Can science prove something that does not exist?
Science cannot really PROVE anything. If you consider the
arguments of, for example, the 18th century philosopher David Hume,
then you will see that science cannot prove things as it
consistently relies on induction to form conclusions and induction
does not say that something is definitely the result of something
else, only that it could be or is likely or even appears at this
moment to be the only explanation. Therefore, if we put this belief
into the original question "Can science prove something that does
not exist?", both yes and no can be argued. No because science
cannot prove anything, therefore, it cannot prove something that
does exist and it cannot prove something that does not exist. Yes
because if you do still believe that science can prove that
existing things do exist, you will believe that it can prove that
non-exisiting also exist because obviously if a mistake is made to
come to this false conclusion, you (the person who has found such a
result) will not know the mistake has occured and will not question
it if you have done everything right according to the procedures
for proving things, because you believe that if you have followed
such procedures then you must have proven it because that is the
way you believe science works. A complicated discussion really,
depends what you believe about the reliabity of 'fact' and the
nature of 'proof'.
it's true the science is can really prove any thing.=]