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

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.

 

Not really a fact?...

 

Do we have computers capable of the internet?

 

Yes or No?

 

If yes then the statement is a fact.

If no then you had better have a good reason for us writing posts on this forum... on computers... which have access to the internet...

 

 

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).

 

Can wood combust? (given the right conditions, as stated before in the proviso)

 

Yes or No?

 

If Yes then it is a fact

If No then please explain the purpose of wood heaters...

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Sigh... think.gif This response demonstrates the inability of evolutionists to admit they have done or said something wrong. The absurd must be possible if the alternative leads to demonstrating something an evolutionist claims is false...

 

Our eyes are not the same as the sky... If you really knew why the sky is blue you wouldn't be making such an absurd claim... Since if what you state was true then our eyes would change colour based on the distance of our eyes... Since my eyes do not go through such a change obviously the colour in our eyes are not the same as the sky... Additionally this means that all people would have the same eye colour since the colour is determined by distance... Again this isn't the case.

 

As the path that sunlight takes through our atmosphere increases in length, ROYGBIV encounters more and more atmospheric particles. This results in the scattering of greater and greater amounts of yellow light. During sunset hours, the light passing through our atmosphere to our eyes tends to be most concentrated with red and orange frequencies of light. For this reason, the sunsets have a reddish-orange hue. The effect of a red sunset becomes more pronounced if the atmosphere contains more and more particles. The presence of sulfur aerosols (emitted as an industrial pollutant and by volcanic activity) in our atmosphere contributes to some magnificent sunsets (and some very serious environmental problems).

 

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/light/Lesson-2/Blue-Skies-and-Red-Sunsets

 

 

Additionally you're ignoring the core principles of vision...

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/light/u12l2c.cfm

 

 

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.

 

So it is a fact then?... Because I do have 2 arms...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not really a fact?...

 

Do we have computers capable of the internet?

 

Yes or No?

 

Are computers capable of the internet? That's like asking is your table lamp capable of lightbulb. It makes no sense. Which is my point. It can CONNECT TO a network and therefore the internet. Ask the right question, and there will undoubtedly be a "fact" in there somewhere. But if you don't understand what you are talking about, then no, something you assume may not actually be a fact at all. (to be clear, I'm not talking about others, I know very little about anything that I talk about, which is of course why my point that started this thread is correct)

 

Hence my whole point about science never assuming facts cannot be challenged, seems sensible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sigh... think.gif This response demonstrates the inability of evolutionists to admit they have done or said something wrong. The absurd must be possible if the alternative leads to demonstrating something an evolutionist claims is false...

 

Our eyes are not the same as the sky... If you really knew why the sky is blue you wouldn't be making such an absurd claim... Since if what you state was true then our eyes would change colour based on the distance of our eyes... Since my eyes do not go through such a change obviously the colour in our eyes are not the same as the sky... Additionally this means that all people would have the same eye colour since the colour is determined by distance... Again this isn't the case.

 

I said my understanding was blue eyes appear blue for the same reason that the sky appears blue, ie light scattering, I didn't claim the colour in our eyes are the same as the sky. There seems to be different causes of the light scattering. But the point is right - the sky is not blue. Your eyes are not blue.

 

A blue iris in an eye is due to Tyndall scattering in a turbid layer in the iris. Brown and black irises have the same layer except with more melanin in it. The melanin absorbs light. In the absence of melanin, the layer is translucent (i.e., the light passing through is randomly and diffusely scattered) and a noticeable portion of the light that enters this turbid layer re-emerges via a scattered path. That is, there is backscatter, the redirection of the lightwaves back out to the open air. Scattering takes place to a greater extent at the shorter wavelengths. The longer wavelengths tend to pass straight through the turbid layer with unaltered paths, and then encounter the next layer further back in the iris, which is a light absorber. Thus, the longer wavelengths are not reflected (by scattering) back to the open air as much as the shorter wavelengths are. Since the shorter wavelengths are the blue wavelengths, this gives rise to a blue hue in the light that comes out of the eye.[2][3] The blue iris is an example of a structural color, in contradistinction to a pigment color.

