As a scientist, you should know that scientists don’t prove or disprove anything.

They (scientists) should be dealing with observation that will either refute or verify any presented statement. Observation, like testing or evidences. Science deal with evidences, not proof.

Proof, and words relating to proof, like “prove” or its opposite “disprove” is the language of mathematicians. Proof is the mathematical equation to be solved or mathematical representations in models.

And though, science deal with a lot of maths (equations, formulas, variables, etc), especially in physics, like theoretical physics, but even in the world of physics, empirical evidences and tests have greater importance than any mathematical equations or models (proofs).

Evidences are for science, proofs are for mathematicians. Proof and evidence are not synonymous, certainly not in the science and mathematics circles.

- In science, the default position of any statement, be they be hypothesis or theory, is that they are FALSE. All statements, no exception, begin in this default position (FALSE).
- If there are no evidences whatsoever that support or refute the given statement, then the statement remain in the FALSE position. If there are no evidences “for” or “against”, that doesn’t mean the statement is TRUE.
- If the evidences (repeatedly) go against a statement, then the statement is FALSE, and it is REFUTED. REFUTED statement, should be discarded.
- The only time statement is TRUE, is when the number of evidences verified or the repeated and rigorous tests support the statement.

I understand what you are saying, because people often assume that proof to be same as evidence, but you as a scientist, should know that are not the same things.

But let for a moment that I was to use your choice of words (“proven” and “disproven”) as words to be used in science for “evidence” (proven) or “no evidence” (disproven), then the second part of your statement is not necessarily true (which I have highlighted bold & red):

In science, refuting or ( to use your word) “disproving” a statement (or hypothesis or theory) is actually a goal in science.

The Scientific Method and the use of Peer Review, aren’t just about what is true or accepted, but to show which or what statement is false, and should be discarded when the statement has been refuted or the statement has been “proven” to be FALSE.

Paarsurrey want his belief in God to be accepted, even though he and no else can show evidences to support Islamic theism.

A lack of evidence don’t make what he or anyone believe about God to be true.

What paarsurrey has demonstrated is simply his faith and his belief, and belief and faith ARE NOT evidences, and they are certainly not science.

## Leave a Reply