Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
I agree with Craig.
Mathematicians deal with proof, scientists deal with accuracy.
While evidence may disprove a scientific theory, verifiable evidence can only support a theory within the technological limitations of the experiment or observation of the time. This does not constitute proof.
An example is the Moon's orbit, an early test case for Newtonian theory. While theory and observation were in agreement, it was only until Apollo astronauts placed mirrors on the lunar surface that a "precise" laser measurement of the Earth/Moon distance was possible. Suddenly Newtonian theory was no longer an accurate theory.
If scientists actually believed that evidence constituted proof, they might as well throw away their lab coats and their experiments, as they are no longer performing science.
Hopefully high cost experimental science will not fall away as an economic casualty of the times.
It's through experimental science, by the development of ever increasing accurate experiments that theory will always be kept on it's toes and not become dogma.
Regards
Steven
|
I agree with you Steven. However how often have you seen scientists openly say that their theories constitute a proof of whatever, or at least intimate that they do through their dealings with the general populace. Like with the speed of light barrier....whilst we know that even though experimental evidence has upheld that contention, so far, scientists come out and proclaim that nothing can travel faster than light, without making any qualifications to that contention, most of the time. It's an ego thing..."I'm the scientist and I know what I'm saying is correct, therefore you must listen and take my word as gospel". At least, that's the way many carry themselves when dealing with everyone else. You or I know full well what the qualifications to that contention are because we've studied it. But most people don't. If it was proven, then why not call Einstein's deliberations laws and not theories, just like Newton's Laws.
The big problem is that the words "proof", "theory" and "laws" get awfully mixed up and misinterpreted. Even by scientists at times, who sometimes forget they're not in the business of proving anything to be a fact, or explaining as being such.
Talking about high cost experimental science falling by the wayside, the US is in a bit of a pickle with their science funding. Same seems to be the case in Europe as well. Some large budget projects maybe cancelled, or at least put on the back burner, because of the economic situation there. Also, considering the US has over 9% unemployment, it doesn't bode all that well for graduates looking for research and/or teaching positions. Which worries me somewhat, as I'm in that market as well. Might have to win the Lotto, buy myself a large scope with all the goodies to go with it and go out on my own, for the time being!!!!
Just thinking of that....makes you wonder what a particle physics graduate would buy themselves if they had the same inclinations. A small version of the LHC??