Can Science Prove Everything? Or, When will it prove everything?

Yo, serious discussion here. So...can it? I don't think it can.

Good grief, Cornelius, this question is broad enough to be cast off the back of a slowly moving boat on a hook...

theAnswer = false;

Can't prove I'm uglier than my sister cause I don't have one.

Sampy wrote:

Only what can be observed in some way.

But that begs the question, if it cannot be observed in any way, is it real?

But then how can someone purport something to exist if it cannot be observed?

Take New Age "spirit energy / energy / life-force / The Force / whatever they're calling it this week", if it isn't detectable, how is it people claim it exists?[1]

[1]Okay, bad example, they claim their bodies can feel it but modern scientific hardware can't (riiiight), but you get the point.

Just like in that other religious thread back then, where some of the religious type folks claimed that non-physical force can influence the physical world in a non-physical way.

Cornelius Ellsonpeter wrote:

Yo, serious discussion here. So...can it? I don't think it can.

Science, to take the Popperish view of it, doesn't attempt to prove inalienable facts. It proposes a hypothesis and presents it as the right one, as long as nothing comes along to disprove it.

It seems a bit post-modern, but it's not something I have a problem with.

You cant ask that question, without having the anser for this question first:
What is reality?

JohnAskew wrote:

Good grief, Cornelius, this question is broad enough to be cast off the back of a slowly moving boat on a hook...

theAnswer = false;

Can't prove I'm uglier than my sister cause I don't have one.

You know, this morning you changed my thinking completely. I think science can prove everything. Everything just comes down to atoms and chemicals. Thanks, John. If science can't prove it, it's balogna.

On wheat bread.

This is scientism at it's best, and I am fully embracing it.

Sampy wrote:

Only what can be observed in some way.

But that begs the question, if it cannot be observed in any way, is it real?

Nope, it's not real if it cannot be analyzed, tested and observed. Love is nothing more than chemistry, biology, and math. Science will prove this in time, and you will embrace it. I know I will.

I think I speak for everybody by saying that this "serious discussion" has been not only covered but trampled by this forum, and personally, I am in no mood to rekindle old flames...

Gaijin wrote:

I think I speak for everybody by saying that this "serious discussion" has been not only covered but trampled by this forum, and personally, I am in no mood to rekindle old flames...

Thanks Beer. Or is it W3bbo?

Chadk wrote:



You cant ask that question, without having the anser for this question first:
What is reality?

I think this is where it hinges....after all have people describe colors....your perception is not neccessarily MY perception..

Cornelius Ellsonpeter wrote:



Gaijin wrote: I think I speak for everybody by saying that this "serious discussion" has been not only covered but trampled by this forum, and personally, I am in no mood to rekindle old flames...

Thanks Beer. Or is it W3bbo?

Doesn't seem like any. If you go to his profile, both his email, etc is there.

Cybermagellan wrote:

I think this is where it hinges....after all have people describe colors....your perception is not neccessarily MY perception..

The thing is, all the world is a math problem essentially, and we just need to solve it. Given time, it all will be solved. Everything can be distilled into atoms, equations and empirical molecular structures. We are quite naive as a society in general when it comes to life elsewhere however, as Charles so eloquently proves in his blog. I can't wait until we have microchips inside of our brains and we can accelerate our thinking even more. You know, people talk about emotions...what touchy-feely garbage. It is all chemistry and reactions. The scientists tell us so.

Cornelius Ellsonpeter wrote:

Yo, serious discussion here. So...can it? I don't think it can.

No.  Emphatic no.

Can science prove everything?

No.

Prove to me that all even numbers divided by 2 will not have a remainder.

Science is a great descriptive tool. One that we would be screwed without, but we have to admit that it has limitations. Not only that, but science cannot prove anything. That's like saying "Hammers build houses". It's just a tool of the person doing the work

Cybermagellon wrote:

You know, people talk about emotions...what touchy-feely garbage. It is all chemistry and reactions. The scientists tell us so.

I disagree. I think there's more to emotions, and our overall consciousness than just "all chemistry and reactions."

I've got a book here on my shelf that I bought a few months ago, "The Worlds 20 Greatest Unsolved Problems". All of which are from varoius fields of science. Chapters 13, and 14 (In Part IV, "Neuroscience") are very interesting reads. They are, "Free Will", and "Consciousness".

I don't think these are completely understood by the world today. Atleast not to the degree that we would like to think.

jsampsonPC wrote:

Can science prove everything?

No.

Prove to me that all even numbers divided by 2 will not have a remainder.

Science is a great descriptive tool. One that we would be screwed without, but we have to admit that it has limitations. Not only that, but science cannot prove anything. That's like saying "Hammers build houses". It's just a tool of the person doing the work

Well, sure it can...better yet, take science, math, biology, chemistry and physics and put them together and you have the universe.
 
ScanIam, Tom Servo, John Askew, Beer28, Charles, Sampy and W3bbo all agree on this point. I have recently come around to their subtle genius...the truth that science CAN prove everything is so silly-simple it's amazing.
 
We all just need to collaborate better. That's the problem, right? I'm going  to write a research program that will compute equation for jealousy, and predict when it is going to happen.  It's all a matter of breaking things down into equations and theories. If I don't get it right, somebody else will come along and build off my research.

Does Microsoft research ever do any of this? If so, why not? They could make a mint.

Cornelius Ellsonpeter wrote:

jsampsonPC wrote:Can science prove everything? No. Prove to me that all even numbers divided by 2 will not have a remainder....

Well, sure it can...better yet, take science, math, biology, chemistry and physics and put them together and you have the universe.
 
ScanIam, Tom Servo, John Askew, Beer28, Charles, Sampy and W3bbo all agree on this point. I have recently come around to their subtle genius...the truth that science CAN prove everything is so silly-simple it's amazing.
 
We all just need to collaborate better. That's the problem, right? I'm going  to write a research program that will compute equation for jealousy, and predict when it is going to happen.  It's all a matter of breaking things down into equations and theories. If I don't get it right, somebody else will come along and build off my research.

Does Microsoft research ever do any of this? If so, why not? They could make a mint.

How do you suggest a person prove that all even numbers divided by 2 will have no remainder?

Are you going to set out and test every even number?

Secondly, predicting when Jealousy will arise isn't a difficult task. Walk up and kiss the girlfriend of your bestfriend, right in front of him - I bet he'll get jealous. He might even display a couple other emotions, too. [6]

What you need to figure out is WHY he gets jealous. If all he is, is nothing more than "chemicals and reactions", why is he getting jealous? Or is he? Perhaps he's just reacting naturally, because after all, he's just "chemicals and reactions", but then what do we do with the rapists in the world - excuse them because they are acting off of "chemicals and reactions"?