And the opposite of “dis-prove” is...? PROVE.
And the synonym for “support” is? PROVE.
You’re just playing word games. Of course science can prove hypotheses.
I hypothesize that if I let go of a brick on top of the building, that it will fall to the ground. I do my experiment and find that indeed the brick falls to the ground. My hypothesis is proven correct.
Other hypotheses that are proven: that animals deprived of oxygen will die. That you can control the flow of electrons from one point to another via a conducting material. That if you heat regular book paper to 451 degrees fahrenheit, it will start to burn.
You’re just trying to play semantics here.
That is all he ever does. All you will get with this Coyote poster is a pocket full of “theory”. Which of course he claims are facts. He shows up on all threads like this to prove that there is no God. Without God, he only has these threads to grasp on to.
And the synonym for “support” is? PROVE.
You’re just playing word games. Of course science can prove hypotheses.
I hypothesize that if I let go of a brick on top of the building, that it will fall to the ground. I do my experiment and find that indeed the brick falls to the ground. My hypothesis is proven correct.
Other hypotheses that are proven: that animals deprived of oxygen will die. That you can control the flow of electrons from one point to another via a conducting material. That if you heat regular book paper to 451 degrees fahrenheit, it will start to burn.
You’re just trying to play semantics here.
What you are describing are facts, or observations. They are not hypotheses.
A few of the definitions from my FR homepage:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)All of your examples come under "observations" or "facts" rather than hypotheses or theories.Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
The difference is that hypotheses are attempted explanations of why that brick fell, or why that animal died, or why combision of paper is at 451 degrees. That they do so is an [b]observation[/b] or a [b]fact[/b].
I am not trying to "play semantics" but rather to be accurate in my use of scientific terms.
And, where we came in, with the "Professor Saying History’s Best Known and Most Debated Star Proven" -- at best he is making an hypothesis. It will be up to other scientists to evaluate that claim and to determine whether that hypothesis is supported or not supported. If it is supported over repeated tests, and if it allows accurate predictions, it might advance to a theory.
It will never be "proved" -- but it may be disproved.
That is the way science works. One researcher does not come up with in idea, a tentative explanation, and announce that the matter is "proved."