Why is it assumed that science is looking for the truth, but no theory can be proved, only refuted?
Isn't there a contradiction here?
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
There is indeed a contradiction here, but it is a contradiction between the philistine and a deeper understanding of science. The average person believes that science seeks and finds the truth, but the one who is engaged in science knows that this is not so. Science is looking for explanations, the best possible ones, and models that are most accurate.
But do not think that science does not give any truth. It's like apophatic and cataphatic theologies – the former describes God through negative statements, the latter through positive ones. Scientific truth is apophatic. Verily I say unto you, there is neither ether nor phlogiston.
Science is looking for the right useful information, which with growth tends to the absolute truth.
Practical/applied theories are proved/justified with a sufficient level of reliability. Theoretical statements are proved strictly logically.
Only naive amateur theories are refuted.
Professional theories are refined systematically.
The author of the question has a poor understanding of what science is and what it does.
Science is not only knowledge, but also the knowledge of ignorance. Exact sciences differ not in the fact that everything is exactly known there, but in the fact that the measure of accuracy is known. Truth always has certain limits in terms of accuracy, reliability, and the breadth of its field of application.
Today's world is a clear proof of the viability of science. What is there to argue about?
Theory-explanation. You can't prove a theory, but you can prove a physical law, for example. And if the theory cannot explain something and there is an analog that does it better, then the old one is rejected.�
And what is the contradiction? Everything must meet the Popper criterion, tobish, it must be able to be refuted. Until “this” is refuted, “this” is true, or to some extent will be your truth that you are looking for(and it is not possible for me to find a theory that will describe something absolutely accurately and accurately).�
Here the Bible cannot be refuted, because everything is proved by the phrase “it is the will of God” or “the ways of Jesus are inscrutable.” How much truth is there? �Or the theory of evolution. It has already been modified many times. And if you take the current theory and compare it with the first version, the new one will be closer to the truth.
And so, rejecting the broken and improving the old, scientists are moving the whole world.