Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Adam Nagy

Is It A Fixed Fact That "nothing In Science Can Be Absolutely Fixed As Fact"

Recommended Posts

And I've directed you to the post where I answered. You must have missed it. Maybe three times?

 

Nothing in science can be absolutely fixed as fact

 

If science was ever happy that the correct explanation had been found, errors would never be identified and new evidence considered. To quote one of my posts above, "science deals with things which are not so simple to explain, to find the facts. That's all I've been saying, there are many areas where we - humanity- are quite sure the facts are known, but you can't rule out the possibility new evidence might change things".

 

Another quote from my previous post:

There are facts. There are truths. But the point about science is that it tries to ensure that everything can be challenged, otherwise errors of the past will never be corrected. This surely isn't controversial.

 

So ... does that answer the question? Tell me what YOU think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nothing in science can be absolutely fixed as fact" is a statement from philosophy about science, not a statement in science of the type thistle is talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to believe the title as well, (being taught it at university), and luckily Ron showed me the light on this very forum. However one should ask, if nothing in science can be deemed a fact, then why is evolution claimed to be a fact?... I had this happen at university, one semester get told there are no facts, then the next semester get told evolution is a fact... ;) ... perhaps they are implying that evolution isn't a part of science? ;)

 

I would say that nothing in science theory can be deemed a fact... This means theories can change with new evidence but also means that things like the statement "I have two arms" can remain a fact, since it isn't theory.

 

Additionally it would still mean that those who claim evolution is a fact, are still being patently absurd.

 

 

Just my take on things.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo:

 

 

I used to believe the title as well, (being taught it at university), and luckily Ron showed me the light on this very forum. However one should ask, if nothing in science can be deemed a fact, then why is evolution claimed to be a fact?... I had this happen at university, one semester get told there are no facts, then the next semester get told evolution is a fact... wink.png ... perhaps they are implying that evolution isn't a part of science? wink.png

 

I would say that nothing in science theory can be deemed a fact... This means theories can change with new evidence but also means that things like the statement "I have two arms" can remain a fact, since it isn't theory.

 

Additionally it would still mean that those who claim evolution is a fact, are still being patently absurd.

 

Just my take on things.

 

That's a pretty good 'take'. But watch, my dear friend; they will dodge this issue just like they dodge almost every other pointed issue we lay before them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nothing in science can be absolutely fixed as fact" is a statement from philosophy about science, not a statement in science of the type thistle is talking about.

Let's see if Thistle elects to defend this compartmentalized view in order to pretend it solves the glaring contradictions relativists run in to along with you.

 

It seems to me that you guys have these silos of reality (and manufactured reality) as long as it suits you. Of course, when relativists elect to be hypercritical of say... Christians... the logic gets seemingly abandoned. Curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo:

 

 

I used to believe the title as well, (being taught it at university), and luckily Ron showed me the light on this very forum.

Ron had some really good threads getting relativists all worked up into a lather as they flailed about defending; how they know for sure that they don't know anything for sure. Even though I know it's a major danger to souls in our era, it's still too funny watching the philosophical pretzels emerge as people try to defend the gobbledygook they're regurgitating from the philosophy classes taught by willfully ignorant self-appointed gurus.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the impression that some scientists particularly evolutionary scientists think of themselves as professional thinkers. The rest of us should be subservient to their ideologies and accept their Scientific Seal Approval (It's Scientific!) as being final as to the validity of evolution.

 

I don't know when poetry migrated into prose but, I don't think was a good idea. Personification-- giving lifelike qualities to inanimate objects or concepts tends to blur accurate thinking. "Science says this, "it" or "the evidence shows..." As you said, Adam a bunch of gobbledygook. From finite sources comes some extravagant claims.

 

If we think about it pretty intensely, we will see the problem with "new" evidence. Unfortunately, we can use the word "evidence" as either "cause" or "effect." That's why I think it's confusing.

 

Plants and animals exist therefore they are evidence. If we say we have new evidence (an effect i.e. evidence) but we have the Same old plants and and and animals has the evidence changed?

 

What seems to have been done inadvertently is change in the meaning of the word "evidence" to a causational function. It's now a cause. Perhaps we might want to consider that the plants and animals (evidence) has not changed but we somehow realized that the hypothesis or theory that allegedly caused the current evidence (the plants and animals that exists now) has been found to be defective.

