Quote:
Originally Posted by Colm OReilly  Also, science was radically altered after Popper, who essentially said accept something as true only after attempts to falsify it have failed. So why should "scientists" on this board ask "believers" to prove something works, when they themselves only really fail to prove something doesn't work? Hmmm. |
That's basically because lots of people simply don't understand what "scientific proof" really is.
Before anything can be scientifically proven, the subject-matter must be able to fit into the framework provided by Karl Popper. Now, there are MANY things which inherently cannot be fitted into the framework.
This doesn't mean that they aren't true. It doesn't mean that they are false either. It simply means that science is not able to form a conclusion whether they are true or not. Examples of things that science can't really prove either way:
1. "My mother loves me".
2. The Law of Supply & Demand in Economics.
3. The Law of Attraction
4. That fear is different from anger.
5. The correctness of theory of fundamental analysis (in analysing stocks)
6. The correctness of theory of technical analysis (in analysing stocks)
7. Elvis is dead.
8. If you think money, you attract money.
9. Michelangelo is a better artist than me.
10. Synchronicities happen every day.
11. Adler's theory of the effect of birth order on personality.
12. That the subconscious exists.
13. That right now I am thinking of a flower (I am, really - of a yellow one).
14. I am in love with my wife.
Etc etc. Science is soooooooo limited. Which is not a problem in itself, except when people don't understand its limitations.