Can Experiments Determine the Truth in Science?

  • Thread starter Antonio Lao
  • Start date
In summary, Lao says that all theories in science are wrong unless they are proven right. However, it is more difficult to set wrong conclusions right than it is to set right conclusions wrong.
  • #1
Antonio Lao
1,440
1
Searching for the truth in science always lead to finding out what is right or what is wrong for a particular theory and its experimental verification. In criminal law, every suspect is innocent unless proven guilty. But in science, every theory is wrong unless proven right. The burden of the proof lies with the right experiment.

If a theory is developed to show that the vacuum has a force and experiment cannot find this force then the theory is wrong only up to the limit that the experiment is right. A right experiment can prove a wrong theory wrong. A wrong experiment can prove a right theory wrong. A right experiment can always prove a right theory right. Finally, a wrong experiment can always prove a wrong theory right.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Ok ! But what about the domino type of catastrophe effect . So you have a right experiment for which you draw the wrong conclusions , on which all future experiments are based and from which all conclusions are drawn and so on. So that in the end you end up far from where you wanted to be which was closer to the truth. So although it is always poissible to set a wrong experiment right , it is much more difficult to set wrong conclusion right , which affects all future developments.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Antonio Lao said:
. But in science, every theory is wrong unless proven right. .
This is backwards. Theories in science cannot be proven right, only wrong.
 
  • #4
Antonio Lao said:
A wrong experiment can prove a right theory wrong. ... Finally, a wrong experiment can always prove a wrong theory right.

That's why experiments are not immediately believed until they are independently verified or are shown to be repeatable.
 
  • #5
krab said:
This is backwards. Theories in science cannot be proven right, only wrong.

I imagine what Lao means is that theories gain acceptance after there is sufficient experimental verification.

Hence, Einstein's Nobel Prize for explaining the Photoelectric Effect.
 
  • #6
Gokul43201 said:
That's why experiments are not immediately believed until they are independently verified or are shown to be repeatable.
By "wrong experiment" I don't think Lao was talking about a technical error, but an experiment perhaps based on some erroneous conclusions or poor assumptions.

For some reason Bell experiments come to mind ...
 
  • #7
Thanks for your replies, threaders of the lost force.

I started this post for the main reason of finding the lost force of antigravity. Why does gravity is only manifested as an attractive force? Why the expansion of space is not caused by any kind of repulsive force? The existence of this antigravity force is not obvious and was thought not necessary for formulation of any physical theory. Yet both the forces of gravity and antigravity should be related to the true meaning of mass. Are there just one kind of mass in the Law of Universal Gravitation and the Second law of Motion since both gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent? Or is there another mass beside gravity mass and inertial mass? Can this be the kinetic mass which should be related intimately with the relativistic mass?
 
  • #8
historically speaking there has never been a theory that was 100% right

why should science ruin a perfect track record? :smile:
 
  • #9
The individuals who can really ruin this perfect track record are either dead or yet to be born.
 
  • #10
energia said:
historically speaking there has never been a theory that was 100% right

why should science ruin a perfect track record? :smile:


Actually, there are so many theories that are a 100% correct, that you'll be astonished. Of course there are many more wrong theories...but most of those were "non-scientifically" arrived at.
 
  • #11
I am holding in my hand a book by Jennifer Bothamley called "Dictionary of Theories." From A to Z and starts with 'a priori theories' in accountancy to 'Zorn's lemma' in mathematics. And the people from Abegg, Richard (1896-1910) to Zweig, George (1937- ). And the name Aristotle (384-322 BC) appeared most for the more than 5,000 entries of theory.
 
  • #12
Last edited by a moderator:

Related to Can Experiments Determine the Truth in Science?

1. Can two wrongs really make a right?

There is no definitive answer to this question as it depends on the context and perspective. In some situations, two wrongs may cancel each other out and result in a positive outcome, while in others, it may only compound the initial wrong.

2. Is it ever justifiable to do something wrong in order to achieve a positive outcome?

This is a highly debated ethical question and ultimately depends on one's personal beliefs and values. Some argue that the ends justify the means, while others believe that the means should always align with moral principles.

3. How can two wrongs potentially lead to a right?

In certain scenarios, two wrongs may be able to balance each other out or create a new, more positive outcome. For example, if one person wrongs another and then makes amends by righting their wrong, the original wrong may be counteracted.

4. Are there any real-life examples of two wrongs making a right?

There are several examples of situations where two wrongs have led to a positive outcome, such as in the case of restorative justice where the offender makes amends for their wrongdoing and the victim experiences healing and closure.

5. What are the potential consequences of using the saying "two wrongs make a right" as a justification for one's actions?

Using this saying as a justification for wrongdoing can have dangerous implications as it suggests that there are no moral absolutes and that anything can be justified in pursuit of a positive outcome. It can also perpetuate a cycle of revenge and harm rather than promoting forgiveness and resolution.

Similar threads

B What is scientific and what is not?
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
2K
A Is "Equal a priori Probabilities" the correct scientific approach?
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
10
Views
2K
I What if one is in 1905 and debating foundational fundamentals?
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
462
Exploring the Scope of Physics: Can Big Bang Theory Be Verified Experimentally?
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Is Relativity Denial Still Prevalent in Science Forums?
    • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
806
B Balancing theories and empirical data, especially concerning string theory
    • Beyond the Standard Models
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
B Breaking Down the Mystery of Ice VII Nucleation
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
1K
I Time travel is a fact or fiction.?
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
9
Views
2K
Why I don't like a well-meant response and what is wrong with it.
    • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
2
Views
1K
Methodology / Philosophy of Science
    • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
4
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top