 

Another way of saying this is the theory or hypothesis that we thought would produce the evidence i.e. the current plants and animals is not capable of doing that. I sometimes call this wrong cause-and-effect assignment.

 

So is there new evidence or have we just realized our old theories or hypotheses won't really cause the effect we thought they would (the plants and the animals that exists now as evidence of a particular theory)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Additionally it would still mean that those who claim evolution is a fact, are still being patently absurd.

 

... and there is the single reason this topic exists, and the pages of absurd discussion that led to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and there is the single reason this topic exists, and the pages of absurd discussion that led to it.

Who is guilty for the absurdity?

 

Thistle, I notice your posts are generally an attempt to "educate" on how the playing field is tilted to favor your views through possibilities and unfixed facts of science. However, look out! You have a totally different set of rules for evaluating the Bible and Christianity.

 

I believe this double standard has been pointed out a time or two ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I've explained in more detail than the single sentence quote what I think, a number of times, that facts exist but science has to be able to challenge them, otherwise we would never have realised some ideas were wrong historically.

 

But attempting to reduce arguments to the absurd in order to claim some sort of 'win', that's what that thread title is about.

The issue is this, Thistle...

 

When you've boiled even a portion of your thinking down to the namesake of this thread, what do you expect us to do with your tomes built on top of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But attempting to reduce arguments to the absurd in order to claim some sort of 'win', that's what that thread title is about.

BTW, the thread title is not just an attempt at reducing your argument to an absurdity. It succeeds. It's your argument that surreptitiously promotes people to affix their own mind-forged manacles... just as you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is this, Thistle...

 

When you've boiled even a portion of your thinking down to the namesake of this thread, what do you expect us to do with your tomes built on top of it?

Arguing a point other than "Well that's obviously absurd" might be nice for a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And I've directed you to the post where I answered. You must have missed it. Maybe three times?

“Nothing in science can be absolutely fixed as fact”

If science was ever happy that the correct explanation had been found, errors would never be identified and new evidence considered. To quote one of my posts above, "science deals with things which are not so simple to explain, to find the facts. That's all I've been saying, there are many areas where we - humanity- are quite sure the facts are known, but you can't rule out the possibility new evidence might change things".

 

I didn't ask you about scientific fact. I asked you if the STATEMENT you made was a 'fact'. I was pretty clear that I was asking about the statement and not actual scientific fact. You're just doing what you do. Duck and dodge.

 

By the way, constantly answering peoples questions with your own questions is getting a bit old. You need to quit. Just answer the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguing a point other than "Well that's obviously absurd" might be nice for a change.

image.jpg

 

To assert something that is obviously self-defeating is patently absurd. If you disagree and wish to defend the converse... please proceed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't ask you about scientific fact. I asked you if the STATEMENT you made was a 'fact'. I was pretty clear that I was asking about the statement and not actual scientific fact. You're just doing what you do. Duck and dodge.

 

By the way, constantly answering peoples questions with your own questions is getting a bit old. You need to quit. Just answer the question.

EQuestions, have you ever read Turner's Creed? I think of it every time I get involved in these two-step discussions where secularists start defending mushy philosophical concepts...

 

Creed

by Steve Turner

 

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin

We believe everything is OK

as long as you don't hurt anyone

to the best of your definition of "hurt",

and to the best of your definition of "knowledge".

 

We believe in s@x before, during, and

after marriage.

We believe in the therapy of sin.

We believe that adultery is fun.

We believe that sodomys OK.

We believe that taboos are taboo.

 

We believe that everything's getting better

despite evidence to the contrary.

The evidence must be investigated

And you can prove anything with evidence.

 

We believe there's something in horoscopes,

UFO's and bent spoons.

Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,

Mohammed, and ourselves.

He was a good moral teacher though we think

His good morals were very bad.

 

We believe that all religions are basically the same-

at least the one that we read was.

They all believe in love and goodness.

They only differ on matters of creation,

sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

 

We believe that after death comes the Nothing

Because when you ask the dead what happens

they say nothing.

If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its

compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps

Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn

 

We believe in Masters and Johnson

What's selected is average.

What's average is normal.

What's normal is good.

 

We believe in total disarmament.

We believe there are direct links between warfare and

bloodshed.

