The only thing you do is falsifying that you are not an idiot. What is that? Popper for Dummies? This is pathetic.

By the way, what was "Dad's" problem? He was not even coherent! Perhaps he is on drugs.

Anyways, technically I agree with most everything you said, but your definition of proof, while the accurate and widely accepted scientific definition, does not really reflect the way "proof" is used informally, and in other fields. And it's not cool, in my humble opinion, to label someone who is not part of the scientific in-crowd as a "hack" just because they use the word proof more informally.

Take the law, for example. Prosecutors and plaintiffs are required to meet different "burdens of proof." In this sense, the word proof is not referring to a binary test. It is more of a spectrum, where preponderance of evidence roughly means 51% persuasive, and beyond a reasonable doubt may roughly correspond to 93% persuasive, or something. Proof refers to the extent to which knowledge is justified by the evidence.

So, if someone used to using the word "proof" in this context said that global warming was "proven," I would not necessarily consider them a hack, just that they are rather inartfully using a scientific term of art in a casual way, perhaps referring to the oft-claimed "consensus" among scientists.

"There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. "

I know a lot of evolutionists and big-bang proponents who maintain otherwise. Personally, I find it disturbing that reality could be illogical. It must be based on principles that are true a priori and thus can be proven.

I regret that this needs to be said. But Satoshi is absolutely right. Too many psychologists, authors, and lay persons fail to heed this fact of science. For more than 20 years, the words prove, proven, and proof have been "forbidden" words in my classes. The terms are emotionally laden that tend to suggest a level of certainty that just does not exist in the social sciences. BTW, the polar opposite is a word my students must "tattoo" in their minds -- the falsifiability criterion.

While I agree with what the author is trying to say, his reasoning, and especially his terminology, are not compelling.

First, his whole discussion is about proofs. Yet he does not make clear what he means by a proof. He means it in the mathematical sense. Otherwise, from an English language perspective, it's certainly valid to say some things have been proven. The Wright brothers proved that one can build machines capable of carrying humans. Which makes me somewhat critical of this statement:

"Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist."

Real scientists can and do use the word proof. The author should just realize that the word proof has different meanings - not just the one he wants it to be.

"Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science."

That's merely because he's used the mathematical/logic notion of a proof. It's a circular argument.

"Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven."

The "binary" argument is arbitrary and chosen to satisfy his argument.

In mathematics, statements can be more than binary. You can have true statements for which proofs exist. You can have statements that can be shown to be false. You can also have true statements that cannot be proven (see Godel's Incompleteness theorems).

There - instead of simply being binary, I've given them three states. And I didn't contradict him either.

Put another way, scientific claims are also binary. Those that have been disproven, and those that have not been disproven thus far.

There - I just disproved his statement:

"In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories."

I'm not being facetious. I'm just pointing out that the "binary" distinction is artificial.

i am not sure if this is true but i will take an account for it in my articles because there might be some readers who really think that way

Excellent post
CH Waddinton wrote something like this in Tools For Thought about the difference between pure logic and the rough and untidy world of actual happenings.

Dad said:-
Popper for Dummies? This is pathetic.

reply
Waddingtons point was aimed at Popper's definition specifically even though Waddington admits than "a surprising number of scientists including some very successful ones have expressed agreement" with Popper.

Satoshi is right to point out there are no scientific proofs but doesn't go far enough since math theorems are beliefs too rather than absolute truths.

For example Satoshi says "the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true" but this isn't right since Maths is usually based on ZFC set theory which starts with 10 assumptions!

Each of those assumptions is an unproved belief. So math theorems are beliefs rather than truths.

Proof is a rather narrow word. You can say that if you assume this, this and this etc, then you can prove something else follows, and that's about it.

This post is hilarious. It's hilarious that he is trying to draw a distinction between people "in the know" about science not using the concept of proof, and those who banter the term about (hacks) when, according to you, total provability lies only in mathematics. Only you completely neglect the point that it has been known for over a century that an absolute proof of anything, especially in mathematics, is in fact IMPOSSIBLE.

Let me repeat that for you again:

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE ANYTHING IN MATH

Yes, you can hate it, but it's still true because, using proofs, logic showed that it itself is actually incapable of proving anything, ANYTHING, with *absolute* certainty. Hence, there is no certainy in math, or logic for that matter, as it stands today.

So, Satoshi, it appears that it is YOU who are the HACK.

I await your apologetic post.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

--Stephen Jay Gould

oh really? id like to see you defy the 'theory' of gravity by walking off a tall building

this author is an idiot

Exactly.Scince is tentative, provisional and suits our present needs.It is not absolute.
Science always has some axioms that are assumed and not questioned( including Mathematics),say for example, Three angles of a Triangle equals 180 deg.
Based on such postulates, science marches on;since the base is assumed by you, the end is also determined because the edifice is built on the basic assumption.If you question the axiom, you can not have answer.
Again, Science depends heavily on Two Principles of Nature, Law Of Universality and Law of Causality.
If you analyse, Law of Universality is good enough till the moment you have stated it and you can not guarantee that it will be the same after this moment.In simple terms, we can atbest say, the Sun appears to rise in the East but we can not guarantee that it will be so tomorrow.So far ,so good-that's all.
A cause may have more than one effect and one effect may have more than one cause, some cognisible and some incognisible.Science, by using controlled KNOWN factors arrives at solutions.We do not know about factors we are not aware of.So the results ontained in controlled experiments is not fully proved .
Proof in Science is ,at best, hypothetical.