There Is No Such Thing as "Scientific Proof"

A helpful reminder from Psychology Today.


Anonymous said...

Didn't you get the memo? That guy's articles are only still up on the website so that his critics can point-to-them in their blogs and articles about how evil he is.

One is not supposed to link approvingly.

Note that he is not listed under

One can't view by author under

One can enter the author's name in the website's search bar, but which is an interesting exercise.

Grim said...

I never get any cool-kid memos. Too disagreeable, I suppose.

This argument is mostly correct, whether or not it’s cool. I would quibble about mathematical proofs, but that’s a long discussion that may not be worth the candle.

Piercello said...

I might frame it this way:

Define “Logical” as “having an internally consistent structure,” whether known or unknown;
(Both your phone and your heartbeat work reliably, whether or not you understand how.)

Define “Rational” as “having an externally verifiable logic.”
(The Rational method of science presumes a Logical universe, whose logic it then tries to reverse-engineer.)

So, “Rationality” and “Conclusions” are intrinsic logical properties of arguments, but not of humans;
(And “Intelligence” and “Decisions” are intrinsic logical properties of humans, but not of arguments.)

Which seems to be more or less the same point that the author is making, if perhaps pointed in a different direction.

ymarsakar said...

So where's the scientific proof that Newton solved the three body problem for gravity in calculus, how they calculated and proved G in the gravity equation, the proof that NASA doesn't need to use Einstein equations for orbital calculations, and also where is the proof for the curve of the Earth while we are it.

The Scientific and Doctor Authorities can start there. Assuming their insect like specialized IQ degrees can handle the manifold number of specialty field comprehension those topics require in aggregate.

Also for pilots, there has never been an airplane that flew from Australia to South America, direct over Antarctica. While there are those who went over or at least near, the Arctic from North America to Eurasia.

The fake news main sewer media has done an adequate job of keeping the human cattle and livestock from thinking about certain things they shouldn't be thinking about.

ymarsakar said...

Too disagreeable, I suppose.

Compared to me, you are downright agreeable and mellow.

The vector flow is opposite. For you, you may have mellowed with age and wisdom and less youthful recklessness. It was the opposite direction for me.

My tolerance for human antics and shenanigans decreased with more experience from a relatively high level early on.

ymarsakar said...

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

Something people don't realize (because of public education and IQ inflated standardized testing) is that Dark matter and energy is itself a violation of Newtonian and Einstein gravity equations. When they discovered that galaxies don't merely just disobey Newtonian physics but they disobey Einstein space-time physics too? Then they had to either junk Newton and Einstein, or they had to make something up invisible that they think has to be there to make the math work.

90% dark matter and energy thus arrived.

A proven theorem will persist forever, until the Old Guard dies, without respective to how many flaws and evidence is found against it.

ymarsakar said...

Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false.

It's already false. Humans clinging to their scientific religions again.

Humanity didn't come from evolution from slimes and apes. Evolution came about because the Divine Counsel designed and seeded you humans. We (in the Divine not Royal usage) did not want to wait forever, 5 billion eons, for a suitable biological avatar to present itself to our specifications. Besides, it was not even necessary, the Divine had other bodies that were better, but this world required biological animal forms for best effect. Ever see Ancient Aliens on your history channel? They are getting kind of close to the truth there.

ymarsakar said...

The entirety of life in the multiverse and the infinitverse isn't even "natural to begin with". That's because it requires the spark of the soul, Spirit, and Divine Intelligence for it to begin in the first place. Look up "Designed for Life" in cosmology. Humans in the astrophysicists and astronomy departments are even now realizing the long odds against the Big Bang creating the perfect conditions for life.

It wasn't the Big Bang and it wasn't the perfect conditions for life. It was designed that way to begin with. It was simulated, designed, then implemented.

ymarsakar said...

(This is a repost of a longer analysis. Gringo and Mensa level or above or thereabouts may be more interested in the meat that they can look up and chew. One thing this here 5-10 Ph.D thesis subjects are, they ain't "popular science".)

The Theory of Gravity is incorrect. Newton failed to solve the 3 body problem even after he invented Calculus to deal with his equations.

The Theory of Gravity does not obey the inverse square law in Unified Physics. Physicists like Michio Kaku have openly stated that the degree of error between observation in astronomy and theoretical conclusions in cosmology is 120 zeros. That is not a decimal or 10 of difference in your lab report. That is a 120 zeroes, thus requiring dark matter/energy theory to patch.

The vector equations they use to calculate orbits are no different than Kerbal Space simulator. It assumes that only 2 bodies are acting upon each other. Do people understand that the theory of gravity is not 2 bodies acting upon each other? Einstein patched it up by avoiding the issue when he made everything into a Two Body Problem: The Observer and the observed. Do they use Einstein's relativity equations for space orbits? No, they use Newton's vector analysis. But they ignore that Newton's 3 body problem has yet to be solved.

People assume the heliocentric theory is correct. Thus when they see circles in the sky called stars or the circle of the moon, they assume they are spheres. But a sphere is not a circle any more than a cube is a square. When a ball on a pool table is a sphere, does that make everything else in the room, including the pool table, a sphere? A sphere is not a circle and a circle is not a sphere. So where is the data on the dark side of the moon if it happens to be a sphere? The stars may be too far to observe, but we have probes on Mars so...

Again, lack of data and inconsistency in the Theory of Gravity is numerous enough that it is obvious to the geniuses that the theory is wrong.

As for NASA and the space agencies, they are not scientific bodies. If they were, they would peer review each other and test whether their claims are correct or not. But they don't even land on the same Apollo sites. They don't use cameras to zoom in from orbit even though our spy sats can read the book we are holding in our hands through a thick soup of water vapor called an atmosphere.?

One thing American Leftists and their counterparts can agree on is the moon and the Earth right? Heh. I am sure they are right this time like a broken clock, right...