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

[thistle 2]

 

Yes, I believe I am correct. But would be both agree, that the only way to know i to find the source of truth.

 

Where do you believe the source of truth is?

I don't believe there is a "source of truth". There are truths, there are facts. What they are, is up for debate.

[bov930527 25]

I don't believe there is a "source of truth". There are truths, there are facts. What they are, is up for debate.

 

But here is the problem. You say "there are truths, there are facts". This is an absolute statement. However, according to all of the posts you've written in this thread, we can never find "truth" and "facts". Because every time someone tells you a clear fact, you go back to "ohh no, no no, that's not a fact, that's just, you know... you could be wrong man, tomorrow, we could all be proved wrong." So, based on your arguments in this thread, I will make this statement: there are no truths, there are no facts. Now, thistle, prove me wrong. Give me evidence of a single fact or truth, since you claim they exist, and your claim is positive, you must provide evidence.

 

Regards

[gilbo12345 860]

 

And? Does this mean you think that there are no absolute facts in science? I just gave you some examples....

You "missed" this point...

 

 

It was Popoi who first was claiming that there was no absolutes

 

Post #22 I gave examples of absolute facts

 

Post #25 you attempt to argue that these are not absolute

 

You then took up his mantle when you sent Post #25, in an attempt to show that there are no absolutes.

 

Please read what I said... You started to claim that the absolutes I gave in post 22 are not absolute... You cannot have it both ways since to do so is to contradict yourself.

 

IF you admit that there are absolutes then why make the statements in post 25, why make the statements which led to this thread?

[thistle 2]

 

But here is the problem. You say "there are truths, there are facts". This is an absolute statement. However, according to all of the posts you've written in this thread, we can never find "truth" and "facts". Because every time someone tells you a clear fact, you go back to "ohh no, no no, that's not a fact, that's just, you know... you could be wrong man, tomorrow, we could all be proved wrong." So, based on your arguments in this thread, I will make this statement: there are no truths, there are no facts. Now, thistle, prove me wrong. Give me evidence of a single fact or truth, since you claim they exist, and your claim is positive, you must provide evidence.

 

Regards

We can find facts, of course we can. We are surrounded by them. My opinion is just that we cannot be so sure and arrogant to think that any facts should be unchallengeable, because we know throughout history things we have thought absolute were not. It's obviously an irrelevance when looking at questions such as "do I have 2 arms", but complex issues, the sort of "facts" we need scientists with expertise to investigate, we can never be so sure.

[thistle 2]

 

Please read what I said... You started to claim that the absolutes I gave in post 22 are not absolute... You cannot have it both ways since to do so is to contradict yourself.

 

IF you admit that there are absolutes then why make the statements in post 25, why make the statements which led to this thread?

You are playing silly games. Did you read the first post in the thread? And all the other times I've explained? Now you want to pick individual sentences and phrases and pretend I am saying something different.

 

It's a childish game.

[bov930527 25]

We can find facts, of course we can. We are surrounded by them. My opinion is just that we cannot be so sure and arrogant to think that any facts should be unchallengeable, because we know throughout history things we have thought absolute were not. It's obviously an irrelevance when looking at questions such as "do I have 2 arms", but complex issues, the sort of "facts" we need scientists with expertise to investigate, we can never be so sure.

 

1. "We can find facts"

 

a.) How do you know this?)

b.) Is this a fact we know to be true and thus cannot be proved wrong tomorrow, or ever?

 

2. "We can find facts, of course we can. We are surrounded by them."

 

I would like to see evidence for this please. Again, you are making a positive claime, that's also an absolute, That there are facts and truths. Now, present me one single fact.

 

3. "My opinion is just that we cannot be so sure and arrogant to think that any facts should be unchallengeable"

 

Is the fact that "There are truths, there are facts" unchallengeable?

 

4. "because we know throughout history things we have thought absolute were not"

 

Have you ever made a mistake when doing a homework in math? Does the "fact" that you made a mistake means that math is useless? Same thing here. We make mistakes with absolutes, but like Adam has said countless times, science relies on absolute assumptions and without them it wouldn't work.

