Re:Physics is unreasonably good at creating new math
by hgomersall on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @02:26PM
(#41448882)
Interesting linguistic aside: "the exception that proves the rule" makes use of this more old fashioned use of prove, to test. So it's the exceptional case that tests the rule.
With that in mind, "prove" is perfectly fine to use in the context of science.
Re:Physics is unreasonably good at creating new math
by bee_rider on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @01:42PM
(#41448428)
Maybe proof should be used for that more modest concept. In the sense of “bullet proof.” Similar to a piece of armor with a bullet proof; the ding from where it was shot for testing, a physics theory could be described as “microscope proof,” haha. We hit it with a bunch of microscopes and it didn’t fall apart.
Re:Physics is unreasonably good at creating new math
by trashtester on Thursday September 05, 2024 @12:04PM
(#41457900)
In Physics, you just remove all possible theories that are inconsistent with observations.
For instance, you can prove that Newton's laws are not 100% accurate.
That a given model is the one and only model that accurately explains the known universe? Then I agree. Observation won’t get you there. Asymptotic at best.
But by “prove”, that it accurately or usefully makes predictions with respect to certain constraints (which may not be known)?
That’s a more modest use of “prove”, where observation is certainly a key factor.