This post is motivated by several recent exchanges with evolution doubters in Lonest@r's Intellectual Design thread.

When confronting relativists* who come up with some version of the old chestnut that "science is just a belief system like any other", BAUTers have recently tended to reply that "natural science is not about proof, that's for mathematics". Although I've probably done it too a few times, I've been thinking lately that this might be counterproductive.

I understand what people mean by that, and I agree: there are no absolute certainties in science. But if you look up the word "proof" in a dictionary, you'll find that it has many meanings, not all of which imply absolute, logically necessary certainty. For example, the following is from the Merriam-Webster online. I've omitted the irrelevant definitions, but left two interesting though outdated ones.

1 a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

2 obsolete: experience

3: something that induces certainty or establishes validity

4 archaic: the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness

5: evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal

One of the common notions of proof is as used in courts. This is probably the one people are most familiar with, in fact, and notice how it does not imply absolute certainty. In the US judicial system, all that is required is that a case be "proven beyond reasonable doubt". I would say the standard of proof is even more stringent in science than in courts, in general. So I see no problem at all with saying, for example that "there is proof of evolution", or that "evolution has been proven", so long as we do not try to imply that this means definitive proof.

I would like to suggest, then, that we not let relativists lure us into semantic discussions of what is proof. Rather than reacting with a defensive and rather academic caveat, let's go on the offensive, assuming by default that proof means accepted scientific evidence -- the only kind of proof that it makes sense to consider, as far as evolution is concerned.

Should our oponents wish to use a more stringent definition of proof, let them take the first step and define their own terms. I am persuaded that the average person rarely ponders over these philosophical fine distinctions; they quite sensibly adjust their understanding of the word "proof" to the context. Since we are not speaking only to our relativist opponents, but (above all) to a broader audience, let's adjust our speech to the common sense of that audience, rather than to the minutiae of our opponents.

In short, the next time someone comes at you with "there is no proof of evolution", don't say "well, science is not about proof anyway", but instead reply "why yes, there is proof", and then list a few examples, such as the ones here.

This is not a new idea, but I thought it was worth reiterating.

*At present, there seems to be no question that the greatest adversaries of science education in the United States are creationists, and in fact Christian creationists. However, many people complain that you can be a Christian, and even a creationist, without rejecting evolution. And I have sometimes felt, in message boards, that there is also a group of doubters who come from a more "leftwing, new-age" background. To me, what best characterises all these people is not a religion or the belief in the supernatural, but their claim that science is a matter of opinion, in other words their epistemological relativism.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Absolutely. This is the definition that is most suitable for scientific inquiry, and is different than how the word is used in mathematics (where proof is essentially showing how a conclusion necessarily logically follows from the premises). One can certainly prove something scientifically according to this definition.

The most important parts of this definition are the words cogency and compels. It means that the argument/evidence is so convincing that you are practically forced to believe it.

mmmm... pudding...

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

Actually, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Unless you mean you've been spiking your Jello brand instant...

Does Bill Cosby know about this?

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

Disinfo Agent that's an excellent point- and one that needs to be addressed. Defining "proof" may be fundamental to keeping such debates on track.

We should consider chucking the argument ‘science has it right’ altogether.

The problem is that most people and I’m not just talking just about the people that follow ID, do not trust science or scientists AT ALL. If you imply that your answer is the right one because it is scientific – you have just lost the argument. And this is true for about 70% of the people in the US including 99% or our politicians.

A better argument might be to say that you used clear thinking or rigorous testing and that brought you to your understanding rather than – “I used a scientific approach”.

It’s sad but true that *most* people in the US will trust ‘gut feelings’ rather than a scientists opinion every time.

__________________
Jim@SETI.Net
http://www.SETI.Net
SETI Net Forums]
Argus Station:DM12jw
W6KYP

Yes, it's a belief system just like any other, except it's the only one that actually works. Ask the dingbats if they've ever flown in a plane or watched TV. Then ask them what Zeus has done for us lately.

He gives us Lightning. I have seen lightning. This Proves that Zeus is real.

You're probably right. It's difficult or futile to argue with anti-evolutionists, anyway, except to correct their blatant inaccuracies.