 

So again my point holds. You say it's an absolute fact that you have blue eyes. But it's not. They appear blue, but fact? No, there's an explanation for why they appear blue, blue pigmentation isn't the reason, it's the Tyndall effect makes them appear blue.

 

Doesn't this - even if you disagree with the Tyndall explanation - prove my point about science and "facts"? You and I both think we know things for sure, and throughout or lives we will be repeatedly and embarassingly proven to be wrong over and over. Why would science therefore ever deny the possibility that we just got it wrong? Everything is up for revisiting in science.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Not really a fact?...

 

Do we have computers capable of the internet?

 

Yes or No?

 

Are computers capable of the internet? That's like asking is your table lamp capable of lightbulb. It makes no sense. Which is my point. It can CONNECT TO a network and therefore the internet. Ask the right question, and there will undoubtedly be a "fact" in there somewhere. But if you don't understand what you are talking about, then no, something you assume may not actually be a fact at all. (to be clear, I'm not talking about others, I know very little about anything that I talk about, which is of course why my point that started this thread is correct)

 

Hence my whole point about science never assuming facts cannot be challenged, seems sensible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sigh... think.gif This response demonstrates the inability of evolutionists to admit they have done or said something wrong. The absurd must be possible if the alternative leads to demonstrating something an evolutionist claims is false...

 

Our eyes are not the same as the sky... If you really knew why the sky is blue you wouldn't be making such an absurd claim... Since if what you state was true then our eyes would change colour based on the distance of our eyes... Since my eyes do not go through such a change obviously the colour in our eyes are not the same as the sky... Additionally this means that all people would have the same eye colour since the colour is determined by distance... Again this isn't the case.

 

I said my understanding was blue eyes appear blue for the same reason that the sky appears blue, ie light scattering, I didn't claim the colour in our eyes are the same as the sky. There seems to be different causes of the light scattering. But the point is right - the sky is not blue. Your eyes are not blue.

 

A blue iris in an eye is due to Tyndall scattering in a turbid layer in the iris. Brown and black irises have the same layer except with more melanin in it. The melanin absorbs light. In the absence of melanin, the layer is translucent (i.e., the light passing through is randomly and diffusely scattered) and a noticeable portion of the light that enters this turbid layer re-emerges via a scattered path. That is, there is backscatter, the redirection of the lightwaves back out to the open air. Scattering takes place to a greater extent at the shorter wavelengths. The longer wavelengths tend to pass straight through the turbid layer with unaltered paths, and then encounter the next layer further back in the iris, which is a light absorber. Thus, the longer wavelengths are not reflected (by scattering) back to the open air as much as the shorter wavelengths are. Since the shorter wavelengths are the blue wavelengths, this gives rise to a blue hue in the light that comes out of the eye.[2][3] The blue iris is an example of a structural color, in contradistinction to a pigment color.

 

So again my point holds. You say it's an absolute fact that you have blue eyes. But it's not. They appear blue, but fact? No, there's an explanation for why they appear blue, blue pigmentation isn't the reason, it's the Tyndall effect makes them appear blue.

 

Doesn't this - even if you disagree with the Tyndall explanation - prove my point about science and "facts"? You and I both think we know things for sure, and throughout or lives we will be repeatedly and embarassingly proven to be wrong over and over. Why would science therefore ever deny the possibility that we just got it wrong? Everything is up for revisiting in science.

 

I see you ignored gilbo's other point. He has 2 arms. Is that a fact? Abraham Lincoln is dead. Is that a fact?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you ignored gilbo's other point. He has 2 arms. Is that a fact? Abraham Lincoln is dead. Is that a fact?

I think you'll find my response to his "2 arms" point was this:

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

 

I am delighted to accept Gilbo's assertion that he has a full complement of arms. I don't even require proof, I trust him.

