This from the guy that said proving something was part of the scientific process?
The entire purpose of science is to prove something. Otherwise, what are we doing?
Its to conclude something, to say, this is the best possible explanation for what we observe, but its impossible to prove something. I mean we can get into semantics and all, but the reason I posted this was because in another thread he took a very hard line definition of what science was meant to do. Prove something is impossible, but to say this is the best explanation for what we observe is quite possible, and leaves science open to do what it does best, be tested time and again.
I found it rather amusing that in another thread he then posts a graphic that clearly omits proving anything, but only concluding and reporting.
Yes, let's get into semantics. Science attempts to conclude something, which is then taken as a proof until further science invalidates it or keeps supporting it. Either way, we're getting into semantics here but I think you understand the point of what Tom and I are saying.
No, I understand the point you are making, and the point Tom is making in
this thread.
However in another thread he wanted to take prove very literally. General Relativity can't
prove that space is bending due to mass.
With you saying that of course prove in the scientific sense means to simply conclude something best fits the evidence would fly in the face of that, I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of Tom using one definition of the goal of science in one thread, to prove beyond a doubt something, and a completely different definition in another thread, to simply conclude something that best fits the evidence.
But, I digress. I actually rather like you Vaux, don't want to come off like I am attacking you everywhere I go. Merry Christmas!