Homework 10

Sadly I was not at class Wednesday so I do not know what was talked about, but I do not believe that I can properly agree with this topic. There IS such thing as scientific proof, and saying there is a product of not looking beyond the short ranged ideas. Science in a nutshell to me is the formal study of the world, and development of new ideas and applications of those ideas. Scientific proof being the ideas brought up for a new scientific idea or application that have been proven to be generally correct.

There is no arguing the concept I just mentioned at it's core, if you add other details to it you can persuade yourself to believe there is no scientific fact, but you can do that to make yourself believe you live on the moon with the easter bunny and Santa if your that far over the edge. One of the big topics that may make people THINK there is no scientific proof is a slight understanding of quantum mechanics and deeper science in general. Yes at it's core the universe is not as concrete as we think, and it possibly could have no rules at all, but this does not mean that everything we mention as fact is not true because at a lower level everything is randomized and there is a possibility for everything to happen. Earlier I said scientific proof is generally correct because even if a lot of the would was randomized, even if there was an event that proved the scientific “proof” wrong 1 % of the time, that is still negligible.

You may say that I have lost my argument at this point by admitting that even if there are flaws in scientific proof that we should still believe in it, but let me explain why exactly this is true, if you have not already figured it out. Lets say for example when an apple falls from a tree, 99 % of the time it will fall down, but 1 out of 100 apples will actually rise up into the sky. You could then say that the scientific proof “apples fall to the ground due to gravity” or something similar is false, and that the whole idea of gravity and everything related is also false because that one event is not explainable. Yes it's true that gravity may not exist in the way we think of it, and the truth may be radically different. But in the end if we do not say that certain things are constant, if we do not give the scientific community and the world as a whole a concept to start with, then we will just end up going nowhere. The method we currently use is to think of ideas, and the one with the most evidence to back it, and the most logical sounding given the information is considered scientific proof. If new evidence comes up later on to prove the idea wrong in some way, then the idea will be reformed to the new idea, and the world as a whole knows a little more.