/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11271131]

This seems false.
Science doesn’t disprove things. Plenty of things considered false in science (Lamarckism, aether etc.) for quite some time turn out to be partially true.
And part of the process of science is recognising that one was too hasty to declare something false. (Although I’m not sure many scientists behave like Popper’s ideal.)

[Anonymous No.11271209]

>>11271131
"Partially true" is just false with caveats.

[Anonymous No.11271240]

>>11271131
You could come up with a hypothesis that only women eat eggs and the scientific method would disprove that hypothesis, so yes science does disprove things

[Anonymous No.11271245]

[Anonymous No.11271437]

>>11271131
Whether or not the aether exists is still disputed because it is still relevant, unlike the conjecture about the function of the heart.

>proving a negative
>falsifying a hypothesis

Not the same thing.

[Anonymous No.11271441]

>>11271131
>Plenty of things considered false in science (Lamarckism, aether etc.) for quite some time turn out to be partially true.
Why would you say such an accurate statement and then make reference to two examples that are completely false?

[Anonymous No.11271497]

>>11271441
prove it faggot

[Anonymous No.11271523]

>>11271131
Those things “could possibly be true” because they are not well defined. The experimenters disproved the definition of aether of the time, but allows room for an alternative definition

[Anonymous No.11272043]

>>11271240
>the scientific method
Doesn't exist. Read Feyerabend.

[Anonymous No.11272049]

>>11272043
There's some compromise to the validity of it, for the most part.

[Anonymous No.11272069]

>>11271131
>Science doesn’t disprove things.

Show me phlogiston.

> Plenty of things considered false in science (Lamarckism, aether etc.) for quite some time turn out to be partially true.

“””partially true””” weasel words. They were proven WRONG in their original formulation. That some aspects of the concept were later vindicated changes nothing.

[Anonymous No.11272230]

>>11271240
Not really. There could be a problem with your method or you could be unlucky in applying it.
Or there could be some different, undetectable form of egg.
You can show that it’s very unlikely that all women eat eggs from your perspective and explain why you think that.
But you can’t ultimately disprove anything.
Even if you prove something in math, your proof might be wrong or your conception of the objects you’re working with might be too narrow.
(Eg before imaginary numbers people might have proved things for “all numbers” that were really just for real numbers)
Popper was imho quite wrong.

[Anonymous No.11272239]

>>11271441
I’m new to science.
My understanding was that Lamarckism turned out to be partially true due to epigenetics and the ability of parental experience to “turn on” genes that then express in the offspring. Is that wrong?
And I read a post on here suggesting that aether is probably a thing.
Also it’s 4chan, so I like to keep it fun.

[Anonymous No.11272275]

>>11272069
To get pedantic, phlogiston could exist if the experiments and reasoning that indicate against it were wrong and we didn’t realise, but that’s unlikely.
Idk it seems like y’all folx want to make science your metaphysic rather than using science for what it’s worth and having other schemas for things like certainty.
I take your point about disproving entire theories. I suppose I’m more of a synthetic thinker who wants to seperate out the true and false bits of something and take the true, so it didn’t occur to me to be quite that black and white in my definition of a true or false entire theory. It wasn’t an attempt to bamboozle through behaving weaselishly.

[Anonymous No.11272596]

>>11271497
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.11272601]

>>11272043
>Feyerabend
hack

[Anonymous No.11272643]

>>11272043
The man who destroyed Popper

[Anonymous No.11272655]

>>11271131
On an experiment-by-experiment basis, science fundamentally just aims to falsify a hypothesis.

But as far as the overarching theory is concerned (like Lamarckism), some false negatives are also possible. The experiments that falsified the first hypothesis were not testing things like epigenetic modifications.

[Anonymous No.11272662]

>>11271131
Science disproves lots of things. It doesn’t prove anything. Anything “proven” has just stood up to significant amounts of scrutiny and testing without being disproven.