Science does not "prove," it supports a theory/ model to some n'th degree. It operates on the basis of epistemological limitation — that a scientific model of reality can get infinitely close to 99.99999...% accurate (via supporting evidence), but never 100% "prove" anything.
People who use the phrase "science proves" do not know their asses from their holes. A model of reality is NOT conclusive. Yet, it seems people are just trying to project their religious absolutism onto something contemporary, a culture now manifest as Scientism (tm).
What I think has happened is the institutional capture of scientific goodwill. I.e. theories produced by science were coopted by engineering to make genuine technology and break throughs. Now, these institutions grow their ideology by parroting that "all science" resulted in "progress," and thus that denying THEIR science is amount to denying the establishment of computers.
What is rarely mentioned is that the goodwill of science is based on theories that survived the selection process of the industrial pipeline. Most scientific research does not and gets found out to be bullshit. Something like 95% is fraudulent or gets buried under mountains of antagonizing evidence. This is the realm that contemporary, institutionalized science finds itself in, where it rarely survives replication/ scrutiny, let alone engineering application.
Even now, something as basic as electron orbitals are still being debated by Chemists. We have atomic orbital theory, postulating that individual orbitals hybridize to form bonds. We also have molecular orbital theory, which states that all the orbitals hybridize into an ort cloud specific to that molecule.
These are conflicting theories that have equal support in the lab from measurements, yet clearly "both" cannot exist at the same time. They are conflicting, yet both "real" science.
Science can only support, it cannot prove. People who say otherwise are just latching onto "science" as their religion, and institutions are using this fervor to push their ideology. Institutions get away with this because of a perceived history of technological dominance and empirical truth. This history, though, falls apart upon closer examination. Most science failed, and most "established" science today is in existential quarrel with some core foundational principle.
Studied Biology in Uni,
Science does not "prove," it supports a theory/ model to some n'th degree. It operates on the basis of epistemological limitation — that a scientific model of reality can get infinitely close to 99.99999...% accurate (via supporting evidence), but never 100% "prove" anything.
People who use the phrase "science proves" do not know their asses from their holes. A model of reality is NOT conclusive. Yet, it seems people are just trying to project their religious absolutism onto something contemporary, a culture now manifest as Scientism (tm).
What I think has happened is the institutional capture of scientific goodwill. I.e. theories produced by science were coopted by engineering to make genuine technology and break throughs. Now, these institutions grow their ideology by parroting that "all science" resulted in "progress," and thus that denying THEIR science is amount to denying the establishment of computers.
What is rarely mentioned is that the goodwill of science is based on theories that survived the selection process of the industrial pipeline. Most scientific research does not and gets found out to be bullshit. Something like 95% is fraudulent or gets buried under mountains of antagonizing evidence. This is the realm that contemporary, institutionalized science finds itself in, where it rarely survives replication/ scrutiny, let alone engineering application.
Even now, something as basic as electron orbitals are still being debated by Chemists. We have atomic orbital theory, postulating that individual orbitals hybridize to form bonds. We also have molecular orbital theory, which states that all the orbitals hybridize into an ort cloud specific to that molecule.
These are conflicting theories that have equal support in the lab from measurements, yet clearly "both" cannot exist at the same time. They are conflicting, yet both "real" science.
============================================================= TL,DR
Science can only support, it cannot prove. People who say otherwise are just latching onto "science" as their religion, and institutions are using this fervor to push their ideology. Institutions get away with this because of a perceived history of technological dominance and empirical truth. This history, though, falls apart upon closer examination. Most science failed, and most "established" science today is in existential quarrel with some core foundational principle.