TED Conversations

Pabitra Mukhopadhyay

TEDCRED 50+

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?

+11
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • May 18 2013: For those of you that believe in gravitational lensing, look at the following web site and see how science mocks itself.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Gravitational+lensing+quasar&client=safari&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=eXmXUayVAoH89gSG6YC4CQ&ved=0CDIQsAQ&biw=320&bih=416
    • May 18 2013: Space has a matter density of 3.6E-25 kgs /cub. meter. Its an axiomatic derivation. So none can reject it. iThere is an axiomatically derived mass factor in space that is 1.3E minus 51 kgs (planck's constant h / C^2 is an approximation) . Next Light does not travel in space like a plane or a car but transmigrates from node to node ( like a worm) when the perpetual harmonic oscillatory state of balance is upset. It transfers from a higher count rate (frequency) to a lower one) . Third all light as transmigration of interactive stresses as pressure from a distant stellar body MUST have a higher frequency count. Hence all light from distant sources are BLUE shifted NOT red shifted. Hence around all stellar bodies where the gravitational acceleration will be constant the oscillatory frequency of the stress wave of light will be algebraically altered by the addition and subtraction of the stress waves around the body. It will and must curve -no more a straight line of Euclidean origins..It is exactly llike air around the earth and that will happen in space too --this example is to simplify understanding. Scientists must correct aberrations created by ill formulated experiments. As a proof see the total solar eclipse experiment where a balanced wooden rod was spun 180 degrees to the opposite side by the ecliptic transition, thus confirming Maurice's experiments with pendulums. I have built a gravity converter generator that has unusual energy conservative properties that stares Physics in its face on its energy conservation laws.'. A paradigm shift in Physics is a must if mankind is to take advantage of natures positive laws. See http://www.kapillavastu.com/index.html and the eclipse experiment that says the Cern tunnel is a needless waste of people's money in trying to prove the obvious. Further as a clinching last word the so called limiting velocity of light is exceeded by the Neutrinos ALL the TIME.
      • May 18 2013: Not interrested
      • thumb
        May 18 2013: I know I would prefer if you did not keep steering people to your website in so many of your posts. TED Conversations is a free site for exchange of ideas, but using the site to promote yourself or your business is a violation of the terms of use.
        • May 19 2013: I point it out every time because there is a scientific theory based on axioms that DERIVES itself ,
          which is UNHEARD of in any scientific derivation. Even though it has been on the web for 20 years the same inane bleating about the wonders of a defunct physics being pontificated by the one and all is the reason. Scientists are supposed to be intellectually flexible to see understand new findings but imentalobstinacy seems to be the rule. Why don't you delve into that website and understand the PERPETUAL HARMONIC OSCILLATORY STATE is initiator of gravitational acceleration and the so called 4 forces of the standard model belongs to fairy tales
      • thumb
        May 19 2013: G. Srinivasan,
        You claim that physics is defunct. If you believe that way, why do you use the concept of harmonics at all? Is it not that harmonics is a concept developed in classical mechanics?
        I have checked your website. It is too detailed to have a considered opinion on it, but if it so to propound something fundamentally different from how science works, it should develop, expound and resolve questions completely independent of standard science.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.