>statistics can't prove anything

>>8995575
Statistics is the only true science. All other "science" is built on it.

Science is data acquisition.
Philosophy is the interpretation of the data.
Engineering is the use of the interpretation.

>>8995582
no

File: 1489039288685.jpg (56KB, 960x715px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 960x715px

>>8995582
>being this new to the empiric and theoretical relationship in science
what do u do in science and mathematics, or what is your goal in these fields

>>8995584
>no
Is this your idea of a proof? No wonder you have difficulty understanding the inductive power of statistics.

>>8995575
mathematically rigorous proof exists only for totally abstract things. There is no proof of anything in the real world.

>>8995589
>do a hyper-precise physics experiment
>the moisture meter reads 1
>the margin of error is [math]\pm1[/math]
>use statistics literally every time you use a number
>couldn't even science without statistics
>doesn't see its importance

>>8995593
>There is no proof of anything in the real world.
So if you pick up a pencil and it falls every time you let go the chances of it falling next time you let go is 50%.

The result of literally every experiment you have done is useless.

>>8995597
>50% because it either falls or doesn't, le memee answer
I never said anything about a specific probability. But yes, no matter how many times you repeat an experiment with the same results, there is no proof that it will turn out the same next time.

>>8995593
every hypothesis and theory has to be falsifiable because there are no set points of reference or perspectives that are universal, at least to our knowledge yet.
proofs of the "reel world" are limited by the scope of what they are trying to represent

>>8995597
>>8995597
that's why we have theories
they like consolidate the results of many experiments

anyway science is all those things to some extent, the scientific method is based on a philosophy but it isn't philosophy and data collection is just part of the process

>>8995575
statistics is meant to show how likely or unlikely a certain phenomenon is to occur.
we can't never be 100% sure, but we can be 99.99999% sure and that's good enough

>>8995595
i didnt say stats were unimportant u cocksucker, but it isnt the only or pure science ie >>8995582

>>8995600
Right, and I'm not saying that we should ignore the results of experiments either. It's all we will ever have, and it has done pretty well for us so far. I'm just saying there's no rigorous mathematical proof in the real world, not that we really need it.

>>8995605
what about matter and energy being interchangeable; i believe that our understanding of these things in their true nature are currently unknown but the proof e= mc^2 conveys this relationship. saying we dont need theoretical makes u a brainlet

>>8995616
and I suppose you think that there's a rigorous mathematical proof of that, based on axioms we know for sure to be 100% true?

>>8995618
Honestly, Einstien argued that he did believe that one could go greek and unify physics theorehtically, with experiment coming secondary and I think this is autistic, but yea. Pythagoras Theorem in this reality involving a simplistic 2D waifu traingle always has held up. If u know a way to prove that wrong then I will yawp a Yea Buddy and become a gambler

>>8995621
It's not my job to prove it wrong. It's your job to prove it's right.

>>8995597
>So if you pick up a pencil and it falls every time you let go the chances of it falling next time you let go is 50%.
>If something can happen or can not happen, it has a 50% chance to happen or not to happen
Are you really that stupid?

>>8995622
Actually you are both supposed to be proving it wrong.