 

5. "It's obviously an irrelevance when looking at questions such as "do I have 2 arms", but complex issues, the sort of "facts" we need scientists with expertise to investigate, we can never be so sure."

 

Some believed Earth to be flat, when it's round. That's not a complex issue. You can even investigate this yourself, by simply traveling around the world, no scientist needed. We can never be so sure about anything, right. But we need to assume something, we need absolutes, otherwise the human logic doesn't work. We could be wrong that the world is round aswell, but, we must assume it isn't, and make it an absolute statement, on which further progress is made.

 

Regards

[thistle 2]

 

1. "We can find facts"

 

a.) How do you know this?)

b.) Is this a fact we know to be true and thus cannot be proved wrong tomorrow, or ever?

 

2. "We can find facts, of course we can. We are surrounded by them."

 

I would like to see evidence for this please. Again, you are making a positive claime, that's also an absolute, That there are facts and truths. Now, present me one single fact.

 

3. "My opinion is just that we cannot be so sure and arrogant to think that any facts should be unchallengeable"

 

Is the fact that "There are truths, there are facts" unchallengeable?

 

4. "because we know throughout history things we have thought absolute were not"

 

Have you ever made a mistake when doing a homework in math? Does the "fact" that you made a mistake means that math is useless? Same thing here. We make mistakes with absolutes, but like Adam has said countless times, science relies on absolute assumptions and without them it wouldn't work.

 

5. "It's obviously an irrelevance when looking at questions such as "do I have 2 arms", but complex issues, the sort of "facts" we need scientists with expertise to investigate, we can never be so sure."

 

Some believed Earth to be flat, when it's round. That's not a complex issue. You can even investigate this yourself, by simply traveling around the world, no scientist needed. We can never be so sure about anything, right. But we need to assume something, we need absolutes, otherwise the human logic doesn't work. We could be wrong that the world is round aswell, but, we must assume it isn't, and make it an absolute statement, on which further progress is made.

 

Regards

I genuinely, seriously, have no idea what you think you are arguing with me about. Rather than picking a quote "we can find facts" and demanding I prove it (why?), tell me what the problem is. We seem to actually agree.

[driewerf 30]

This is the ultimate question for mankind. What is truth (John 18:38)? How do we recognize it?

It is indeed a very important question, and the earliest philosophers already struggled with it. Actually, philosophy still struggles with it. But the ultimate question? I doubt that.

 

First I think it's fair to establish there is such a thing.

 

Some philosophers doubt that. The sophists, for example. Now, I'm not a sophist, but I'm just mentioning.

 

 

After that the only logical step is to look for the source.

 

Truth doesn't has a source. Truth is what agrees with the reality.

 

Christ Himself claimed to be that source. "I am the way the truth and the life…"

 

Which is only a claim.

 

We know truth by knowing the correct Source of truth.

 

We know the truth by constantly checking claims against the real world.

 

 

It may sound simplistic

 

indeed.

 

but can you name a more reliable method?

 

Science.

[Calminian 99]

It is indeed a very important question, and the earliest philosophers already struggled with it. Actually, philosophy still struggles with it. But the ultimate question? I doubt that.

 

Hmmm. The fact that you can't make a definite denial speaks volumes

 

Truth doesn't has a source. Truth is what agrees with the reality.

 

Okay, so is that true? How do you know? What is your source for this claim?

 

We know the truth by constantly checking claims against the real world.

 

Is this also true? What is your source for this claim? Yourself? Your own reasonings?

 

You see the problems you start running into?

 

I think the first question you need to wrestle with is, is the source of truth inside of you, or outside of you? Once you resolve that, you're either going to proclaim yourself as an ultimate source of truth, perhaps through your reasoning abilities, or start looking for a better source. You may then end up at the feet of someone like Stephen Hawking, but I believe your journey will end at the Bible, and ultimately, at the person of Jesus Christ.

[thistle 2]

You see the problems you start running into?

