I remember hearing in school that everything "proven" in science is, in reality, only 99.9999999% sure. Is there a source for this information or did I make it up?
define proven and reality
That's what science is. Everything isn't definite, theories are accepted as "fact" until proven otherwise.
In a constantly expanding universe, the idea of a multiverse and more, our sciences like physics and chemistry may only apply to our known universe. For all we know way out there there's a civilization building with impossible geometry and where the laws of physics don't exist.
>>55404522
Science operates on the principle of falsifiability. Every claim must be open to being disproved, and everything that survives as "proven" only are so because they have not been disproved.
>>55404522
You should never accept everything in science as a fact.
You need to improve upon what you know, and look to develop new theories.
Atheists have done nothing to benefit society (as they become more degenerate) and is only going to lead to stagnation of science b/c of their stubborn acceptance of things in science.
Always look to improve.
Science makes inductive arguments. It's basically babby tier in terms of knowledge.
That's basically true.
For example, for all we know the force of gravity between two parties could actually be in a random direction, and it's only been toward each other every time we observe it by pure coincidence.
Of course, the number of "9"s that would be able the decimal point there would be beyond counting. At that point it's a purely philosophical argument that has no practical purpose.
When you move towards newer discoveries, you will run into probabilities that are low enough that people seriously consider the possibility that the findings might be overturned.
When you go all the way down to soft sciences, you will find many small studies that each individually have at least a 5% chance of being pure coincidence, even if they were conducted correctly. So take any new "New study, X causes cancer!" claim with a grain of salt.
Apparently your school didn't define the scientific method for you.
>>55404522
sounds a little bit like skepticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
>>55405016
This.
Science will never achieve perfection of knowledge, only improvement.
It's like dividing a number by half an infinite amount of times. You'll get closer each time but you'll never reach zero.
>>55405016
> le tips christian fedora
This fucking guy lmao.
I knew it was you Shlomo
That's one of the dumbest things I hear many atheists say.
Even the mere use of the world "proof" in the context of science invalidates someone's opinion immediately.
There are some things which have historically been observed to be really hard to falsify(i.e the theory of evolution, understood as the idea that all living being evolved from "simpler" ones), and others which are often as "science" as a piece of toilet paper with shit smeared on it(i.e many social "sciences" studies with half assed methods that are often not reproducible and in the best case disproved a year later).
For instance, if you want to get technical, even the theory of newtonian gravity has been disproved as well by observations only possible with technology from the last century(the motion of mercury was one of the big ones I think).
