What I think science is part 1

Science is a process that is designed to drive human knowledge towards objective truth. It therefore assumes there is such thing as an objective truth. 2. How does it drive toward objective truth? 1. Well, how did we get to truth before? 1. We just said what we thought, and then we attempted to defend it. 2. Science, fundamentally, changed the game by making it clear that there were hypotheses, and that the job of a scientist was to falsify them. 3. So, science is a new sort of process: 1. One that acknowledges that fundamental uncertainty present in all knowledge. 2. The acknowledgement that the only way to reduce uncertainty is to try to prove things false, as you cannot prove things true. 3. You cannot prove things true in science, you can only prove things are false, reducing the available set of other options, and in turn making some specific options more likely. 4. Notably, this means that science needs to be conducted on distributions that are in some way knowable. 1. Is this true? The claim is pretty much that you can only increase the likelyhood of something being true by disproving the other things around it? 2. Does proving that agrees with things not also lend creedence to it? It does, I think. I think that this the realm of besysan statistics. 5. Take a set of hypothesis that are mututally exclusive. They each have some apriori probability, P1, P2, ... PN. 1. Then, you observe some evidence. But how can evidence that can disprove some things not prove other things. 2. I need to think more about this. Why can we have falsification but not also proof? Unless it's an axiom that you cannot be sure, but why would we do this? 1. Maybe for systems of a certain level of complexity, this is a necessary.