Does the term 'scientifically proven' mean less now?

Question

With advice on diet and health seeming to constantly change, are people less trusting of Science as a doctrine of absolute truth?

Answer 1

OK, this is a little weird, but sometimes science gets a little weird. The saying "scientifically proven" is an advertising slogan and not science because if you really want to get "hard core technical" about it... science can't "prove" anything... science can only disprove something. If something seems to be true and is indicated to be so many times over it is then elevated to the status of "scientific theory" (which is more specific in meaning than just "theory" without the word "scientific" in front of it), but if something comes along to indicate that it is incorrect, then the "scientific theory" gets changed or eliminated. The flow of information in this day and age is so great and so fast that it is hard on a human scale to keep up with all the changes. Nutritionists in the 1950's thought they had pretty much figured out all of nutritional science back then. Now we go right down to the atom and use molecular biology to discuss how things that they didn't know existed affect the cellular machinery in the body. You need to ask yourself "does this new information make sense or is somebody just trying to sell me something?" So-called "scientific facts" are just what is commonly accepted, and not necessarily the most accurate, or even correct, idea. Certain things have been shown to be true over and over we can assume are true - carbon has six protons and six neutrons - things like that, but if some new information came along to change this (like the discovery of radioactive carbon), then we change the information to be more specific. As to whether or not that phrase is warping people's heads about what it means, oh yeah... but that depends on the person.

Answer 2

No. The scientific definition of truth is that which can be most supported through existing evidence. SO, according to science, truth can change. Proof is a little different. There are definitions and terms in science - proof, theory, law, that are different from how you commonly use the word. Look them up in the glossary of a science text and you'll see. In terms of diets and health - that's not the goal of scientific thought actually; but, as with anything, there are conflicting results and studies. Take a course in media literacy, that should help. Especially before you follow a new diet plan. Usually advertisers use the phrase 'scientifically proven' to trick ignorant/ stupid people.

Answer 3

Most fad diets and such are based on a small spark of truth. However, for something to truly be proven it must be tested by the seven-step scientific method. It is most important that any experiment an be repeated with the same results, so if something really is proven, than it has to have passed the scientific method.

In terms of connotation, I believe scientific proof as a phrase is decreasing in credibility at the same rate as other similar phrases, mostly in America and western Europe, because we are much more cynical than other parts of the population.

Answer 4

I'm afraid so.

"Proof" is, to scientist, a very big word and it is rarely used, except in mathematics. In popular science, the term "proof" gets more and more used by a way of terminology inflation. And in commercial and political propaganda it gets even worse.

So when you hear that some diet has been scientifically proved to be more effective than the alternatives, it probably just means that someone with a B.Sc., offered enough money, was willing to say that it's not impossible that the diet makes some sense.

Answer 5

"Advice" on diet and health does indeed constantly change, but the scientific proof as to what works best doesn't.

It is scietifically proven that a balanced diet and excercise is the healthiest way to lose weight, stay in shape, and extend your life span. It is also scientifically proven that if you revert back to the lifestyle that led to being overweight and out of shape, you will again become overweight and out of shape.

It is scientifically proven that Piltdown Man was not an ancient ancestor of modern humans. In fact, it was scientifically proven that Piltdown Man was a fraud. It is also a fact that evolutionary scientists were the ones who proved that.

Cold fusion is not scientifically proven. The only ones that proposed the theory to be valid were the only ones who supposedly got it to work. Nobody other than they were around to verify it, and nobody has been able to repeat it, including them.

One must keep in mind that science is a process of making predictions, experimentation, observations, interpreting those observations, refining theories based on how the observations fit the predictions, and peer review.

Magzine articles and TV shows report on these elements, but are not necessarily reporting science. Their goal is to entertain, seduce viewers, and sell advertisements based on the number of viewers.

Scientists certainly are susceptable to motives of economic gain, pride, fame, and other factors which lie outside of an objective search for truth, but science cannot be accused of the same, as demonstrated by the failure of faulty science to hold up under the scrutiny of peer review, performed by scientists who are not subject to the same prejudices.

last, science is not a doctrine of absolute proof. Nothing can be absolutely proven as long as some demand an unreasonable level of proof.

Proof is in the eye of the beholder. As far as I am concerned, O.J. Simpson was proven guilty, scientifically and otherwise, of killing Nicole Simpson and her boyfriend, but 12 people would have had to be there as witnesses to be convinced. Creationists wouldn't believe in evolution even if you made a time machine so they could see it happen at each step over the last 5 billion years.

Science does indeed change, but rarely is a theory totally revised because of conflicting evidence. Usually, the modifications are slight. But even when the modifications add up to great differences over time, it demonstrates the objectivity of science as a whole, not that it is faulty and untrustworthy.

I can't speak for everyone, but my core beliefs as a christian are that God loves me, that Jesus was His son, that Jesus died for all of our sins, and that as long as I believe in Jesus and repent of my sins my soul will be saved by God's grace.

Until science interferes with those core beliefs, I will trust science in any other area. If and when science does interfere with those core beliefs, I will disregard only that part of science which does.

Answer 6

It depends on the credibility of the speaker.
But regarding health and diet, I believe that some substances are effective to some people but not to others since every individual does not have the same metabolic rate, susceptibility and other factors.
If it happens that somebody had tested a particular substance or say pills to a person, this substance may result to some side effects to others. We don't know who unless we try. We have a different lifestyle that could affect everything.
It maybe difficult to convert our findings to a person in terms of mathematical expression which would increase the accuracy of our conclusion because of some inevitable differences.

Answer 7

It never really meant much because we are constantly finding new discoveries which change our theories. As far as diet drugs and plans are concerned, read the fine print; regular diet and regular exercise are always included in their proof statement.

Want an easy weight loss plan? Change to drinking water and only water for a few months. You will feel better and lose weight. Worked for me. No drugs or diet plan needed and you will save money.

Answer 8

shown in any time period (mare or gelding or stallions) can mean 2 issues. First is they themselves have a showr record "shown" that they are oftentimes shown and position. the 2d which ability is for mares or stallions in that they are "shown" if thier offspring have shown and placed. this does not mean on the close by open educate, this suggests in nationwide and breed exhibits no matter if it truly is jumping, reining, halter, etc. you'll locate some stallion vendors will less costly breedings to "shown" mares. there's a more beneficial effectual probability the newborn will flow on and be shown to help promote the stallion.

Answer 9

You should be aware that Science, as we know it, it is just one method to study the universe that surrounds us, through the "scientific method" (observation of reality, formulation of hypothetical laws, lab experimentation...) and often these kind of studies are based in a partial way of observation of reality. There is no "absolute truth", philosophy teaches us that truth is in the eye of the beholder. My advice is that we should always be a little skeptical with everything, but just a little.

Answer 10

Yes, I would say so. These days you need to know what interests are involved. It is easier to stay unbiased if you have no interest in the results. Sinces the stakes are higher, the chance of bias if higher too.