 

 

 

Yes. It's a logic game designed to end up with god.

 

Okay, so is that true? How do you know? What is your source for this claim?

[Calminian 99]

 

 

Yes. It's a logic game designed to end up with god.

 

Okay, so is that true? How do you know? What is your source for this claim?

 

Thanks for asking. My source for truth is Jesus Christ. Who is yours? I'm not asking you to defend it, I'm merely asking you to name it.

[thistle 2]

 

Thanks for asking. My source for truth is Jesus Christ. Who is yours? I'm not asking you to defend it, I'm merely asking you to name it.

As I said before, I don't believe there is a "source of truth". There are truths, there are facts. What they are, is up for debate.

[Calminian 99]

As I said before, I don't believe there is a "source of truth". There are truths, there are facts. What they are, is up for debate.

 

And what is your source for this truth you believe? I keep asking because as I said initially, your source is either yourself (your own reasonings and efforts), or someone other than you. When you say there is no source, I take it then you believe yourself to be the source. And that's fine, of course, I was merely asking.

[bov930527 25]

I genuinely, seriously, have no idea what you think you are arguing with me about. Rather than picking a quote "we can find facts" and demanding I prove it (why?), tell me what the problem is. We seem to actually agree.

 

 

As I said before, I don't believe there is a "source of truth". There are truths, there are facts. What they are, is up for debate.

 

 

Look, thistle, we don't disagree, you disagree with yourself (aka selfcontradiction).

 

At one hand, you say "There are truths, there are facts.", then next you say "What they are, is up for debate". Now, if I say "there are no truths, there are no facts", can you prove me wrong? You make a positive claim, hence, you must provide the evidence. Just saying "there are truths, there are facts" does not run with me. You have to give me one single fact as evidence for your claim.

 

Also, please answer to these questions, that I already posted in #56:

 

1) In post #54 you claimed tat "we can find facts". My question is, how do you know this? If any fact we find today is proven false tomorrow, then it wasn't a fact to begin with. And since you say that what information is fact is "up for debate", then how do you know that we can find any facts at all? The only evidence you can give, is to present a fact that we have found.

 

2) Is our ability of finding facts a fact itself? If yes, is it an unchallengeable fact?

 

3) Is it a fact that "there are truths, there are facts", regardles of whether or not we can find them? If yes, is this fact unchallengeable?

 

4) If we make a mistake in one absolute assumption, does it mean that all absolute assumptions may be wrong? Regardless of what your answer is, is your answer itself an absolute assumption, and more importantly, can it be proven wrong?

 

Regards

[Sapiens 0]

That goes along with the idea that you can not prove anything since you must be open to something being different the next time you test it (check out Zeno's paradoxes), that is why science is based on falsification of a hypothesis ... a single such failure is all it takes. Science's "inability" to "prove" anything with absolute certainty is one of its major advantages over religion, you see, you need to have an open mind ... just not so far open that your brains fall out.

[thistle 2]

 

And what is your source for this truth you believe? I keep asking because as I said initially, your source is either yourself (your own reasonings and efforts), or someone other than you. When you say there is no source, I take it then you believe yourself to be the source. And that's fine, of course, I was merely asking.

There is no source. Fact is simply a word, we use it to mean something which is known. But it is not sacred, it can change. There is no source, just an accumulation of evidence.

[thistle 2]

 

 

 

 

Look, thistle, we don't disagree, you disagree with yourself (aka selfcontradiction).

 

At one hand, you say "There are truths, there are facts.", then next you say "What they are, is up for debate". Now, if I say "there are no truths, there are no facts", can you prove me wrong? You make a positive claim, hence, you must provide the evidence. Just saying "there are truths, there are facts" does not run with me. You have to give me one single fact as evidence for your claim.

 

You can't possibly not understand the point. The two sentences are not contradictory. There are facts, but what they are is up for debate. That's not contradictory, it's logical. Have some facts been accepted as being true, based on the evidence? Well, obviously. Do we assume some facts are true without requiring in depth analysis? Well obviously. That does not detract from the point that facts as we currently accept them can - must - be challenged for us to advance.