Americans should beat their guns into tractors .

And the Russians would be sure to follow.

 

We believe that man is essentially good.

It's only his behavior that lets him down.

This is the fault of society.

Society is the fault of conditions.

Conditions are the fault of society.

 

We believe that each man must find the truth that

is right for him.

Reality will adapt accordingly.

The universe will readjust.

History will alter.

 

We believe that there is no absolute truth

excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

 

We believe in the rejection of creeds,

And the flowering of individual thought.

 

 

Postscript:

If chance be the Father of all flesh,

disaster is his rainbow in the sky

and when you hear:

 

"State of Emergency!"

 

"Sniper Kills Ten!"

 

"Troops on Rampage!"

 

"Whites go Looting!"

 

"Bomb Blasts School!"

 

It is but the sound of man

worshipping his maker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To assert something that is obviously self-defeating is patently absurd. If you disagree and wish to defend the converse... please proceed.

You may have noticed that I already brought up a point earlier in this thread. Your response didn't actually address any of it, other than to imply that there were "glaring contradictions", and the usual mention of a double standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may have noticed that I already brought up a point earlier in this thread. Your response didn't actually address any of it, other than to imply that there were "glaring contradictions", and the usual mention of a double standard.

I believe I brought up an issue regarding that point...

 

Let's see if Thistle elects to defend this compartmentalized view in order to pretend it solves the glaring contradictions relativists run in to along with you.

 

It seems to me that you guys have these silos of reality (and manufactured reality) as long as it suits you. Of course, when relativists elect to be hypercritical of say... Christians... the logic gets seemingly abandoned. Curious.

So let me ask you... Are you ok having ideas that fly in contradiction to each other as long you build mentally constructed silos to pretend they don't effect each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I brought up an issue regarding that point...

 

So let me ask you... Are you ok having ideas that fly in contradiction to each other as long you build mentally constructed silos to pretend they don't effect each other?

What is the contradiction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the contradiction?

Popoi, you defended Thistle by saying...

 

"Nothing in science can be absolutely fixed as fact" is a statement from philosophy about science, not a statement in science of the type thistle is talking about.

What is the purpose of this statement? Do you agree with Thistle's assertion or not?

 

Even if the statement IS about the philosophy of science it still falls on its own sword as an irrationality.

 

Do you know why?

 

The phrase "Nothing in science can be absolutely fixed as fact" has an absolute assertion being implied.

 

For show, let's examine the exact opposite of Thistle's assertion to determine if it's false.

 

The exact opposite would be; "Somethings in science can be absolutely fixed as fact"

 

Hmmmmmm... That doesn't seem unreasonable...

 

I'd like to assert something one step further and tell me if it's reasonable; I say, without fixed facts it is impossible to do science.

 

Chew on that. ;)

 

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the purpose of this statement?

 

Do you agree with Thistle's assertion or not?

Based on what I think he meant by "fact", yes. He seems to be using it to mean something equivalent to "theory", which I think is causing some confusion.

 

Even if the statement IS about the philosophy of science it still falls on its own sword as an irrationality.

 

Do you know why?

 

The phrase "Nothing in science can be absolutely fixed as fact" has an absolute assertion being implied.

Ok? Like I said, that's only contradictory if that phrase is a thing in science.

 

Also when did absolute assertions enter this? Is that a different thing than a fixed fact?

 

I'd like to assert something one step further and tell me if it's reasonable; I say, without fixed facts it is impossible to do science.

Can you identify a fixed fact in science? How do you know that there is no evidence which could contradict that fact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, that's only contradictory if that phrase is a thing in science.

In your world there is a reality outside of science that supports gobbledygook?

 

Also when did absolute assertions enter this? Is that a different thing than a fixed fact?

Fixed fact... Absolute... Synonym... Words that mean the same thing...

 

Can you identify a fixed fact in science? How do you know that there is no evidence which could contradict that fact?

Before you and I have any hope of identifying facts we must first assume they are real.

 

Science is predicated on the assumption that events normally obey logical reason and a law adherent progression that is repeatable and understandable.

 

If that isn't awash with all kinds of absolute fact assuming... I don't know what is :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a pretty good 'take'. But watch, my dear friend; they will dodge this issue just like they dodge almost every other pointed issue we lay before them.

