Agreed on the scientific method point, this is a really fundamental issue and it is shocking to me when people talk about science as if things are being proven in the same fashion as math. Maybe we need to sneak a “philosophy of science” into the k-12 system.
But I think there is also an etymological issue or something as well, which is causing additional confusion. Scientific theories aren’t proven of course, but they are proofed, in the same manner as when you pick up a breastplate from the blacksmith and note that it has a dent in it from where he shot it once. That’s the proof mark, the armor was tested by giving it a reasonably challenging test that is appropriate to the task it is intended for. Does this prove the armor is indestructible? No, of course not, as a physical device the armor has some finite limitations which could be overcome with enough gunpowder. But it is still reassuring.
Therefore I propose we clearly delineate between the two, by always spelling the logic thing with a ve and the “well, I tested it pretty hard and it didn’t break” thing with an f.
Newtonian physics was mostly mechanical engineering proof. It turns out electrical engineering, the study of fields and waves, that was a higher caliber. The standard model seems to be EE proof. But physicists are always constructing more energetic experiments.
It could just be that they are unfamiliar though, right?
“The armor has been proofed” doesn’t look so bad. “The armor has been proven” actually looks a tiny bit more awkward to me because it brings in too much of the math meaning.
Prove as a noun, though, I agree it is a little awkward.
But this is a request to change the language (where are those filed?) so I guess we will get used to it if it goes through.
But I think there is also an etymological issue or something as well, which is causing additional confusion. Scientific theories aren’t proven of course, but they are proofed, in the same manner as when you pick up a breastplate from the blacksmith and note that it has a dent in it from where he shot it once. That’s the proof mark, the armor was tested by giving it a reasonably challenging test that is appropriate to the task it is intended for. Does this prove the armor is indestructible? No, of course not, as a physical device the armor has some finite limitations which could be overcome with enough gunpowder. But it is still reassuring.
Therefore I propose we clearly delineate between the two, by always spelling the logic thing with a ve and the “well, I tested it pretty hard and it didn’t break” thing with an f.
Newtonian physics was mostly mechanical engineering proof. It turns out electrical engineering, the study of fields and waves, that was a higher caliber. The standard model seems to be EE proof. But physicists are always constructing more energetic experiments.