Soo... my last question about evolution? I feel kinda dumb.?

Question

Does this mean science has taken the stance that nothing can be proved?

I thought I could prove my name is Matthew?

I thought I could prove I exist?

I thought I could prove I just asked this question?

Am I wrong or still just confused?

vinslave-

You mean when someone stops looking at all of me and only looks at parts of me I can't prove I exist.

Because if you look at all of me...Then I exist and that's all there is to it.

Answer 1

Nothing can be proved, thanks to Godel's Incompleteness Theorum.

Either your axiomic system is self-proving but contains inconsistencies, OR, it is consistent but cannot prove itself.

GIT collapses if you deal in transfinite logics, but no one is daring to try to assert TFL applies to our universe.

-------

Further, your example questions are non-scientific. You tell me your name is Matthew. I have not observed your name, you have simply stated one. Considering I consider you a reliable source about facts about yourself, pending other reason to doubt you, I will accept that you are 80% likely to truly be named Matthew, which is good enough. But you could, of course, have lied to me. But if you then produced your drivers license and birth certificate or produced a passport, I might consider it 99% likely you are telling the truth. But these things can be forged, so it's still possible I don't have your real name.

So no, you cannot PROVE your name is Matthew.

---------

Granny Annie:

Read up on Jean-Paul Sartre. The Cogito has been shown to be ineffective.

Answer 2

sometimes we should accept that not everything that are doing is RIGHT.. so maybe it was as well with the scientists. I don't say that they are indeed wrong. They just can't prove it and maybe we should rather called it a MISTAKE. Personally I don't belive in evolution. I don't think people will be proud and accept that they came from a MONKEY!!

.. yes, everybody commit mistakes. Nobody is perfect. So taking a stance that can't be proved probably is just a thing where we can called a failure or a mistake.

.. Failures / mistakes are permitted to be happen to teach people lessons. It was to tell you what is right.

Answer 3

It isn't that it can't be proven, but that it can't become a law. laws are smaller things that are scientific facts. These facts combine to make up theories. If a theory has laws to make it up, it itself can't be considered a law, ever. In other word, a law can't be made form other laws. The term proven usually means it is a law. Scientifically, the word proven is used differently then in society.

You can prove in court your name. But you can't prove a theory, because only laws can be proven.

Within evolution: It is a scientific law that genetics within a gene pool change. That law explains the theory of evolution. to make evolution a law (or proved) you would have to prove that evolution happens, in the same exact way, on every planet, all the time. That can't be done. But you can prove that every planet with life, that reproduces using DNA, will have changes from generation to generation.

Answer 4

I think that sciences realizes we may never have ALL the answers and understand any concept completely.

Things can certainly be proved. For example, species do incorporate beneficial mutations into DNA (aka evolve). This has been observed; it can be proven. If we choose to extend that over millions of years to explain how life developed, of course we won't have all the answers and we can't "prove" it happened this exact way or that, but we can find evidence to support it to the point that at least certain aspects are accepted as fact.

Answer 5

I don't know what your last question was, so I can't help you out that way. Don't feel dumb. People on here can be very harsh. Science has constants. If it didn't then things couldn't be proved.
Your birth certificate shows that your name is Matthew, so you have proved your name is Matthew.

Answer 6

Close... science takes the stance that one can put forth ideas based on observations of the facts, but is open for these ideas to be disproven.

You may want to differentiate between facts, such as your name, and hypotheses, theories, and laws. These are not the same thing. For example, your name is a fact... what theory can we draw from this and other names? Your origin, your family traditions? That kind of thing. Science uses facts to try and find out more information that is not obvious, to explain how things work.

Answer 7

If you want a look at the philosophical underpinnings of both scientific empiricism and theism, check out this book.
Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey

Science has taken the stance that NOTHING exists that we cannot discern using the scientific method. This is a "deterministic" and "materialistic" view. In this view, it is not possible for a miracle to occur, it is not possible for anything supernatural to exist. This is the START point for scientific empiricism, it does not allow for other possibilities.

Answer 8

Lots of things can be proved by scientific experiment. But science also always admits the possibility that whatever has been proved might be disproved later.

Answer 9

Not exactly. Evolution can be proven, propaganda just says it can't.

It's a matter of having reliable information, if you took it from that perspective, you couldn't prove you weren't totally delusional, and imagining your whole life.

There is some great evidence, but you will always have doubters. If you have a man pointing a loaded gun at another man, you turn your back, suddenly, the bullet from the gun is in the other man, dead, you can't PROVE it, reason just says he killed him.

Same with evolution.

Answer 10

It depends on what realm of reason you appeal to. Existentialism suggests that whether you exist or not depends on what you can show evidence of "I think, therefore I am." In quantum physics, nearly anything can be proven or disprove (well, virtually, anyway). What can, in fact, be proved beyond all doubt? Very little. It is human nature to doubt.