|
|
|
|
|
by jfengel
775 days ago
|
|
Science has not proven that the observation will continue to hold. It happens to have worked so far, but you cannot prove that it will continue to. You're applying the scientific method to itself, making a large-scale inference from limited data. This is precisely the grounds on which the Logical Positivists realized that they couldn't achieve their ends of putting science on a sound scientific footing. |
|
For example, maybe vague observations of Mercury were consistent with Newton. But eventually, telescopes improved, duration of accurate records extended, many good instruments were deployed around the world. Then it became a Problem. Also note that Einstein fitted GR to Mercury, so he could not predict it as independent confirmation. It took the Eddington observation of light bending near the sun, during a solar eclipse, to provide the first evidence (even that was weak, and fixed, but the fix was on the right side of history :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment