Scientific Proof – Part Two
As part of the next series I conducted an informal (non-scientific?) survey. The survey asked people to explain in their own words what scientific proof means. I received a variety of answers. Here are a few.
1. A scientific process that outputs the expected results
2. A Fact; Something that has been proven before
3. Evidence for a claim that follows the ‘laws’ of science
4. Irrefutable evidence
5. Documented, test-driven and proven
From these sketches it can be observed that to some scientific proof is concerned with the process by which we validate hypothesis and to others this proof is the data or fact itself. The disagreement, I think, demonstrates that there is some degree of confusion about what scientific proof means.
In part one I mentioned one possible misuse that is coupled with an inaccurate understanding of scientific proof. Another outcome of defining scientific proof as irrefutable, facts and proven is the propensity for treating knowledge obtained within the context of scientific methods to be the only valid form of knowledge. This positivist criteria for knowledge fails, of course, to be able to demonstrate scientifically the truthfulness of the claim itself. The positivist idea is itself a metaphysical theory of knowledge. This shift away from other types of knowledge has given rise to all sorts of interesting conversations. Religious discourse is particularly interesting. It can be heard within the isles of my workplace that people don’t mind religious discussion as long as people don’t make claims as to which one is right or wrong. Since this type of discussion is about objects that don’t meet the positivist notion of knowledge it, claim some, cannot be discussed in the context of objective reality. In other words, these discussions aren’t about what’s out there, but only people discussing their opinions. Is there a way out of the mess or is all non-scientific “knowledge” mere opinion?