Devastating quote from Einstein about the impossibility of demonstrable Science

[Olivianus]

Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#cite_note-25

[HAL]

You know little of which you speak. Proofs are for things like geometry - not science. Science is about the trends of evidence.

You are a fool.

[rickymooston]

Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".

Einstein was a wise man. Of course, lots of scientists said the same thing

Proofs are for things like geometry - not science. Science is about the trends of evidence.

Well, theoretically, along the lines of trends of evidence, one hopes science eventually converges on the truth ... 

[JeffPT]

Olivianus, can you please supply the source for this quote so that we may see the context in which he uses it?  When he talks about being 'right', is he talking about a specific thing, or about everything?  And please don't give me your own personal take, just provide the source where he said it and let everyone see for themselves. 

[pingnak]

I fail to see how a statement of fact is 'devastating'.  He simply showed his 'faith' in reason, and the scientific method.

All knowledge based on science is an experiment away from being changed.  It's the nature of learning and evolving that knowledge.

Setting 'C' as the speed limit can be overturned if we somehow find a way to exceed that, or observe things moving faster than that.  Then general relativity would need an overhaul, just as Newtonian physics got their overhaul from Einstein.

Contrast with religion, where no matter how much evidence is presented to overturn their statements, people won't change what they believe.

The wisdom of knowing that you CAN be wrong, versus the absolute folly of believing you can't possibly be wrong.

[Tero]

 

[kin hell]

Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#cite_note-25

....hold on, aren't you the idiot arguing that there can be no evidence?

That you just cannot know anything?

Seems that you've adequately disproven (by your divinely inspired "human experiment in cognition" gone wrong), the hope that deliberate obfuscatory intellectual dishonesty will disguise the act of disappearing up ones fundamentalism.



 

[jetson]

It might be time to find another platform for your "platform". 

[ParkingPlaces]

Ironically, your misuse of the quote reaffirmed that you know how to devastate your own arguments. Whoda thunkit.

Besides us, I mean.

I'd say goodbye but I probably won't get the chance.

[monkeymind]

Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#cite_note-25

That's right. Scientific method calls for falsifiability. It is the self correcting feature that makes science the most reliable method of explaining everything.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.  Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.  The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.  All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence.  Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science:  They are final, and they are binary.  Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof).  Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final.  There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.  The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives.  Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.  No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.  That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

[Cyberia]

The Olivianus Paradox:  Nothing can be known, including this statement. 

[caveat_imperator]

So Olivianus read the quote 76 times and still couldn't understand it?

[Tinyal]

So Olivianus read the quote 76 times and still couldn't understand it?

Quite so

Brings to mind a co-worker, very similar in temperament, loquacity, & intelligence - when I can't avoid talking to them for one work-related reason or another, their faith frequently comes up.  In a sort of 'I'll show you mine if you show me yours' kind of way, I rapidly realize we're talking two completely different languages, with a very different emotional subtext - words whose common meanings are one thing are altered, or completely blanked out, as if I'd inserted an unexpectedly long pause into my speach.

Very frustrating experience, with some slight sad feelings, for the (perhaps obvious) reasons. 

[sun_king]

So Olivianus read the quote 76 times and still couldn't understand it?

It used to be called Solipsism^Wiki, now we may have to rename it.

There is hope http://solipsismhelp.webs.com/

[Mr. Blackwell]

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".

Which is almost exactly the same as saying "It takes a lifetime to build a good reputation but you can destroy it in a minute."
-Will Rogers

As true as it is...I think it's wrong.

Everybody makes mistakes...who are we to judge them?

[joebbowers]

Olivianus, his weak mind ravaged to the point of lunacy by having to constantly re-define the world to make it conform to nonsensical rules he believes in, has mistaken for weakness the very core strength of science.

It evolves.

Science is like a chain in which the links are constantly being tested. When a weak link is exposed, the link is replaced with a stronger one and we continue on testing with our now stronger chain. Scientistific theories are often proved wrong, at which point a better theory replaces it. That's the beauty of it, and that's why it works.