 

Thanks Cal. It seems your prediction was correct ;)

 

 

Based on what I think he meant by "fact", yes. He seems to be using it to mean something equivalent to "theory", which I think is causing some confusion.

 

Oh so to an evolutionist the word "fact" now means "theory"... Which totally contradicts the definition of fact...

 

Is this how evolutionists demonstrate how their worldview is correct? Redefine words so they give impressions of authority?

 

Full Definition of FACT
1
: a thing done: as
a obsolete : feat
b : crime <accessory after the fact>
c archaic : action
2
archaic : performance, doing
3
: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4
a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>
b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5
: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

 

the·o·rynoun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\

: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory?show=0&t=1406359214

 

 

So the evolutionist wants to try and confuse something that isn't proven to be true, by calling it something which is actually true, (absolute)...

 

Also when did absolute assertions enter this? Is that a different thing than a fixed fact?

 

The definition of fact, itself is defined as absolute... See above.

 

This is why its so sad...

 

 

Can you identify a fixed fact in science? How do you know that there is no evidence which could contradict that fact?

 

It is an absolute fact that we have computers capable of the internet.

 

It is an absolute fact that wood has the potential to combust (other factors needed though)

 

It is an absolute fact that I have blue eyes

 

It is an absolute fact that I have 2 arms... (see below where I already mentioned this, so it seems you didn't read the thread fully).

 

I used to believe the title as well, (being taught it at university), and luckily Ron showed me the light on this very forum. However one should ask, if nothing in science can be deemed a fact, then why is evolution claimed to be a fact?... I had this happen at university, one semester get told there are no facts, then the next semester get told evolution is a fact... wink.png ... perhaps they are implying that evolution isn't a part of science? wink.png

 

I would say that nothing in science theory can be deemed a fact... This means theories can change with new evidence but also means that things like the statement "I have two arms" can remain a fact, since it isn't theory.

 

Additionally it would still mean that those who claim evolution is a fact, are still being patently absurd.

 

 

Just my take on things.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo, an important point is worth mentioning here.

 

The danger of reducing an argument to an absurdity, especially over any length of time, is that you're applying lines of thought and assumptions that you fundamentally disagree with to get your point across.

 

An obtuse or deceptive opponent will try to get you to defend those temporarily employed assumptions in another context to get you to defend the absurdity, exactly opposite of your original intent.

 

It's surprising to see how often it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo, an important point is worth mentioning here.

 

The danger of reducing an argument to an absurdity, especially over any length of time, is that you're applying lines of thought and assumptions that you fundamentally disagree with to get your point across.

 

An obtuse or deceptive opponent will try to get you to defend those temporarily employed assumptions in another context to get you to defend the absurdity, exactly opposite of your original intent.

 

It's surprising to see how often it works.

I'm not sure the tactic works as such, but it's certainly attempted regularly, here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

It is an absolute fact that we have computers capable of the internet.

 

That's not really a fact, it isn't really the computer that's "capable of the internet", I'm not sure that makes sense. The computer is able to connect to send and receive information using additional technology, and software, so it's a little more complicated than computers "capable of the internet". So ... is that really a fact? Or a compromised and woolly generalisation?

 

This fact stuff, it's complicated, it seems.

 

It is an absolute fact that wood has the potential to combust (other factors needed though)

 

The potential to combust. Is that an "absolute fact"? Or is it another woolly approximation of all the complex circumstances and conditions required for certain types of wood to burn? Might it be possible that at one time we knew wood burned, but not how or why? Scientific knowledge explained it and helped us adjust our past misunderstandings, changing the "facts". This could apply to every other "absolute fact" you care to mention ... with new evidence, it might change. You might be wrong, even if you think you are right, and the same applies to science. And religion(s).

 

It is an absolute fact that I have blue eyes

 

Do you? Or is blue just the wavelength of the light reflected? I was under the impression that blue eyes were only blue for the same reason the sky is blue, due to the light being scattered, more blue light is scattered than red for example. People with non blue eyes have more pigments (yellows reds) in their eyes than those who appear to have blue eyes. So ... is it really an absolute fact that you have blue eyes?

 

It is an absolute fact that I have 2 arms... (see below where I already mentioned this, so it seems you didn't read the thread fully).

 

I'll defer to your intimate knowledge of your appendages.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms