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 17 2013: it proves a great many things. for example that electricity is a result of the movement of electrons, or than microwaves are absorbed by H-O bonds which is how we can use them to heat our food. also it wouldn't matter if it didn't, because science is also about disproving things.
    • May 17 2013: No reply button in you last statement to me, so I used this one and imposed your last statement here.
      "4 hours ago: and science knows well about the variations of light in space. so well actually that we can now measure a few millimeters change in star light years away, even through the shimmering of our atmosphere. that is accuracy to a billionth of a degree, and you say science is stupid?"

      Yes, science is stupid in many ways, to many times contradicting itself terribly, but ok Ben, lets go where you want first and then can we go where I want and debate gravitational lensing or more in light theory?

      Tell us Ben, are scientists seeing out to that star light or is that star light seen, because it is coming to us?

      Ted refuses me a reply button. What are you afraid of Ted? You are constantly challenging others, while your innuendo is that intelligence is important and yet, you refuse my challenges.
      • May 18 2013: jim you haven't included any examples of how science contradicts itself?

        nobody ever sees out to anything, that's not how sight works.
        • May 18 2013: Are you saying then, that starlight is coming to us and that we can't see out to the star?
    • May 17 2013: So tell me Ben, are you refusing to defend your challenge aimed at me, because you believe it will give me satisfaction, while you believe it will hurt your pride or do you believe you can issue challenges and refuse to finish what you start, because it doesn't matter?

      You can hit your own reply button and use my name, because Ted seems to be afraid of me.

      Ted refuses me a reply button. Ted is afraid of little ole me.

      Take my 3 challenges Ted! You are always challenging others.

      My challenges are light theory, gravitational lensing and gravity!!!
      • Comment deleted

        • May 17 2013: When I first posted to Ted, the --edit/delete button appeared, but after awhile, I would see the reply button on those posts and I was able to reply to my own posts. Now that several people have replied, I see. Maybe it was a glitch I experienced. Once I see how something works, when it changes, I try to move with the change. When it changed and I got no response, also what seemed no way to reply to others and more, while being heavily censored, I challenge, to find out.

          Thanks for saying what you did.
      • May 18 2013: jim exactly what is your challenge?
        • May 18 2013: Is there any scientist or even non scientist, that can defend gravitational lensing, all in light theory or gravity, as science claims, against me and he/she, can use everything on the net and any outside help.

          I claim that no one can defend against the cause and effect debate, that I can deliver. Pabitra tried and then blamed me when she could not get past her original copy and paste.

          My real challenge is aimed at the ignorant school system and how its ignorance had brought most all people to being unable to think past the copy and paste they learned.

          I challenged all in Ted and so far, none can debate.
      • May 18 2013: what do you mean by "defend gravitational lensing"? light slows down as it passes though a gravitational field, which causes it to be 'bent' in the same way light passing through a lense does. what exactly is your problem with this?
        • May 18 2013: No, it doesn't and science claims that light travels through space at 186,000 miles per second. Light cannot do that if gravity can slow it down, along with many other impediments in space. In the speed of light test from the earth to the moon and back, the light beams fall apart in just that short distance.

          If you can, show evidence that light slows down in a gravitational field, as you must have copy and pasted, unless you can show otherwise.
      • May 18 2013: my mistake. it doesn't slow down, but gravity actually distorts space, which makes a straight line no longer straight, and light curves around the deformation. a good analogy is if you had a slight depression on a billiard table, so if you shoot the ball rolls straight but then curves off as it goes thru the depression. this was predicted by the current model, and since then we've actually seen it many many times. here is a very good image where the effect is very noticeable:

        http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111017.html

        the laser beams in the earth-moon measurement don't fall apart, they diffract, as all light does when it passes through the atmosphere. interestingly, they diffract exactly as much as the scienctific equations show that they should! what would be amazing would be if that didn't happen.
      • May 20 2013: sorry again, diffusion, not diffraction!

        it doesn't mention it probably because it's something the layman wouldn't understand, and it's not really important to the content of the page anyway. it happens to all light as it passes through anything, it gradually stands to bend outwards in all directions. lasers keep this to a minimum though, but you can see the effect yourself with a cheap laser. shine the laser onto a piece of paper a short distance away, then move the laser as far away as you can from the paper, and notice the spot will be bigger. that's diffusion. yet again science knows very well why and how this happens.

        by the way you didn't bring up lensing again, does that mean you're happy with the explanation i gave?
      • May 21 2013: typos, been doing that a bit lately, 'who' instead of 'where', 'anything' instead of 'everything' etc. if you think that typing mistakes somehow render scientific theory incorrect there's no hope for you at all, but really i don't think you are that silly, more likely you've pounced on it as a way to get out of your inability to support your theory about lensing. (by the way, 2 comments up you typed 'sight' when you should've typed 'site')

        don't get me wrong, i'm still interested in hearing what you have to say about lensing, which is why i've continued this conversation in the hope you will explain what your problem with lensing is.
        • May 21 2013: When people lie to others and themselves, they have made up their mind and nothing the other person says will matter.

          You said, ---- "3 days ago: what do you mean by "defend gravitational lensing"? light slows down as it passes though a gravitational field,"

          I reply, ---your above statement is not as you claim--"10 hours ago: typos, been doing that a bit lately, 'who' instead of 'where', 'anything' instead of 'everything' etc"

          Also, you posted,---- "http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111017.html

          the laser beams in the earth-moon measurement don't fall apart, they diffract, as all light does when it passes through the atmosphere. interestingly, they diffract exactly as much as the scienctific equations show that they should! what would be amazing would be if that didn't happen.

          I reply, you gave the website above, but it says nothing about diffraction. Herein lay another dichotomy by science, according to you and science. You claim the laser light diffracted, while science claims that the laser light came back to earth as single photons and if yours or sciences claims are true, according to science, there is a huge dicotomy created by science.

          If you can tell us what that dichotomy is and admit your wrongs, I'll give it another shot.
      • May 22 2013: yes i asked you 3 days ago what your problem with gravitational lensing is. i gave you what i understand about it, and await your explanation of your theory. how can i ever learn if i'm wrong if you won't say what your idea about lensing is?

        as a separate topic i'll explain about diffusion. as laser light leaves the laser it diffuses (spreads out), so when the light bounces off a mirror it comes back as a much wider circle of light than when it left. nasa didn't put standard mirrors on the moon, they put very special ones that only reflect a single photon of the laser pulse. it makes sense to do this because the other photons of the pulse aren't as useful because diffusion makes them off-center, so they set a device that reflect only the 1 photon is the exact center of the laser pulse.
        • May 22 2013: Stop making stuff up. Those lenses are designed to bounce the light right back to the point of origin and nothing else.
      • May 23 2013: they're mirrors not lenses.

        please correct me about gravitational lensing?
        • May 23 2013: Yup, they are mirrors. Now instead of making up nonsense, read and learn.
      • May 23 2013: what nonsense?

        please correct me about gravitational lensing if i am wrong?
      • May 23 2013: no, lazy and stupid is saying someone is lazy and stupid without giving any supporting evidence for reaching that conclusion. similarly you could say the earth is actually flat, but if you ended it there without making your case, not only would it be lazy and stupid but it'd also make you wrong. any claims without basis are wrong, as so far all of yours have been.

        5 days ago you said no-one can challenge you on the subject of gravitational lensing. i asked you what you problem with the current theory was, and 7 replies later you still haven't told us what your point is. stop stalling, if you have a point, make it! or is the reason you keep going off on tangential arguments because you don't even have a point about gravitational lensing?
        • May 24 2013: You said the following. Where did you read it?
          "nasa didn't put standard mirrors on the moon, they put very special ones that only reflect a single photon."
        • May 24 2013: You said the following "5 days ago: what do you mean by "defend gravitational lensing"? light slows down as it passes though a gravitational field, "

          That's a lie, you made it up. If not, show where science makes that claim or show how your own claims supersede science.
      • May 24 2013: in the article you posted: Here's how it works: A laser pulse shoots out of a telescope on Earth, crosses the Earth-moon divide, and hits the array. Because the mirrors are "corner-cube reflectors," they send the pulse straight back where it came from. "It's like hitting a ball into the corner of a squash court," explains Alley. Back on Earth, telescopes intercept the returning pulse--"usually just a single photon," he marvels.

        it wasn't a lie and i didn't make it up, as i said before: my mistake. it doesn't slow down, but gravity actually distorts space, which makes a straight line no longer straight, and light curves around the deformation. a good analogy is if you had a slight depression on a billiard table, so if you shoot the ball rolls straight but then curves off as it goes thru the depression. this was predicted by the current model, and since then we've actually seen it many many times. here is a very good image where the effect is very noticeable:

        http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111017.html

        dude i'm still waiting for you to tell me what your problem with gravitational lensing is. yet again you've avoided answering.
        • May 24 2013: Wow, you can copy and paste Ben and here I thought you just made things up.
          So tell us Ben. What does the following have to do with what you and science claim above?


          Kraan-Korteweg, Renée C. & Ofer Lahav. "Galaxies Behind The Milky Way." Scientific America. October 1998. "These measurements, confirmed by the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite in 1989 and 1990, suggest that our galaxy and its neighbors, the so-called Local Group, are moving at 600 kilometers per second (1.34 million miles per hour) in the direction of the constellation Hydra." 600 km/s

          Its ok Ben, go find all the help you can get. At best, all you can do is prove science a liar, as I have pointed out for years.
      • May 25 2013: it doesn't have anything to do with it, it's a different subject. galaxies are moving through space, what's your point? in what way does this prove science a liar?

        how have you ever proved science to be a liar? you keep saying that while showing absolutely nothing.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.