[inveni0]

Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#cite_note-25

Actually, this is precisely correct.  Stephen Hawking talks about it in his book "The Grand Design".  It's a thing he calls "model dependent realism".  The general idea is that we can only base truth on observation, and he uses M-theory to demonstrate that when we look at something, we can only see it from that single angle.  And so we have to look at things from as many angles as possible in order to accurately describe something.

And that's precisely why science is stronger than religion.  Religion isn't interested in looking at the truth from different angles.  It's only interested in defining the truth--even if that truth could not possibly exist.

[Petey]

Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".

That is an excellent quote!  It shows how diligent we must be in our pursuit of truth, and how humble scientists need to be in general.

Now, let's see what happens when we apply this quote to religion instead of science...

Oh, whoops!

[Olivianus]

You know little of which you speak. Proofs are for things like geometry - not science. Science is about the trends of evidence.

You are a fool.

For your insolence I am not longer placing your link on my website. You people are some of the worst debaters I have ever encountered. You truly are the most miserable people on the planet. 

[Dante]

For your insolence I am not longer placing your link on my website. You people are some of the worst debaters I have ever encountered. You truly are the most miserable people on the planet.

So instead of trying to engage in conversation, you'll just take your imaginary ball and go home?

Halleluja!

Much too difficult to prove you're not a fool, I suppose.

[velkyn]

For your insolence I am not longer placing your link on my website. You people are some of the worst debaters I have ever encountered. You truly are the most miserable people on the planet.

Oliv, you need to earn respect, not demand it.  Your arguments fail and you get pissy about it, being unable to admit that you are wrong.  You want to claim that we cannot "know" anything, but you sure do like to claim you know everything.     it's very amusing, but not anything new.  Christians all claim that they have some special knowledge and all fail at producing it.

And well let's see the possible definitions of miserable.  I'm not in a "pitiable state of distress or unhappiness", but I'm sure I do cause you "extreme discomfort or unhappiness"  since your nonsense doesn't fly here. 

[ungod]

For your insolence I am not longer placing your link on my website. You people are some of the worst debaters I have ever encountered. You truly are the most miserable people on the planet.

Aw, da poor guy is all in a huff because we won't sit quietly in the pews and bray "Amen!" once in a while?

 

[jaimehlers]

For your insolence I am not longer placing your link on my website. You people are some of the worst debaters I have ever encountered. You truly are the most miserable people on the planet.

Given that you think you can redefine words and terms (example, a person is a proposition, so another proposition which follows from the first is the same as the person) when convenient because your view requires it, you have no room to talk about bad debate skills.  The purpose of a debate is not to use blatant sophistry to prop up your argument because it would collapse otherwise, the purpose of a debate is to compare views and see which is more valid.

[jetson]

You know little of which you speak. Proofs are for things like geometry - not science. Science is about the trends of evidence.

You are a fool.

For your insolence I am not longer placing your link on my website. You people are some of the worst debaters I have ever encountered. You truly are the most miserable people on the planet.

Damnit HAL.  Now look what you've done.  No one's ever gonna find us now.   

[ParkingPlaces]

You truly are the most miserable people on the planet.

That won't be true if you go away...

[HAL]

For your insolence I am not longer placing your link on my website.

Pony put me up to it, blame him.

You people are some of the worst debaters I have ever encountered. You truly are the most miserable people on the planet.

How very Christian of you.

[nogodsforme]

Whenever a Christian mentions Einstein, you know it's gonna be dumb.....

[kin hell]

For your insolence I am not longer placing your link on my website. You people are some of the worst debaters I have ever encountered. You truly are the most miserable people on the planet.

If I'm so miserable, why am I laughing so much?

Oh that's right I'm laughing at you  ............you fucking limited joke.

[One Above All]

Olivianus, you are absolutely correct. We're all miserable. There isn't a single happy person on the planet except you. You're a very special snowflake. We all love you very much and want to be just like you.
Now, would you kindly address the valid points that were raised? Or would you prefer to just leave us to our misery?