Topics Science

Question Since all science is inductive (based on limited observation of patterns), to what extent does science prove anything? Are all scientific conclusions ultimately reducible to theoretical speculation? If so, how can we ever speak of causes in nature?

Accepted:
October 5, 2006

Comments

You are right about proof. No scientific prediction can be proven from the scientific data, since it always remains possible for the data to be correct yet the prediction mistaken. The same goes for scientific claims about unobserved causes in nature. But it doesn't follow that we have no reason to believe these claims. I can't prove that my keyboard isn't going to burst into flames in the next minute, but I do have reason to believe that it won't. Admittedly, the great David Hume gave an argument that we have no reason whatever to believe that my keyboard will remain unignited for the next minute, but the fact that scientific claims are not proven still does not in itself make them any more speculative than my belief that I'm not going to burn my fingers.

Question Since all science is inductive (based on limited observation of patterns), to what extent does science prove anything? Are all scientific conclusions ultimately reducible to theoretical speculation? If so, how can we ever speak of causes in nature? Accepted:October 5, 2006

Question Since all science is inductive (based on limited observation of patterns), to what extent does science prove anything? Are all scientific conclusions ultimately reducible to theoretical speculation? If so, how can we ever speak of causes in nature?

Accepted:
October 5, 2006