Asked in SciencePhilosophy and Philosophers
Can science prove something that does not exist?
October 11, 2010 8:01AM
Science cannot really PROVE anything. If you consider the arguments of, for example, the 18th century philosopher David Hume, then you will see that science cannot prove things as it consistently relies on induction to form conclusions and induction does not say that something is definitely the result of something else, only that it could be or is likely or even appears at this moment to be the only explanation. Therefore, if we put this belief into the original question "Can science prove something that does not exist?", both yes and no can be argued. No because science cannot prove anything, therefore, it cannot prove something that does exist and it cannot prove something that does not exist. Yes because if you do still believe that science can prove that existing things do exist, you will believe that it can prove that non-exisiting also exist because obviously if a mistake is made to come to this false conclusion, you (the person who has found such a result) will not know the mistake has occured and will not question it if you have done everything right according to the procedures for proving things, because you believe that if you have followed such procedures then you must have proven it because that is the way you believe science works. A complicated discussion really, depends what you believe about the reliabity of 'fact' and the nature of 'proof'.
it's true the science is can really prove any thing.=]