1. If that is how you wish to see it I can't argue. Granted there are many who would feel that something that is "proven" by science thus is claimed "truth". However those are not my words, nor are they my views on this issue.
It’s not a matter of how I see it, or how you see it. It’s a matter of what is true, and what is not. AND that we, as people don’t ‘make’ truth; but rather that we observe what is true and what is false.
2. If you are claiming there is temperature outside as an absolute then I agree with you. If you claim that it is 19 degrees outside your house then that is relative since it is relative to your position (the claim of at your house means it isn't absolutely true for the rest of the world), as you demonstrated. Its very hard for me to explain what I am getting at.
I understand perfectly what you are getting at. But the fact remains that the temperature outside my house this morning was 19 degrees. And that fact is absolute in its truth, AND it was relative to my location geographically. And, as a fact, I tested this reading using the empirical scientific method, FOUR separate times; therefore it is validated as absolutely true. Therefore it is absolute in its truth, and is absolutely NOT falsifiable. Only hypotheticals (models and theories) that are unproven OR proven false, are falsifiable.
3. I have no idea of the concept of relativism, (I am very new to the philosophy of science, as you no doubt realise). The only thing I am trying to get across is caution. Caution because we have no idea that what we claim, "in the name is science" is absolutely true. Newtonian Laws of physics breakdown in the nano-world of particles hence those laws are not absolute since they do not apply to that sphere of influence, rather they are relative to the spheres of influence that they do apply.... Luckily this development continued since no-one argues whether Newtonian physics are absolute or not, (there is no agenda with them being called relative rather than absolute).
Hence with evolution, if we claim evolution as an absolute then we would never look for answers that lie outside of its influence. This to me is very unscientific since it cuts out the scope a person can follow the evidence.... (Which is demonstrated by the bias in scientific papers). Furthermore claiming evolution as an absolute will not allow scientists to follow up doubts or test the claims of evolution, since its an "absolute" why should they?
We can absolutely claim as absolutely true, those things (phenomena) that have been validated (proven true). Not those things (phenomena) that have been unproven or disproven. Therefore to make claims for any truth concerning macro-evolution would fall with the parameters of “falsifiable”. Therefor your ‘cautionary’ tone is well advised when dealing with macro-evolution. BUT, claims for falsifiability concerning the scientific test on phenomena such as your right arm, OR the temperature outside my house this morning fail, as these are absolute in their truth.
Now, concerning Newtonian Laws of physics: Are not they absolute in the spheres of influence that they do apply? That is a rhetorical question, as you and I both know the answer is in the affirmative. The problem with your reasoning, is that you (not you really, but the evolutionists propagandists at the university) is that you are changing the parameters of the test. Can we then discuss where Newton tested “Nano-world” particles using the empirical scientific method?
We can discuss that further is you wish, but I am hoping you see the irrelevance in that argumentation. Either way, it’ll be fine.
4. If you read my first claim I said there are no absolutes in science... I totally agree that there can be absolutes in life without the need for scientific revelation. Hence I see your claim here as a mistake of what I am attempting to propose.
And I totally disagree with your assertion that “there are no absolutes in science”. In fact, I provided two examples that refute that very statement. The fact that there are “absolutes in life” itself proves there “are absolutes in science”. I am not mistaking what you are attempting to propose, I am saying that what you are saying is incorrect. And, I am harboring no malice toward you in my assertions; I am simply providing logic and science to show that the falsifiability principle is itself false.
5. I am absolutely sure because anything in science can be falsified. Lets say I claim X is true due to evidence and testing.... and then tomorrow you find with more testing and research that X is falsified... It is no longer an absolute truth, (it could still be relative due to the nature of the falsification, see Newtonian Physics). This is my entire point.
Hence how can we claim anything in science as absolute when there could be grounds to make it not absolute in the future, in regards to new evidence.
If things in science can be falsified then we must remain vigilant to regard them in that light, we never know what is around the corner and we cannot know everything. So in that light we must remain cautious to not claim we know everything.
What you are failing to realize here is that you are making an “absolute” statement about how something cannot be “absolute” (this totally negates your entire statement)! Further, if you set stringent standards and parameters in your application of the empirical scientific method (as you should), and verified the findings as true, but the following it didn’t, then something changed within those standards and parameters! Therefore you didn’t falsify your previous findings, you have a complete new set of findings.
Which begs the question about your assertion: What, within Newtonian Laws, did you falsify? Or are you settings NEW standards and parameters with which you are judging the truth of those Laws?
6. Yes and as I said it defies what they said about the nature of science. Hence evolution is not truth, but just because die-hard evolutionists maintain faith that it is absolute doesn't mean you should accept it as absolute. (Plus I am sure with the plethora of evidence given on this forum against evolution that you could not maintain that evolution is an absolute just due on these evidences alone)
No… We cannot accept macro-evolution as truth (let alone absolute truth) due to the fact that NONE of it has been validated via the empirical scientific method. That is the standard…
7. Would you rather I not get my degree and stay in the soul-sucking job I was in before? I went to university for a degree so I can get a better employment and start to thrive in life, rather than feel like I am in a hole and get depressed about life. I do not set the topics I need to complete my degree, I only intend to stick it out, to get my qualifications. My qualifications do not require me to agree with everything I get taught, this is an important distinction.
Yes I see it as indoctrination, that is why I said that I do not agree with their ideas, except on that falsifiability leaves the door open to falsify the "truth" claimed by science.
Absolutely not! And I would wonder where you could contrive such an idea? What I am imparting upon you is the skill of critical thinking when dealing with the fallaciousness of the falsifiability principle.
You need to finish your degree as a rational thinking person, and not as a lemming following along in the fallacious footsteps of evolutionary academia.
8. ???? So you are claiming evolution as an absolute? Since evolution is claimed to be scientific. I have no problem with science being a mode of investigation about how the world works, and it is indeed useful in that sense, however I still maintain my words of caution in that we cannot know everything and what we claim to be true may not be so, (it may indeed be true, but then how do we know if it is or not).
No one said “we can know everything”. In fact, the Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 13:12 -
“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”
We will not even come close to knowing everything in this world; that will have to await the next. But those things we know as truth, we do know “absolutely”! Yes, we SHOULD be cautious. Not so much concerning those things that we KNOW to be true (Truth – That which corresponds with reality), but rather those things that we know NOT to be true, and those things we don’t know, yet others tell us are true.
9. And I have no objection for that except it is proven "true" in regards to the mode of experimentation used to claim it is true, (thus is relative to those conditions used, see Newtonian Physics).
Once again, you use the relativist’s argument for falsifiability. Which begs the question: What have you proven to be false concerning Newtonian Law? Or are you simply tweaking the parameters?
10. I do agree with truth and there are truths that can be realised outside of science.... Like I am sure a Joe Doe loving his wife is a truth. I just maintain that in science we need to be cautious in the degree of certainty we give such things. Be scientifically skeptical of science, not to the point it clouds our judgement, but skeptical none the less.
And there are absolute truths that can be validated WITHIN the empirical scientific method. Just as there are non-truths that were proven incorrect (invalidated) WITHIN the empirical scientific method. Be logically AND scientifically skeptical about EVERYTHING that is not validated as true. You don’t have to be cautious about whether or not an open flame with burn your exposed skin when held too closely, you know that as an absolute truth! But you can absolutely be cautious concerning whether or not an “unproven” pare of protective gloves will keep your hand from being burnt (until you verify via the empirical scientific method the capabilities of said gloves).