TED Conversations

Pabitra Mukhopadhyay

TEDCRED 50+

This conversation is closed.

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?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • May 20 2013: Nilesh, this is the reply to your comment. You are analysis raises a cardinal point that defines facts in reality unambiguously through Sankhyan logic. Only cyclic changes can be detected. The instant at which it is detectable is the point at which a changing parameter is STOPPED as when two particles collide at a POINT in space and then reverse. The detection of the next stationery point after completion of the following cycle of interaction. This interval between the two events has a bearing in Physics. Since there is movement during the interval between two collisions it cannot be measured or detected and gave rise to the principle of uncertainty. Further since detection was only at the colliding points, that time intrval created the concept of the quanta. That interval between counts gave the concept of a wavelength (displacement ) and became the frequency in a larger time interval or cycle. In Sankhya space is a continuum as a sea of elemental components but its detect ability was PERIODIC as explained above. Lacking a an axiomatic theory, the experimental discoveries were literally converted into a process of discontinuities. It is like inferring that air is qaantised medium because we can only hear discrete claps. . The so called quanta or Planck's constant contains in fact 9E16 interactive counts merged into a that cycle but Sankhyan axiomatic derivation quantifies the REAL individual interaction in space as having an inertial delay or mass as 1.3 E minus 51 kgs of mass. This large hidden interactive state contributes to explaining the anomalous dark matter/ energy findings. More important there is no need for dimensionality as the process counting interactions is ONLY a relative or RATIO of comparison for the fundamental components in space do never change or disappear.Hence the most elegant concept of conservation is derived by equating ONLY INTERACTIVE COUNTS DIRECTLY and not through a process of dimensional conversion.
    • May 24 2013: Mr. Srinivasan,

      Thank you for further contribution to fundamentals as it pointing towards eternal dynamism and dimensionless ratios in reality. Numbers doesn't exist in reality but help you comprehend total process comprise of three part of cyclic time as compression ,resonance & expansion as fundamental logic. Need to explore further with fresh mind as previous knowledge more often becomes screen or resistance to see objectively. Thanks again.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.