You do know that most of what people think science 'proves' is acutally theory, right?

Ascendancy LRP: Redvers Fenn-Cooper

Crimson Requiem: Crew

Real Life: Doug McKerracher

Quis custodiet ipsos custard?

Quite so, but even in scientific terms they are still not the same as solid proof.

Something which, under proper observation, has been shown to match the preceding theory.

That which has yet to be properly observed.

Nothing. You are putting words into my mouth, for scientists to prove something they first have to hypothesise. Scientific proof doesn't just appear out of nowhere.

"I refuse to prove I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."

"Well," says man, "the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway isn't it?"

&c.

Is it the right time to point out that my original post on the subject was intended to be largely tongue-in-cheek?

Ascendancy LRP: Redvers Fenn-Cooper

Crimson Requiem: Crew

Real Life: Doug McKerracher

Quis custodiet ipsos custard?

Well, I had hoped that other people here would be able to make that distinction. Clearly I was wrong.

No, you cannot. This is because they weren't. As I pointed out my original post was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, then people started getting shitty about it. That's why I am now attempting to demonstrate (in very simple terms, because this is neither the time nor place for essays) that I'm aware of the difference between 'theory' and 'proof'.

Do you assume that the first thing someone says after making a joke is also a joke?

It does matter to me. I'm always happy to learn. If you think I'm wrong prove that I am wrong. Don't just claim I am without backing it up.

Ascendancy LRP: Redvers Fenn-Cooper

Crimson Requiem: Crew

Real Life: Doug McKerracher

Quis custodiet ipsos custard?

Fair enough. It was a bit of an oversimplification after all. EDIT: It also occurs to me that scientists no longer seeking 'proof' validates the point I made against Tart.

Well that's the thing, I genuinely thought it was called 'proof' (hence my usage of the word) but hey if that's not the case what do scientists call things that have been proven beyond a resonable doubt? It just seems silly to me to use the same word for both things.

Now, using the word 'Revelations', however ironic your intent may be, is interesting... If I had to apply the term to scientific method I'd say that it sits slightly to the left of theory and represents a eureka moment.

What I said was that 'most people' (i.e. the average bloke on the street) beleive that science has irrefutably 'proven' far more than it actually has.

Okay, I'll give you 'consensus'. But as I understand it 'theory' and 'hypothesis' are related but not the same (of which more in a minute) and 'paradigm' could be applied to either... I'm not a scientist, merely some weirdo who thinks A Brief History of Time makes good bus reading. Here's how it all works as I understand it:

Hypothesis – That which is suspected, but has little supporting evidence (Higgs Bosun, Dark Matter).
Theory – That which has plenty of supporting evidence, but has yet to be properly observed and is often argued one way or t'other (Relativity, Gravity).
Consensus – That which has overwhelming amounts of supporting evidence and has not only been backed up by observation but is generally agreed upon (The circulatory system, magnetic fields).

(Edited to remove a statement where I appeared to deny something that was right there on the screen. Bumsticks.)

Ascendancy LRP: Redvers Fenn-Cooper

Crimson Requiem: Crew

Real Life: Doug McKerracher

Quis custodiet ipsos custard?

science is what used to pay the bills before I got apathetic and took an admin job instead.......

"Herding cats? Ease itself compared to wranggling LARPers"