A question for my learned yahoo answer brothers and sisters, about "proof" and then "disproveing"

Question

A question was asked can something be proven, then disproven,

Did you consider the sun and the Earth?

look up and make an observation, the sun goes around the Earth, based on the scientific observation of watching thats an accurate statement.

Now lets disprove it, get a telescope, observe Mercury and Venus, calculate the movement and predict where its going to be, Mercury and Venus don't orbit the Earth they orbit the sun, as does Earth.

Is this a good example or a bad example of something proven then disproven?

If I'm wrong tell me, I don't mind being wrong, I dropped out of logic in college, god a D in philosophy,

boy you should have seen me thou in Marketing and Accounting, and Economics.

On my greatest day I can't do logic, but on my worst day I can figure out whats wrong with a general ledger in a matter of minutes.

PS - aren't phone calls wonderful

Answer 1

Jim, the sun does "go around" the earth. It's relative.

Answer 2

That's not a bad example you gave. There are others. Aristotle knew that the Earth was round, because Pythogoras pointed out that it always cast a round shadow over the moon during a lunar eclipse. One of Aristotles students even (virtually) accurately estimated the cirumfrence of the Earth. So far so good. But Aristotle also dropped a stone from a tower and said that because it landed directly below where it was dropped, that meant the Earth did not move (as in revolving on an axis). This was used by the early Catholics to support certain Bible verses. It's only with the later idea of inertial frames that we can understand why he was wrong.

Answer 3

To me that would be an example of something assumed to be true and then disproven...but then again, before the right technology, you could say that it was first 'proven' that the sun went around the earth, simply because that's what people gleaned from observation and had no way to disprove it. Hmm...

Answer 4

You're starting out with a bad assumption, Jim. Science does not 'prove' things. 'Proof' is for mathematicians, coin collectors and distillers of alcoholic beverages. Proof in science is applicable only in the 'negative' sense... i.e., hypotheses and theories must be 'falsifiable'. When scientists do experiments (to validate 'predicted' results), they are NOT trying to 'prove' they are RIGHT... they are trying to FIND OUT if they're WRONG. NOT being wrong simply builds confidence that one is on the right track... it 'proves' nothing.

In science, 'theories' enjoy a higher tier of importance than mere 'facts'... theories EXPLAIN facts. Theories must have 'predictive power' and 'explanatory power'. In the example you provided, there was no hypothesis or theory involved, at first... just a flawed observation... bad facts. Neither was 'epicycles' a theory... just a flawed observation... a flawed desctiption of what was going on. 'Science' did not come into play until Newton dreamed up his theory of a gravitational force, and then made the intuitive leap in guessing that the invisible force that reached up to the top of the apple tree also reached up to the moon and planets. He was able to use that idea, plus the calculus that he had also dreamed up, to calculate the same orbital paths that Kepler had established via direct observation. Kepler's orbital paths were the facts... Newton's theory explained those facts.. and predicted facts. Before that, there was no science involved... just observations... scrounging for facts.

Answer 5

Truth is mutable and contextually sensitive ..our subjective semantics lead even to distortions in our estimations of how "others perceive it" ... for example :what does "proof" mean to you? ... what are some varied experiences and associations that may have coloured how you define that term "proof" ... likewise what are the same for me..?

It is possible that due to differring nuances we could diagree over something that we actually fully agree upon ...

And yes, the example you give is illustrative .. of how octaves of perception and understanding can be cyclically refining paradoxes ... One in physics is the perpetual, getting inside a particle to discover it is an energy field with smaller particles .. and inside these particles the same ... in the end.. on a certain level .. the "particles" were never there ... just new vistas of energy fields ..

Answer 6

My brother called me at three in the morning to ask me if my bedroom was a mess.
Seems he was going through some bad times, and needed to know that some things in the universe were actually constant...


That's the way he explained it the next day, anyhow. Me, I suspect the kid was drunk.

I'm not sure this answer is logical, but it is proof that some things in the universe truly are constant...at least most of the time.

Answer 7

Yes that is a good example of proving and disproving. Although you can argue that observing the sun going around the earth does not "prove" that the sun goes around the earth. It can be hypothosized that the sun goes around the earth from that observation but not "proved" In science it's much easier to disprove something than to prove it.

Answer 8

very true-yet it wasnt a proof it was an observation -an obeservation isnt sufficient to be proof-that is why we need to prove a theory.

now can u disprove a life personal meeting experience? You met a friend-know that person for years-and someone comes to argue that person has been dead since before you were born, or never existed-yet then u are with the person later that day-you ask him-and he laughs and says pray for him-what do u do then????

your a kind hearted good person-i feel your unrealized search-and i have been watching you for some time-thanks-david in His amazing grace

Answer 9

The first was not based on solid evidences but observation which is not sufficient evidence, can you or do you expect to disprove the fact that the earth rotate around the sun?

Answer 10

Hmm... You must have got the good phone call. Sometimes the sample skews the results and leaves your evidence pointing the wrong direction. Phone calls are neither good or evil except in the use we put them to...