Oh, I don't know. Even though *most* people in the US "believe in God," I don't think that automatically implies they have such a low opinion of scientists or scientific "findings."

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

That's right! And it also proves the existance of:

Adad
Ajisukitakahikone
Aktzin
Ambisagrus
Apocatequil
Azaka-Tonnerre
Catequil
Chaac
Derzelas
Diable Tonnere
Hadad
Haikili
Haokah
Horagalles
Indra
Jasso
Jofur
Jupiter
Kaha'i
Lei Gong
Loucetios
Mamaragan
Mulungu
Pajonn
Parjanya
Perendi
Perkele
Perkwunos
Perkūnas
Perun
Raijin
Shango
Summanus
Susanoo
Taranis
Tāwhaki
Tāwhirimātea
Te Uira
Teshub
Thor
Thunderbird
Tiermes
Tinia
Ukko
Umvelinqangi
Utixo
Xevioso
Xolotl

And various other lightning related dieties whose followers didn't get around to preserving their names.

Them too.

Sorry.

I didn't mean to be exclusive.

hmm there are no absolute certainies in science , really !!

so the solar system and the astronomical bodies within it are not an absolute ?

why not ?

Ultimately, because of the solipsist argument. Maybe this is all a dream. Maybe if you drop a heavy rock on your unprotected foot it would fall up. Maybe, but I'm betting that it would hurt. Beyond that, there are always limits to the accuracy of any measurement. For example, we aren't going to be able to tell you exactly how long it will take for a rock to reach your foot, though that wouldn't make any practical difference to you.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

My point was a bit different, though. My advice was:

In debates with evolution doubters, especially in public debates with professional doubters, those of us on the side of science should shun any abstract talk about definitions, either of proof or of science. Bypass the semantics altogether, and talk about the evidence that has been found.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Helen Quinn, a physicist and former president of the American Physical Society had an editorial on this in the January 2007 issue of Physics Today. Her column doesn't focus on proof, but it does discuss how terms such as "belief, believe, know, and theory" have different meanings to scientists than they might to those outside the scientific community. One of her points is that scientists should avoid the colloquial "I believe" and simply say "I know" when discussing results. It may sound conceited, but it does avoid the squishy, cultural relativist implicaitons of "believe." I recommend giving it a read.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

I think that's because 70% of the people in the US have no knowledge of what science is.

I recently read somewhere that US universities are still turning-out most of the best scientists in the world, but most of these scientists (at the post-grad level) are not Americans.

That spells doom, in my opinion.

__________________
Wanted: Diabolical Plan for World Domination.

I have to disagree with this. I mean appearances can be deceiving.

I think for an example: Gillianren is a non scientist- that could easily pass for one. Many others on this board too.

Being a plumber, I have come into contact with people from ALL walks of life. From tiny shanties to huge mansions, I've worked on them all at one point or another.
I like to keep the customers in line of sight. This prevents problems for those times when customers cannot see what I'm doing. Most folks don't mind. Some get a little antsy or bored, but that isn't my problem.
I strike up conversation though- to keep them close and talking.

And I can well assure you I have come across weirdos.
But they are by far the minority.

Most folks are your average normal family folks. They go to work and they pay their bills and taxes. Most folks like to throw a bar-b-que and most folks like to discuss the news and world events. Most folks tend to be in the background while only the obnoxious ones make themselves seen and heard.

But being in the average guys home, I get that opportunity to hold casual conversations. And most folks are not uninformed or ignorant- in spite of the sensationalism you see on Jay Leno.
Many talk about interesting things. Many have very good ideas about a lot of things I hadn't thought of. And since I'm just a blue collar guy inside their house, they tend to not bother being politically correct or sheltered in what they say- they are usually pretty open.

I meet few idiots.

I would disagree that science isn't about proof. Science is about proof: Evidence that proves the theory false can be conclusive. It's evidence that proves a theory true that can at best be very convincing.

The caveat IS science, IMHO. A scientific theory never stops being tested.

That's what ID proponents do: Define thier own terms.

I disagree.

#1. They are not philosophical distinctions.

#2. The average person needs to know the difference between science and philosophy.

Don't forget to ask, "Where can we see your evidence that the theory we support is wrong?"

And that difference is in the evidence, not in any definitions.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire