Thread:User talk:Tmtoulouse/Bump: You know that obnoxious thing people do on the internet when they've said something and they feel they haven't been paid enough attention? I'm doing that./reply (39)

The question what science can and can't (dis)prove is interesting. I don't think science can prove anything if we are exact. Why? If we say "science proved that X exists" what we are actually say is "science has - by it's own standard - proven that - by it's own standards - X exists". We can continue that game all day long: "evidence" has it's defintion in science, "method" has one, and so on. Now it may happen that these definitions do not match everybodies definitions of these words and concepts. The normal go-to reaction of scientists (amateur or pro) for that case is "You are stupid for not accepting my definitions", which I always thought was a dick move. Of course we can define a proposed existence in ways which would be not provable for science - simply through the remark "…and behaves so that science can't prove it", and while that claim is valid in the normal world, in science (read branches that use the scientific method) it is invalid (why should be clear). Science and the scientific method are by some taken as the end-all-be-all of thought, but it's fundementals are a question of faith into a concept which can be quite favored looking at the empiric evidence. By scientific standards the scientific method is a valid method and in fact the best system. But that is the minimum requirement of all theories, methods and ideologies. It is presicely why so many scientists scratch your face out when somebody brings up a postmodern concept of steady uncertainty that one of it's fundementals even exists. One attacks the very basement of their nicely build house and they go ballistic, because if that ain't true anymore what is?

Now as I said before, I think that there are several types of rationility (personal, philosophic, scientific) which all have different areas of validity and my personal atheism was reached with the second one, but I'd like to see my atheistic non-believes proven by science, but I can go without it quite nicely.