The Scientific Method For Beginners

I regard the existence of gravity is a fact. One might even say that it is a fact that has been proven by means of the scientific method. If 'proven' is to have any meaning at all, 'demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt' or 'a fact that has been confirmed to be true with such confidence that it would be perverse' seem like perfectly valid meanings. I think the legal system would be very surprised to learn that proof is limited to mathematics, that's for sure.I think the issue is, that creationists have constantly asked for proof of evolution, and when evidence is presented have retorted that it 'isn't proof', just evidence - that they have the same evidence and come to a different conclusion etc.But ultimately, they're just words. As long as what people know what is meant - it doesn't matter which words are used, surely. When it becomes clear that there is a semantic argument afoot - I call upon the power of pragmatics.

No, but there is a fact of gravity that the theory of relativity explains, right? We didn't need the theory of gravity to get to the moon. We just needed the fact of gravity and the law of gravity. We needed no explanatory framework to explain how gravity works to get us there. I believe you are mistaken. There is a fact of gravity and a theory of gravity.Things fall to the ground. This is the fact of gravity.
Spacetime curves around objects with mass is the theory of gravity.The point I was making still stands: Pragmatics wins over semantics.

How does differentiating between a fact and the thing that explains the fact confuse the concepts?Who are 'we'? In most scientific disciplines, its practitioners don't go hand-wringing over the differences between facts and theories so very few biologists use language this way, either.If by 'we' you mean physicists, then I'm going to have to say again that I think you are mistaken. Have you done a poll? I'm almost certain it will be possible to find one physicist who uses language like this. For example, John Pratt teaches astronomy at UVSC and here is a page about facts and theories. Erm so how is this different than me saying there is a fact of gravity that the theory of relativity explains? How is this not somebody in the 'we' category using language in this exact same way you said they don't? Newton's inverse law is not a theory in the sense referred to since it doesn't explain anything - it simply describes something. You could call it a theory, but then how is that avoiding confusing things? I appreciate that physics is explained by mathematics, but that doesn't mean that all equations are explanations. Yep - unless we decide we want to use the word 'proof' at all. In which case there is evidence that I consider beyond reasonable doubt that the law is at least locally correct. At longer distances, I'd regard the evidence weak enough to not constitute proof just yet.Still there is a fact of gravity, which it would be perverse to deny (that objects with mass experience an attractive force). There is a law that describes this attractive force (Newton's being a simple example of one), and there is a theory that explains both the attractive force, and the description of its properties (curvature of spacetime explains the inverse square law).How is that confusing? I appreciate it is possible to split hairs over theories and facts and things. One could argue that in some cases a fact also explains some other fact so where is the line drawn and so on ad nauseum, but I'm not sure what your objection is here.Still, semantic issues aside - the pragmatics is more important. Which was the point I was making.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Believe it or not 'fact of x' is not really standard language in any science. I'd be very surprised if it turned out that a poll of physicists who were asked 'is the existence of gravity a fact or is it a theory' would say 'it is a theory'. Sounds like an empirical claim. Maybe in your personal experience - but in my personal experience practising scientists rarely discuss things like this, anyway. Given that we and that I'd be interested if you had any data to support what is and what is not the 'norm' here.

As a further meeting of minds (I feel it deserves a post on its own so forgive the double post) I think also might also agree here. I mentioned earlier that some facts can also be used to explain other facts, and this is one of the kinds of thing I was talking about. "The planets orbit the sun" is a fact, but it also explains our observations so it can also be seen as a theory.So, the law of gravity can be seen as explaining why celestial bodies do what they do (more or less) - but this is really the hair splitting I mentioned earlier.Still, the fact that there is such a thing as gravity still doesn't strike me as a theory since it doesn't explain anything - just gives a name to something we observe. I suppose saying that gravity is a universal, far-reaching force that acts upon bodies could be seen as a theory.

There are other possible considerations that are more likely than brains in jars. I don't know if being confused about the number of legs one has is a specific symptom of having a stroke - but there are a number of unusual conditions one could have (such as thinking one of your legs actually belongs to your brother). If Dr A had lost one of his legs in an accident and also suffered a stroke or other neurological condition he may remain convinced he has two legs, when he has only one or no legs.I have heard stories of soldiers who have lost a leg in combat, and have continued to run (actually hopping) not realizing that they are a leg missing.In some of these...delusions...the sufferer does not accept the evidence presented by others, dismissing them as absurd maybe even paying them no attention whatsoever.Of course, these aren't the normal state of affairs (as far as I am aware, maybe I'm the one who is crazy ), but they are the kinds of things tentativity might cover too. Since people who are suffering under these kinds of delusions often dismiss the possibility they are deluded out of hand as 'absurd' and come up with all sorts of reasonings and rationalisations.Therefore - we have at least one reason (as small as it is) to consider the possibility that Dr A has less than two legs based on his protestations to the contrary.Ultimately, it seems, Dr. A does not accept the epistemological principle of fallibilism when it comes to trivial pragmatic concerns. He seems to feel that the best way to avoid worrying about such things as the Mnchhausen Trilemma is to simply appeal to some form of realism for the sake of practical existence. And as I said, he has a point, for all incense and porpoises we have to accept certain things as 'proven'. Unfortunately, the scientific method requires us to not take any empirical claim has guaranteed true - even (perhaps especially!?) the ones we are most sure of. There are very few situations in day to day life where anybody bothers to actually follow this (I don't conduct a series of tests, ask independent people to confirm the results and carry out there own tests) before I get up to make a cup of coffee that I have legs, arms, a corporeal body, a kitchen, mugs, a kettle etc).So really, I think Dr A is talking about the practical, real-world, as practiced scientific method. As opposed to the 'ideal scientific method' which nobody geniunely follows all the time because it would interfere with getting on with the business of having a life.

---

Fallibilism - Wikipedia
I also recommend The Multiple Meanings of Tentative Science, Adam T. Johnston. Weber State University

I agree - in order to advance we have to assume certain previous things are true. The use of the word 'guaranteed' was meant to emphatically emphasise that we must be aware of what those assumptions are, and be willing to test, challenge and revise those assumptions.