There is no such thing as a scientific 'proof'

[lindisfel]

Science can be exact and it can be probable or highly probable.
The early naturalist Gilbert White believed Swallows spent the winter in a torpid state in ponds, if I remember correctly.

The fact, the certainty, of the science now is they migrate to Africa, south of the Sahara.

We now know British Cuckoo's migrate by two routes to Africa, one via Italy and one via Spain. We have put trackers on them, that's science and it's exact in those particular details. How the juveniles find their way is more than science, it's a great wonder.

Let's not seek to denigrate science as some fundamentalist groups do by silly arguments.

When the sea rises due to ice melting, in a few hundred years time, if we do not stop the rise in co2, much of the low lying areas around the world will flood, including London.
There will not be many climate sceptics then with potty ideas or paid naysayers by fuel companies.
D.

 

[copilost]

Let's not seek to denigrate science

I don't really think that's what's being suggested here.
There's the world
Then scientific methodology (human so flawed)
Then scientists (see above)
Then interpretations of science and scientists (ditto)
Then accessibility of interpretations of science and scientists (those pesky humans again)
Then actual manipulation of science and scientists (those not so very moral humans)
Then suppression, promotion and "allied interests"

I like that birds do amazing things, we know nothing

 

[lindisfel]

We need to differentiate between science and propaganda sometimes the two are confused.
Maths, which is used in science as a tool should be used with precision, it can be exact.

Minulaption of facts is not science.

Newton explained the nature of physics far better than Aristotle.
Einstein was more close to the truth, but we will probably never understand fully the nature of physics.
The more in depth understandings gained by quantum physics are almost metaphysical.
But the more we know, the smaller our knowledge of the whole seems to be.

 

[lucylocket61]

I'm with Bob Marley on this:

"There are more questions than answers
And the more I find out the less I know
Yeah, the more I find out the less I know"

 

[kitedoc]

I

According to this link

"Nearly 20 years ago, 2 Australian physician researchers made a discovery that initially was widely ridiculed in the medical community. In the January 1983 issue of the British medical journal The Lancet, Australian physicians Barry Marshall and Robin Warren claimed that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacteria called Helicobacter pylori and not by excessive acidity in the stomach."​

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/barry-marshall-md-and-robin-warren-md/2000-04

Took them 10 years (I think) to convince the medical community, who had believed strong stomach acid would prevent a bacterial infection. The pair went on to win the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2005!

t was about 20 years all up!!

 

[Suz2]

The more complex the system, the less likely a simple answer is correct. Humans are entirely complex.
My father told me a long time ago to "follow the money". In many cases new, exciting, amazing breakthroughs are often attached to a price. "Send in xxxx and get our amazing new guide." Even the scientific community can be corrupted by cash. Just reflect on all the scientists who stated, unequivocally that smoking was harmless and whose funding for their studies proving this came from tobacco companies.
Diabetics are a desirable demographic since our numbers swell every year and our disease is a lifetime long.
So, any 'scientific evidence' for anything amazing, breakthrough, or otherwise miraculous goes under the skeptic file until its conclusions are repeatable by secondary sources and the money funding this revelation aren't suspect. Even then I'm hestant.
OK, yes, I am a cynic. However this is my quality of life, even the length of my life we're talking about here. Cynicism is a viable option.

 

[Listlad]

I have spent a lifetime using the scientific method. In my science, a fairly modern one established at the back end of the 1700’s, it is indeed very difficult to find conclusive proof. And also very difficult to find simple conclusive proof. “Proof” typically requires a massive understanding involving other disciplines aswell as the core discipline. And then the proof rests on probability as much as anything.

 

[alienskin]

I know I have said this before but do you all remember the accepted wisdom, for decades, about stomach ulcers, their causes and treatments? The 'proof', the trials, the statistical 'evidence'

then some doctors came up with the bacteria causing it, and had to fight the establishment to be heard and now its accepted practice to test for and treat with antibiotics? I bear that in mind when looking a scientific evidence.

Your example is actually a validation of the scientific method because presumably the new explanation itself is a result of scientific evidence, and if you accept this new explanation you do so on the basis of this scientific evidence. As well as showing that scientists themselves are continually challenging the accepted wisdom.

