[general_re]

Please consider what you have just said here about the inverse-square law: it is useful to us because "it appears to bear some relationship to the behavior of objects". That's all you need to know--that the inverse-square law can be useful in landing spaceships and predicting eclipses and piecing together what it must look like in distant regions of space.

If you're content to stop there, fine by me. Personally, I like to consider the issue of WHY it's useful to us, which is because it is an accurate and faithful representation of reality.

TRUTH is a fractured kalaidascope every viewer can put together in his own peculiar way, and arrogate to his own peculiar agenda.

I think you're overloading the word by automatically assigning it religious or mystical significance, when such is hardly necessary to use the word properly. "Truth" is only as you say it is if you deny that there is such thing as objective fact, which I would be rather surprised to see you do. Compare "an accurate and faithful representation of reality" to:

truth    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5. 1. Reality; actuality.

Some truths are in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, particularly if you're talking about mysticism and so forth. But the sorts of things that science concerns itself with are not.

I see, you think what lawyers say about this word should carry the day.

I think what people say about the word should carry the day. You may try to "reserve the word 'proved'...to tangible deductive proofs" until you're blue in the face, but the fact is that the majority of users of the language do not make such a reservation. "Proof" is a matter of degree, and in most cases, a subjective judgement. That usage may offend you, but the point of language is to communicate with others, not to enforce your particular standard of right-thinking. If you wish to explain to people that the colloquial use of "proof" and "prove" does not have any relationship to what scientists do, be my guest, but I rather doubt that the colloquial meaning of "proof" and "prove" will change as a result.

I'll repeat the question my other deponent here did not effectively answer: it is a truism of scientific rhetoric that scientific theories are subject to question. Now you've claimed that the best scientific theories are "proved". So what "proved" means, is "subject to question"? I guess a word means whatever you want it to mean.

prove    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (prv)
v. proved, proved, or prov·en (prvn) prov·ing, proves
v. tr.

1. To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.

Just because something slipshod is a relatively common practice, doesn't make it an acceptable thing.

I have expressed no opinion about whether it is good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable. I merely point out that this usage exists, and is common enough to be what people "usually mean" by "proof", contrary to what you said before.

[donh]

I think you're overloading the word by automatically assigning it religious or mystical significance, when such is hardly necessary to use the word properly. "Truth" is only as you say it is if you deny that there is such thing as objective fact, which I would be rather surprised to see you do.

Indeed, I do not deny it. As a closet Objectivist, I embrace it as fundamental to psychological health. I accept it because I have faith in the concrete nature of reality. But I do not mistake this faith for something other than faith, of no more fundamental technical merit in the realm of logical reasoning than faith in God the Prime Mover, or faith in druidic tree spirits, if that's what floats your boat. When it comes to what you can objectively share with others, that sharing takes place outside the skin, where utility stops. Inside the skin is where the TRUTH detectors are--and everybodies TRUTH detectors are tuned slightly differently--it is treacherous territory to try to objectively share.

[donh]

That usage may offend you, but the point of language is to communicate with others, not to enforce your particular standard of right-thinking. If you wish to explain to people that the colloquial use of "proof" and "prove" does not have any relationship to what scientists do, be my guest, but I rather doubt that the colloquial meaning of "proof" and "prove" will change as a result.

This would be fine with me, if, in fact, everyone would agree on the one definition. However, "proof" has several similar definitions which slide around trecherously. Communicating with others is unlikely to be aided by letting educated people be sloppy about this. It is one of the jobs of scientists to be more precise about what they say than the average person. The colloquial use is inadeguate for any serious technically tinged discussion hinging on issues of logic, confidence, or proof affecting public policy, and scientists ought to be more thoughtful then this where public policy and science collide.