 

This whole argument seems to hinge on whether something which was once seen as a fact (but which has now been shown to be wrong) still be called a fact, in which case it never was a "fact". Well. Exactly.... if we as a species just accepted the facts as we have been told them, or read them, or taught them in school/church, where would we be.

 

Also, please answer to these questions, that I already posted in #56:

 

Why? You have a point to make, why not make it rather than attempting a word game, which is what this is.

 

1) In post #54 you claimed tat "we can find facts". My question is, how do you know this? If any fact we find today is proven false tomorrow, then it wasn't a fact to begin with. And since you say that what information is fact is "up for debate", then how do you know that we can find any facts at all? The only evidence you can give, is to present a fact that we have found.

 

That's nonsensical. That we need to abandon "facts" previously held makes the point that science cannot take facts as being unchallenged, permanent.

 

2) Is our ability of finding facts a fact itself? If yes, is it an unchallengeable fact?

 

Again, tell me what your point is.

 

3) Is it a fact that "there are truths, there are facts", regardles of whether or not we can find them? If yes, is this fact unchallengeable?

 

Again, tell me what your point is.

 

 

4) If we make a mistake in one absolute assumption, does it mean that all absolute assumptions may be wrong? Regardless of what your answer is, is your answer itself an absolute assumption, and more importantly, can it be proven wrong?

 

Again, tell me what your point is. I suspect I know what it is, but we won't get there playing word games.

 

[thistle 2]

I suspect the ultimate conclusion to this argument is god is the only truth, everything else is fallible, get with the program Thistle.

[bov930527 25]

I suspect the ultimate conclusion to this argument is god is the only truth, everything else is fallible, get with the program Thistle.

 

Actually, my point is this: there are facts that are unchallengeable.

 

Since, if we say, "there are no truths, there are no facts", this statement would be a fact on its own, and thus contradict itself, and thus we know for a fact that there are facts that are unchallengeable. It can't be that there both are and aren't truths and facts, only one of those statements is true. Hence, "there are truths, there are facts" is an unchallengebale logical fact, period. It will not change tomorrow, it will never change.

 

And you still haven't answered my questions. Answer me just one question, thistle:

 

How do you know that we can find facts? Present me with one fact that we have found.

 

Please, please, don't dodge this question by claiming it's "nonsensical".

 

Regards

[thistle 2]

 

Actually, my point is this: there are facts that are unchallengeable.

 

Of course facts can all be challenged, even if the challenge is wrong. Gilbo has 2 arms, I'm quite certain he does. But is it challengeable? Sure. Is evolution a fact? Well, it's complicated and not as simple as Gilbo and his arms, but I think the evidence suggests evolution and the wider theory are facts, although no doubt we don't fully understand the mechanisms and complexities.

 

Since, if we say, "there are no truths, there are no facts", this statement would be a fact on its own, and thus contradict itself ...

(would it? Would just stating there are no truths be a fact? No, it's an assertion without evidence, and wrong in my opinion. So it cant be contradicting itself)

...and thus we know for a fact that there are facts that are unchallengeable. It can't be that there both are and aren't truths and facts, only one of those statements is true. Hence, "there are truths, there are facts" is an unchallengebale logical fact, period. It will not change tomorrow, it will never change.

There are truths and facts. I dont know who is claiming there isn't, not me. I claimed that science could not accept that they are absolutely fixed, the reason being they must be open to challenge.

 

And you still haven't answered my questions. Answer me just one question, thistle:

 

How do you know that we can find facts? Present me with one fact that we have found.

 

Please, please, don't dodge this question by claiming it's "nonsensical".

 

Regards

 

How do we know we can find facts? It's an odd question, we don't actually know this all isn't a simulation in an alien matrix. But evidence suggests it's real, and, if we assume reality, then there must be facts. Only if things were not real would there be no facts, only illusions. Are you suggesting this is all an illusion? Fact (accepting this isn't an illusion) : I just at a (rather tasty) banana, and the bloke next door is playing his radio far too loud for my personal taste. The latter is perhaps a subjective opinion rather than a fact.

