Is is possible to use scientific methods to prove everything?

Question

How do you "prove" Abraham Lincoln existed?

Answer 1

Nope. Science can't comment on the supernatural, nor can it prove historical events. And a biologist normally can't comment on, say, philosophy or psychology, unless he or she has had training in those two things.

Science deals with the PHYSICAL.

History deals with more abstract ideas. We have to piece together what we can of history from ancient manuscripts and archaeology. The only scientific method used in history or archaeology is dating.

That's why it always gets me when people say that Christians (and other religious people) are "delusional" and that science has "proved" that there is no God. It has done no such thing, and it never will.

Answer 2

You don't prove Abraham Lincoln existed, you prove that other explanations of the evidence (e.g., he was made up for propaganda) are less likely than that he existed. In this case, a the evidence make some conspiracy theory virtually impossible, and Abe existence practically 100%

This is one problem with creationism -- creationists argue that there is more evidence for creation than evolution, but not only is the creationist "evidence" contrived and badly interpreted, it ignores the real issue. There is no real evidence disproving evolution, and a lot that disproves creationism.

Also, science can answer questions about what is, but not about what should be. For example, statistical studies can tell us that people are less likely to die if they wear seatbelts, but science can't tell whether saving lives or allowing freedom is more important.

Answer 3

Regarding your 1st question:

Scientific and historical methods can prove that people and events of the past were real. Science can answer mysteries of nature well enough to be applied to tech. advancement. Science can answer the "how" but not the "why" behind these mysterious. Science may never address spiritual experiences beyond psychology and neurology with certainty.

Now, for your 2nd question:

There are thousands of first hand accounts and references in documents of the time all over the world that give us very strong evidence that Abraham Lincoln existed and served as the 16th President, from 1861 to 1865. We can also examine his remains and from his bone structure corroborate his autopsy. We can trace his genealogy and find documents referring his parents and their parents, back to Glouchester, England of the 17th Century. We can match his DNA with that of remains of his parents and grandparents, and read their memoirs.

We can be 100% certain that Abraham Lincoln existed now.

.

Answer 4

You make the common error of confusing proof with evidence. Proof, meaning that something is beyond any possible doubt, is confined to a limited number of mathematical models. It applies almost entirely to abstractions.

Evidence is not merely scientific, except insofar as all other kinds of evidence demand the same criteria to be regarded as valid - historical evidence needs to be independent, cross-verifiable and plentiful. This is also true of scientific evidence.

Evidence is the verifiable support for one set of ideas over another. A hypothesis is an idea that might or might not be supported by evidence, but when evidence is gathered in support of that concept, it ceases to be a mere hypothesis, and might be argued to be more strongly supported than any alternative idea at that time. Some ideas are supported by only a little evidence - the existence of Atlantis, for example. Some are supported by so much that it is nearly impossible to deny them - such as the as-yet unobserved theory that at Absolute Zero (-273.16C) the atoms in matter stop moving.

The existence of Abraham Lincoln is supported by a mass of independent verifiable evidence, including newspaper reports, photographs, signatures, eyewitness accounts, and so on.

The existence of god, about which you are really asking, has no independent verifiable evidence whatsoever.

Answer 5

No. The basis of science is 'the scientific method' and the premise upon which it operates is 'observation'.

Therefore, matters of faith which cannot be observed casually are not subject to evaluation under the constraints of the scientific method.

Regarding the existence of Abraham Lincoln; his life and times (and death, funeral, and burial) are well documented in the historical and governmental records.

There is a grave which may be opened and the remains viewed -- certainly decomposed -- but there nonetheless. Further, there are most likely bones from which mitochondrial DNA might be extracted for comparison along the maternal lineages of his descendents for a match,

Those decendents themselves have geneologies which may be proven or disproven via historical records to include photographs, census figures, other public records and so forth.

Answer 6

Evidence is usually required to prove anything scientifically, but lack of evidence can also be a form of evidence... that something is unlikely or most likely does not exist.

It is possible to subject religious documents to scientific scrutiny to decide what we are in fact dealing with and how they originated how authentic they are or are not, whether they've been tampered with or added to or changed etc...it can be very revealing.

Answer 7

You dig him up. Then you compare his DNA with DNA collected from hair and skin samples from his trademark stovepipe hat, which is on display in a special wing of the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC (its original home, the American History Museum, is currently closed for renovations).

But to answer your larger question: the scientific method should be able to come up with a means, at least in theory, of verifying or falsifying every possible claim about the Universe.

Answer 8

No.
Quite the opposite.

There isn't a single thing that can be proven beyond doubt.

All we have is consistancy.... the notion that some ideas fit together conditionally better than others. Science is just the biggest collection of conditional consistancies.


[Edit: Note to The_Cricket: Psychology is far more closely connected to Biology than you give it credit for.]

Answer 9

Scientific methods don't exist to prove everything, as everything is not currently visible.

As for evidence for Lincoln, we have photographs, his physical remains and his last descendant died in 1985.

We have writings from contemporaries in other countries describing him and things he's written and signed....


Come to think of it, we have writings and signatures from around the time of Jesus but nothing saying there is one. Maybe Jesus never existed, since there's none of that evidence.

Answer 10

No. Even that statement is self-contradicting and self-defeating. How do you use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method proves everything?