Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

And denialists exploit the fact science a isn't process of proving things true. Scientific American recently had an essay on the Denialist Playbook that I found interesting - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-denialist-pla...


For sure. If someone can come up with a way to prove anything to be definitively true, most of these arguments would be over.

It is this flaw in science that is the origin of all these controversial debates that surround science, religion, global warming and other controversial topics.

Nothing can be proven and therefore reality will always be open to interpretation.


Just to clarify, things can be proven false, they just can't be proven true. That's why we speak of a good scientific theory being falsifiable - there must be a way to show it's not true.

The Scientific Method then becomes a process of incremental refinement. Newton's theory of gravity didn't become "wrong" just because Einstein's theory was more accurate - heck we still teach, and use, Newton's theory to this day in both high school and college. It's useful. We just know that all bets are off when velocities approaching the speed of light are involved. Turns out that's not usually the case in everyday situations. We suspect that Einstein's theory may not be the last word on gravity either - but the cases where the theory breaks down are getting more and more extreme. It's not like apples are going to start falling up from trees because we changed our theory!


Yeah I'm already aware of this. Almost no one else is though.

Keep in mind though, Incremental refinement is not a given. There is still no way to know if each new theory is actually closer to the truth. In fact it may even be a step backwards.

Additionally limited accuracy in observation tools actually make it impossible to falsify anything either. Can you trust that the critical observation was 100% accurate? But tbh this is just splitting hairs.


> Incremental refinement is not a given

I was wondering if you were going to call me out on that!

> Additionally limited accuracy in observation tools actually make it impossible to falsify anything either

That's a problem with GR too - it's true only within our current ability and accuracy to test that it's true. Better measurement may suddenly reveal something to not be true that we currently believe to be true.

c'est la vie!


I have seen so many people interpret the standard cautious phrase "there is no evidence for..." to somehow mean "there is evidence against..."




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: