[JoeAltmaier]

Go further: reproducible experiment can tease out details to many decimal places of likelihood. Something can be known so thoroughly that we can make statements like "this is certain to behave as predicted millions or billions of times more often that not", which is pretty close to certain knowledge.

[mattfenwick]

I'm not sure that I agree. I think that once you get into the realm of "absolute truth" (which is what I'm interpreting your post as saying -- apologies if I'm mistaken), you've left science behind. IMHO, science cannot (and does not aim to) deliver certain knowledge. Instead, it produces useful approximations.

[pleb]

I agree with Matt,

There is no quantity of correlation that promotes one iota of certainty or probability.

The issue is Matt, many people like this gentlemen here actually believe that scientific experimentation offers explanations.

How many times have we heard, "there must be a rational explanation", when it fact never has a rational explanation ever been provided for any phenomenon.

We can't involve degrees, when the extreme principles infer that no such claims can be made. There is an unknown amount of probability given any proposition.

The only form of falsifiability we're capable of is in whether or not a person is conforming to the traditional use of language. If I say that 2 + 2 = 5, then I am wrong, since the rules for mathematical language are understood with certainty based on our tradition.

If I claimed that a plane IS powered by fairy dust and yet it is NOT powered by fairy dust, then I am technically wrong since I abused the use of language.