You are dodging and wasting my time. It was a simple yes or no question and you failed to answer it.
Once again, all of your questions and assertions were answered and refuted (respectively), and yet you failed to reply cogently to my refutations to your relativists attitudes and attempts to co-relate theoretical applications and physical/practial applications:
Thanks for responding as I thought you would.
Thanks for agreeing that I was correct in assuming that you would respond as I though you would.
Please read this I wrote several years ago.
Please provide how this somehow makes my statements incorrect (if you can that is).
Here it is, once again, so that you can take a crack at proving it wrong:
If I have two apples in my refrigerator, and purchase four more from the market, but eat one on my way home, at the end of the day IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll have five apples in my refrigerator. 2+4=6-1=5!
The point is that when you say that the math is proven you actually say that your assumption that math applies to your problem is proven.
No Sysifos, no assumption at all. Its a fact that when I say Ã¢â‚¬Å“the math is provenÃ¢â‚¬Â, that is exactly what I meant (and, by-the-way, you have still failed to show my illustration as incorrect. And simply saying so, doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make it so). When you say it isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t, you are actually saying you want to have the vague understandings of a relativist so that you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have to admit the fact of absolute truths.
But the problem with that reasoning (or lack thereof) is the fact that all truth is absolute, and there are no relative truths. For if something is really true, then; it is really true for everyone everywhere, and for all time. The truth statement (as I pointed out above) 2+4=6-1=5 is not just true for mathematicians, nor is it true only in a classroom. It is true for everyone everywhere (including me, the apples in my refrigerator and your understanding of the apples in my refrigerator).
But, most relativists want to believe (really, really believe) relativism is true for everybody, and not just for them. The problem with that is; that is the one thing they cannot hold, if they are really (really, really, really) relativists. For a relative truth is just true for me, but not necessarily for anyone else. So, that absolute truth is this; the relativist who thinks relativism is true for everyone is then, their selves, an absolutist. Such a person believes in at least one absolute truth. The dilemma is this: a consistent relativist cannot say Ã¢â‚¬Å“It is an absolute truth for everyone that truth this is only relatively true.Ã¢â‚¬Â Nor can the person say, Ã¢â‚¬Å“It is only relatively true that relativism is true.Ã¢â‚¬Â If it is only relatively true, then relativism may be false for Ã¢â‚¬Å“someÃ¢â‚¬Â or Ã¢â‚¬Å“allÃ¢â‚¬Â others. Why then, should I accept it as true? Either the claim that truth is relative is an absolute claim, which would then falsify the relativistic nature of Ã¢â‚¬Å“relativist positionÃ¢â‚¬Â, or it is an allegation that can never (ever) really be made, because every time you make it you have to add yet another Ã¢â‚¬Å“relativelyÃ¢â‚¬Â on top of the previous Ã¢â‚¬Å“relativityÃ¢â‚¬Â. And this slippery slope begins an infinite regress that will never actualize itself in a real statement. Oh what a tangled web indeed!
The only way the relativist can avoid the agonizing problem of relativism is their admission that there are at least Ã¢â‚¬Å“someÃ¢â‚¬Â absolute truths. As noted, most relativists believe that relativism is absolutely true, and that everyone should be a relativist. And this is the self-destructive nature of relativism. The relativist stands on that dangerous (for their logic) precipice of an absolute truth and wants to make everything else relative!
I hold that if you don't understand this you don't understand science.
Then you would hold the wrong understanding, because you are having a very hard time reconciling theoretical applications with practical (and physical) applications. And IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m still awaiting your backing up your assertions with facts that my illustration is incorrect.
Now if you would be so kind: Dendrochronology gives that the earth age is at least 10000 years. Do you agree or do you think Dendrochronology is wrong?
Absolutely, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be so kind. Do you have someone who can visually attest (i.e. via Ã¢â‚¬Å“observationÃ¢â‚¬Â, one of the main tenants of the empiricism of the scientific method) to the accurateness of any Dendrochronological assertions beyond recorded history?
You then attempt to accuse me of dodging