# "Science and Truth" by Clark



## AV1611 (Jun 18, 2007)

In reply to Clark's article _Science and Truth_ someone said:



> I haven't read the other articles (not got round to them yet), but the Science and Truth essay is working on an obsolete model of the scientific method. Verification as a principle of science was abandoned for precisely the reason the author identifies (affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy). Falsification - a currently accepted model of the scientific method - works upon denying the consequent, which is logically valid. The author is using a straw man to put his point across, which is hardly an intellectually honest thing to do.
> 
> Essentially the argument in that article distills itself down to "science can never be 100% certain of anything, so scientifically derived 'facts' must be false." This is a non sequitur: the conclusion does not follow from the premise. We could say "science can never be 100% certain of anything, so a scientifically derived 'fact' could be false," but the principle of falsification ensures that those "facts" that are found to conflict with observation are weeded out.



As he lost me in the first sentence have you any responses?

(see: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35771441&postcount=21)


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 18, 2007)

There is a thread in the PB archives on whether inductive reasoning was fallacious. It is related (tangentially) to your question.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 18, 2007)

Is Inductive Reasoning Fallacious?


----------



## JM (Jun 18, 2007)

ON INDUCTION

No friend of the faith, Russell makes a point.


----------



## Civbert (Jun 18, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> In reply to Clark's article _Science and Truth_ someone said:
> 
> As he lost me in the first sentence have you any responses?
> 
> (see: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35771441&postcount=21)




Give this a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

This is the scientific model he is referring to is a very solid tool in science for avoiding poor scientific claims. 

Let's say Q is a scientific claim and let P be a logical consequence of Q. In other words: *if Q then P*. 

Now the denial of the consequence takes the form:

if Q then P,
not P,
therefore not Q.​
A good scientific claim should be falsifiable by the denial of the consequence. A bad scientific claim is one were there is no definable consequence where, if false, would prove the scientific claim is also false.

However, Q is not proven true by the "denial of the consequence"! Rather, Q is assumed true hypothetically. We can never prove Q is true, only potential prove it is false. The principle of falsification is a great scientific tool for avoiding poor scientific claims. If does not validate the truth of any scientific claims.


----------

