| If anyone would prefer to see cooler and more rational heads talk about this, view the Creationism vs Evolution thread and post #1741 about proof and evidence.
Using argumentative logic requires that everything be based on truth. Logic isn't used to find truth. It's used to find conclusions.
If a premise is not based on truth or fact, then the logic of the argument fails.
It's that simple.
Logic is great for math and philosophy.
But as far as science is concerned, logic has no place.
"Nothing can be proven" is a perfectly valid statement in relation to science.
It's valid because once something is proven, you're done. The process has stopped. The whole point is science is that the process never stops.
In science, there is evidence to support a theory, but you don't say that the evidence proves the theory. Proof is an exclusive term that means that there will never be something to contradict it.
"Nothing can be proven" is a statement acknowledging the fundamental fact that all knowledge is developing and new discoveries are methods are made on how to observe the world around us.
"Proven" means "conclusion."
"Nothing can be proven" doesn't mean people exist in a state of constant "know-nothingness;" it means that they acknowledge that there is no finality to knowledge. |