Can Theories Be Proven?

EDIT: Here's a blog post that explains the difference between "proof" and "reasonable belief" better than I have:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/11/what-i-believe-but-cannot-prove/

In this video, I appear to be talking primarily with my hands.

It makes no sense to talk about "proving a theory." Here's why.

I realize that I went way over the top in making my one point, but, um, I really like this stuff. Also, I propose a theory that whenever one is making a video about anything sciencey, one tends to look more dorky and unkempt than one usually does. I present as evidence Exhibit A, to your left.

Btw, I'd like to make more mathy/sciencey videos in the future, so I'd appreciate your feedback. Was this too obvious? Too obscure? Interesting? Did I repeat myself too often? Do you wish I'd stop waving 'em like I just don't care?

Oh, and you know what's frustrating? When you don't notice that your video, which takes an hour to render, will take up *101 MB*. ANGRY FACE.

Nitpicky edit: In the ball-and-ramp comment, when I say that your theory predicts 4 seconds exactly, I don't mean that. I mean that your theory predicts 4.00000 seconds, or however many sig figs the other one had.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• prepoceros
• hardcaseownsyou
• theory
• proof
• science
• math
• mathematics
• geometry
• epistemology

[CogitoErgoCogitoSum]

Through it all, math and science, we use logic to assert the validity of out observations and our postulates and inferences from them.

But what is logic besides an instinctual, irrational confidence that has evolved as an inherent quality of the human mind?

Logic cannot be proven, either. It cannot be used to prove itself, nor does any tangible evidence exist supporting it. Where did it come from, and how can we be sure our logic is the right logic?

We derived it with emotional confidence.

[Prepoceros]

I've sometimes wondered about this myself. How do we know logic is "real" or means anything?

[Satarack]

@frisianmouve

You are looking from the wrong perspective: The only thing we know for sure is the evidence, the data, what we can observe. Only this do we know is true. This evidence is not proof of any given theory, instead the evidence is a test we use to see if a theory is false. The Scientific perspective on evolution is that there is yet no evidence to disprove it.

In science, there are no theories that have been proven; only theories that have yet to be disproven.

[frisianmouve]

yes but's there's so much proof of evolution that the theory of evolution is almost impossible to disprove

[linespermillimeter]

Your intellectuality is attractive! ;)

[thewildwilli]

Wow... My view of whether Mathemathics is invented or discovered has just become more clear... thx

[ProtoArmor]

It is more true that a *universal statement* can't be proven, such as "all life came from evolution". You can prove specifics, such as general relativity tracks satellites to the accuracy of the instruments or Bible is corroborated by history. Even if a unified field theory is better, GR remains accurate for given uses and time shearing + other phenomena in GR still exist. The light appears to be slowing down--but you you don't toss GR--you just gradually decrement the constant ;) for light.

[seanmPWH]

When you say a theory always remains a theory, I hope the evolutionists are listening.

[CogitoErgoCogitoSum]

I appreciated this video.

You know what is funny is that science collects data, as you said, via experimentation and measurements. But that data is analyzed with statistics and other mathematics. So here we have a meshing of an inconclusive science with math that by its very nature hasnt been proven to describe the real world. A practically useless subject describing a subject that cannot be fully understood. I just thought it was ironic.

[courtabeth]

Ironically, your ideas sound less mathematical and scientific than philosophical. You're really explaining how and why we know certain kinds of knowledge as opposed to how either of these is different. If you are explaining differences, they are a bit narrow and need to be clarified. Both fields are so expansive and varied that to make such a strict dichotomy leaves little room for either to move around in each field's various possibilities.