[thistle 2]

 

Actually, my point is this: there are facts that are unchallengeable.

Examples of unchallengeable facts?

[bov930527 25]

 

 

Actually, my point is this: there are facts that are unchallengeable.

 

Of course facts can all be challenged, even if the challenge is wrong. Gilbo has 2 arms, I'm quite certain he does. But is it challengeable? Sure. Is evolution a fact? Well, it's complicated and not as simple as Gilbo and his arms, but I think the evidence suggests evolution and the wider theory are facts, although no doubt we don't fully understand the mechanisms and complexities.

 

Since, if we say, "there are no truths, there are no facts", this statement would be a fact on its own, and thus contradict itself ...

(would it? Would just stating there are no truths be a fact? No, it's an assertion without evidence, and wrong in my opinion. So it cant be contradicting itself)

...and thus we know for a fact that there are facts that are unchallengeable. It can't be that there both are and aren't truths and facts, only one of those statements is true. Hence, "there are truths, there are facts" is an unchallengebale logical fact, period. It will not change tomorrow, it will never change.

There are truths and facts. I dont know who is claiming there isn't, not me. I claimed that science could not accept that they are absolutely fixed, the reason being they must be open to challenge.

 

And you still haven't answered my questions. Answer me just one question, thistle:

 

How do you know that we can find facts? Present me with one fact that we have found.

 

Please, please, don't dodge this question by claiming it's "nonsensical".

 

Regards

 

How do we know we can find facts? It's an odd question, we don't actually know this all isn't a simulation in an alien matrix. But evidence suggests it's real, and, if we assume reality, then there must be facts. Only if things were not real would there be no facts, only illusions. Are you suggesting this is all an illusion? Fact (accepting this isn't an illusion) : I just at a (rather tasty) banana, and the bloke next door is playing his radio far too loud for my personal taste. The latter is perhaps a subjective opinion rather than a fact.

 

 

 

Examples of unchallengeable facts?

 

1. "(would it? Would just stating there are no truths be a fact? No, it's an assertion without evidence"

 

It doesn't need evidence, since the claim is negative. Again, it's up to the opposite side, the one claiming that there are truths and facts, to provide evidence.

 

2. "How do we know we can find facts? It's an odd question, we don't actually know this all isn't a simulation in an alien matrix. But evidence suggests it's real, and, if we assume reality, then there must be facts."

 

I agree with this. But the thing is, you claim that we can never be sure whether or not something is a fact/reality. And this is a problem because it leaves open the question whether or not there are any facts at all.

 

3. "Examples of unchallengeable facts?"

 

a.) "There are truths and facts."

b.) "I just at a (rather tasty) banana"

 

Regards

[Mike Summers 454]

The statement that something is unchallengeable is internally illlogical. I think what's really going on here is we have the ability to decide for ourselves what logic is. We can all choose to determine for ourselves if something is illogical to us. What we do often in our society today is to make that which we create more important than we are.

In my humble opinion after considerable thought it seems to me that our native creative abilities require free choice because creativity by definition is the ability to bring something into existence that doesn't exist now or never did.

 

Disagreement is what happens when a creator "abuses" their creativity. It is the heart of what happened between God and Satan. Accordingly God said Satan abused his creative ability by turning his creator into his enemy. God didn't want that to happen and so labeled what Satan created evil or bad.

We face the same dilemma in our rebellion against God. The motion picture War Games is an excellent movie that shows our dilemma.

At specific levels creativity can conflict with the existence of other beings. It is such a powerful tool.

[driewerf 30]

The statement that something is unchallengeable is internally illlogical. .

Are you ready to apply that to the bible?

[Mike Summers 454]

Of course we can challenge anything we wish. That does not mean we will win the challenge. Materialism claims everything is predetermined. That's why I am curious why a materialist would debate anything. Sounds like an exercise in futility to me.