There seems to be somewhat of a straw man in this thread. Science itself never considers something proved or that a question has a final answer (outside of obvious statements of fact). Science seeks to have the best answers at the moment based on the available evidence. But scientists are well aware that data can be manipulated, experiments can be poorly designed, the evidence at presence is lacking, or that simply a statistic fluke may occur. In medicine, for example, there is an awareness that bias occurs when unsuccessful results are not published but successful ones are. As scientists, we are well aware of this issue and there are moves to remedy it.

But each study needs to be judged on its own merits. Blanket statements like 'scientists got this wrong therefore ...' are not very helpful. Better is 'This particular study has issues because ...'

In diabetes research (especially as diet and lifestyle are core considerations) research is extremely challenging. Long term effects of diet and lifestyle are costly and have extreme challenges regarding confounding variables and variations of dose/dietary makeup/exercise etc.

Taking a low(er)-carb diet for example. How low-carb is necessary? 25G 50g? 75g? What is the long-term differences of these amounts? Are the benefits of short-term lower blood-sugar offset by some other unknown long-term issue that may take years to reveal itself? How does exercise affect the results? How much? Before or after eating? HIT or steady-state? How does each gender respond differently? How does genetics affect the result? Do after-eating spikes have long term implications, and at what point?

The rise in T2D especially means that the answers to these questions have not generally been subject to long term tests so the long terms lifestyle approaches to T2D have not been subjected to rigor. This does not mean that science is rejecting some pet-approach - dozens of papers are appearing for dietary variations. But it will take time to get a clearer picture.

 

[lucylocket61]

Your example is actually a validation of the scientific method because presumably the new explanation itself is a result of scientific evidence, and if you accept this new explanation you do so on the basis of this scientific evidence. As well as showing that scientists themselves are continually challenging the accepted wisdom.

There seems to be somewhat of a straw man in this thread. Science itself never considers something proved or that a question has a final answer (outside of obvious statements of fact). Science seeks to have the best answers at the moment based on the available evidence. But scientists are well aware that data can be manipulated, experiments can be poorly designed, the evidence at presence is lacking, or that simply a statistic fluke may occur. In medicine, for example, there is an awareness that bias occurs when unsuccessful results are not published but successful ones are. As scientists, we are well aware of this issue and there are moves to remedy it.

But each study needs to be judged on its own merits. Blanket statements like 'scientists got this wrong therefore ...' are not very helpful. Better is 'This particular study has issues because ...'

In diabetes research (especially as diet and lifestyle are core considerations) research is extremely challenging. Long term effects of diet and lifestyle are costly and have extreme challenges regarding confounding variables and variations of dose/dietary makeup/exercise etc.

Taking a low(er)-carb diet for example. How low-carb is necessary? 25G 50g? 75g? What is the long-term differences of these amounts? Are the benefits of short-term lower blood-sugar offset by some other unknown long-term issue that may take years to reveal itself? How does exercise affect the results? How much? Before or after eating? HIT or steady-state? How does each gender respond differently? How does genetics affect the result? Do after-eating spikes have long term implications, and at what point?

The rise in T2D especially means that the answers to these questions have not generally been subject to long term tests so the long terms lifestyle approaches to T2D have not been subjected to rigor. This does not mean that science is rejecting some pet-approach - dozens of papers are appearing for dietary variations. But it will take time to get a clearer picture.

My point was about the length of time, and the amount of effort on the part of the scientists who found the bacteria, to be listened too and their discovery and treatment to become mainstream.

 

[britishpub]

As somebody with a BSc (Econ) in Economics I know for certain that there is no proof of anything, just made up nonsense.

 

[Listlad]

As somebody with a BSc (Econ) in Economics I know for certain that there is no proof of anything, just made up nonsense.

Is Economics a proper science?

 

[Listlad]

When the sea rises due to ice melting, in a few hundred years time, if we do not stop the rise in co2, much of the low lying areas around the world will flood, including London.
There will not be many climate sceptics then with potty ideas or paid naysayers by fuel companies.
D.

LOL

 

[copilost]

As somebody with a BSc (Econ) in Economics

I'm sorry for your trauma

 

[Listlad]

I'm sorry for your trauma

I nearly ended up that way.

 

[copilost]

I nearly ended up that way

Kurtz is that you?