is an important concept that I think gets forgotten sometimes in the pro - science group.

Had a chance to write this one up yet man?

 

[JudoJosh]

Had a chance to write this one up yet man?

I have not, but I did recently write this -> http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-science/262791-anatomy-research-paper.html

 

[JudoJosh]

Had a chance to write this one up yet man?

Got into a disagreement with a colleague the other day which reminded me I wanted to write this. Had a few minutes free so i threw something together real quick which hopefully gets the jist of what I am trying to say across.

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/exercise-science/264225-dealing-untested-claims.html

 

[Dma378]

The mistrust of science is mostly an American phenomenon. Propagated by politics and religion. I agree that without ultimate truths, nothing can be proven. But the definition of theory in science is not what most would like it to mean. When the scientific process, continually leads to the same results, gets peer reviewed and results in the same conclusion, theory can basically become fact. Gravity is only a theory, but nobody is jumping out of windows because of it.

 

[thebigt]

The mistrust of science is mostly an American phenomenon. Propagated by politics and religion. I agree that without ultimate truths, nothing can be proven. But the definition of theory in science is not what most would like it to mean. When the scientific process, continually leads to the same results, gets peer reviewed and results in the same conclusion, theory can basically become fact. Gravity is only a theory, but nobody is jumping out of windows because of it.

for me it is not the science so much that i don't trust but rather the people behind the science!!!

 

[frankz2]

for me it is not the science so much that i don't trust but rather the people behind the science!!!

And this is why you always check the funding source.

 

[thebigt]

And this is why you always check the funding source.

true...but funding sources don't always want to be known.

 

[JudoJosh]

true...but funding sources don't always want to be known.

They have to be known. No one hides them. You get caught and your career is over and then you are a PhD flipping burgers at McDonalds.

I know you fall into the whole conspiracy theories and have trust issues with orgnizations, but in science funding source as well as author afflitations are always disclosed.

 

[thebigt]

They have to be known. No one hides them. You get caught and your career is over and then you are a PhD flipping burgers at McDonalds.

I know you fall into the whole conspiracy theories and have trust issues with orgnizations, but in science funding source as well as author afflitations are always disclosed.

if the money is right you can find people willing to do anything you want them to no matter the risk....besides have you never heard of dummy companies and umbrella corporations, they have been getting over on the irs forever, drug cartels launder billions every year, lol.

as far as conspiracy theories go, i have a serious mistrust of people where money is concerned, the more money involved the less trust i have!!!

 

[Jiigzz]

The mistrust of science is mostly an American phenomenon. Propagated by politics and religion. I agree that without ultimate truths, nothing can be proven. But the definition of theory in science is not what most would like it to mean. When the scientific process, continually leads to the same results, gets peer reviewed and results in the same conclusion, theory can basically become fact. Gravity is only a theory, but nobody is jumping out of windows because of it.

This is not quite true as discussed previously ITT. judojosh wrote:

For example you mentioned gravity, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." Now, this formula will allow us to calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and an object that is falling. Now, while this law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, it doesn't say anything about WHY it happens. This is where science comes in. Science attempts to explain the how and why about the phenomenon that we are observing. For gravity, the theory we use is Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

Newagemayan also has good points that should be read on this topic. But essentially a FACT means that something is always true, for instance 1+1 will always equal 2.

A theory can never become a law but can become the accepted hypothesis based on available data. i.e. you can reach a logical conclusion but this does not mean that A can be proven to equal B.

 

[Dma378]

Agree. Good counter. Trying to separate science and philosophy can get distorted sometimes. At the end of the day I'm a science supporter and an anti-science hater. Because anti-science is big business in this country.