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.=]
In the realm of science you cannot prove a negative. If you want to prove that something does not exist, what you do is try to prove that it does exist and fail to do so.
It didn't, science cannot prove how something can possibly exist forever. Everything must have a begging and an end.
Some science suggests that a god may exist. However there is still no proof to prove that god does exist. Actually, there's no proof to prove that science exists either, but don't let that bother you. Just take our word for it. Would we get something this important wrong?
it does and it doesnt exist can prove and cant not prove so there you have it
It is this simple, you cannot both (E) exist and (-E) not exist. E implies not -E and -E implies not E Rather than try to prove you exist, (A) attempt to prove you do not exist. Ask yourself the question, "can something that does not exist (A) attempt to prove it does not exist?" Your attempt to prove you do not exist, demonstrates that you DO NOT not exist (or not -E which is equivalent to E. So You Do Exist! If E, then not -E, If A, then not -E, If not -E, then E, so, If A, then E.
Try the Cartesian Method: if you think you exist (or even if you doubt you exist) then clearly something is doing that thinking; that something is you.
One example is the existence of cryptids. There are hundreds of sightings we all know they exist but scientists can't prove they exist.
The only way to prove it didn't exist would be to drain the Loch, which is unlikely to occur. Generally, it is difficult or impossible to prove that something "doesn't exist."
I know for one thing, that science can't prove anything. That is essentially one major thing that makes up science today, and has for centuries. But really, If science can't prove anything, Did science just prove that science can't prove anything? Because if it did, then you can prove that science is wrong, because you just proved something!
You create a theory. Prove the theory to be true by testing it. If it works, it is true. If it does not work, it is not true.
You cannot prove that something doesn't exist. You can only prove that things do exist. It is called the paradox of negative information. You can fail to prove the existence of things and many people would take this as proof of non-existence, but it just isn't so.
We don't. It is impossible to prove a negative. It is called the Paradox of negative information. You can only prove something does exist, you cannot prove non-existence.
what do you mean fictional like never exist or something, are you dumb or something
Hobbits might exist just check out this article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-foot-that-may-prove-hobbits-existed-1680405.html
Well.... you can't really prove something doesn't exist, you can only prove it does. But, nobody has found or seen a pikmin outside the game.
Since you cannot prove a negative statement, one cannot prove that ghosts do not exist.
an educated guess or something you want to prove, the main goal of your experiment.
He wants to prove he can make new life? or something like that.
No aliens do not exist if you think they do prove it but on the other had if don't believe that they exist I'm just saying that you can't prove if you think you can go to prison
it depend if you want them to be or not if not look to the science facts about there is no logical explanation for turning people to stone. If you want them to exist say to the people who say they dont exist : PROVE IT
Pseudoscience, is something that science can't prove, like Zodiac signs, Alien life, and ext. While in the other and a Empirical evidence is true fact, and science can prove it correct.
No. Spirituality is essentially the belief in a spiritual existence, which may or may not include magic. Even if it does, belief in something does not prove its existence.
No; they most certainly do not prove that. Nothing can prove that.
Simply stated you can't. See, the Illuminati does't exist. So, trying to prove that someone belongs to something that isn't is quite impossible.