The Arrogance of Science

What is the official probability threshold for a hypothesis to be deemed a “scientic theory?” The past three times I wanted to use PayPal credit, I spent slightly more money than my credit allowance (a dollar–be gentle,) and they still accepted the charge. In theory, I can do so again, based on past experience. However, they have every right to deny the charge next time. So in practice my theory may be invalidated by new data, and shall have to be revised.

Now, of course, you say it’s absurd to call something like “gravity” a “hypothesis” based on this idea, because we’ve experienced gravity so many times. Sure. So the improbability of new data necessitating a change in the law of gravity is high. Presumably–we assume this to be the case. (Why?)

But you agree that this never proves anything absolutely. Now then, why do you say that “quantum fluctuations” appear to be “random?” Of course even the idea of claiming something is random is absurd and untestable, for the very same reasons too. But if quantum events can be randomly improbable, then you must agree that nothing can be a law, except by arbitrary requirements of probabilistic precision.

This is the arrogance of Science. The scientists claim to love saying “we do not know.” And yet–they say “WE KNOW.”