This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation

or join one »

## Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything?

There is a great deal of interest of us in examining claims of ‘truths’ and ‘facts’. In such examination there is a noticeable stress on scientifically proven facts which can be taken as fundamentally true. This is possibly because mathematics is the language of Science and we make mistake thinking mathematical proofs to be reflecting the essence of scientifically proven facts.

Does science necessarily prove anything? The way mathematics proves a proposition?

It is surprising that such a basic debate cannot be laid to rest and a conclusion arrived at even after 1934 book by Karl Popper: The Logic of Scientific Discovery.

Alan Moghissi, Matthew Amin and Connor McNulty of Institute for Regulatory Science, Alexandria, Va wrote to the editor of Science (the magazine) disagreeing with Peter Gleick and 250 members of the (US) National Academy of Sciences writing to the editor of Science : All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything.

http://www.nars.org/Voice_of_Science_Articles/Does%20Sciences%20Ever%20Absolutely%20Prove%20Anything.pdf

Is there an absolutely proven scientific fact?

**Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.**

**Showing single comment thread.
View the full conversation.**

## G. Srinivasan

Relative to what is the key. Human understanding or actual cause and effect of the event?. Unless Humans understand that cause and effect cycle at that INSTANT of occurrence all comparisons are DELAYED by the cognition process and MUST seem relative. One instant after the evnt it becomes the past and so relative. Hence we are compelled to compare with axiomatic state of the event which then would be simultaneous and REAL

"In fact the more precise it gets the more it runs the risk of failing to be a true description of reality. I think that is true for any axiomatic system of study including mathematics." The flaw in our human understanding iis the inability to detect the event cycle or the Guna or PHO state cycles. That is why we have the QUANTUM in physics which hides that instant and leads to uncertainty in detection. may I request you to visit my website http://www.kapillavastu.com/index.html where forty years of my research on Sankhya as the acme of unification is detailed in complete detail maths and all.

The reality is absolutely real for that is the event we experience without ant doubt. But the caveat is that the instant of action of event is 10^-51 seconds of a cycle and we see or detect ONLY a sequence in which 10^16 events or merged or concatenated or simultaneously averaged. Sankhya is 33000 years old and it has its own internal proofs so we can depend on it.

## Nilesh Modhwadia

## G. Srinivasan