 

 

Btw, I don't really think the fact (see) that Gilbo has 2 arms, and I accept that, in any way refutes my point - that (as with blue eyes) things we often think of as facts can be shown, after more evidence, to be not facts. Science surely embraces this attitude, otherwise how would be find out which previously accepted facts were in fact incorrect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you ignored gilbo's other point. He has 2 arms. Is that a fact? Abraham Lincoln is dead. Is that a fact?

 

We'll let him enjoy this logical limbo a little longer wink.png

 

 

I think you'll find my response to his "2 arms" point was this:

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

 

I am delighted to accept Gilbo's assertion that he has a full complement of arms. I don't even require proof, I trust him.

 

 

Btw, I don't really think the fact (see) that Gilbo has 2 arms, and I accept that, in any way refutes my point - that (as with blue eyes) things we often think of as facts can be shown, after more evidence, to be not facts. Science surely embraces this attitude, otherwise how would be find out which previously accepted facts were in fact incorrect?

 

So my having two arms are indeed a fact, and therefore dismisses your claim that there are no facts in science... My having two arms fits within physiology which last I checked is an aspect of science. Hence the claim

 

popoi, on 26 Jul 2014 - 05:07 AM, said:snapback.png

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

 

Is false...

 

 

 

With the blue eye thing, I do have blue eyes... Anyone can look at my eyes and see that they are blue. It is written on my birth certificate that I have blue eyes... Does this mean my birth certificate is not factual? Should I be going to jail due to providing the Gov. with false information?

 

All I said was that my eyes are blue... Whether this is due to structural colour or pigmentation it makes no difference... My eyes are blue... that is a fact...

 

In order to argue that my eyes are not blue you'd have to disregard all evidence that that they are in fact blue... As I said it seems that the evolutionist will endorse the absurd in order to escape admitting error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

With the blue eye thing, I do have blue eyes... Anyone can look at my eyes and see that they are blue. It is written on my birth certificate that I have blue eyes... Does this mean my birth certificate is not factual? Should I be going to jail due to providing the Gov. with false information?

 

All I said was that my eyes are blue... Whether this is due to structural colour or pigmentation it makes no difference... My eyes are blue... that is a fact...

 

In order to argue that my eyes are not blue you'd have to disregard all evidence that that they are in fact blue... As I said it seems that the evolutionist will endorse the absurd in order to escape admitting error.

Brilliant. Completely ignoring the point that the "fact" (so called) that you gave as an absolute is, in fact, not a "fact", but considerably more complex.

 

Analagous, some might say, to the "fact" an illusionist was channelling demons when he performed a trick.

Or the "fact" that there was a global flood, as written in the bible.

Or the "fact" that thunder & lightning were supernatural, until we discovered how they work.

 

If science accepts "facts" as being fixed, we'd be in a sorry state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If science accepts "facts" as being fixed, we'd be in a sorry state.

Thistle, your conflation of concepts will keep you from gaining truth.

 

The fact (;)) that we make mistakes has no impact on whether facts themselves are fixed. In fact (;)) by its very definition the use of concepts such as "fact" implies an understanding that exposes your double-mindedness.

 

In fact (;)) the fact (;)) that you are arguing for the correctness of your reality to others demonstrates that you don't believe what you are purporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thistle, your conflation of concepts will keep you from gaining truth.

 

The fact (wink.png) that we make mistakes has no impact on whether facts themselves are fixed. In fact (wink.png) by its very definition the use of concepts such as "fact" implies an understanding that exposes your double-mindedness.

 

I've never said or considered that facts are not fixed. Our understanding of what we see around us, and our interpretation of "facts", correct or otherwise, is a different matter. They aren't fixed purely because we could be wrong.

 

 

In fact (wink.png) the fact (wink.png) that you are arguing for the correctness of your reality to others demonstrates that you don't believe what you are purporting.

I'm arguing my view. I'm not claiming I'm going to be right. You and gilbo however, and all who hold religious views which you believe ARE "truth", you are the ones with certainty that you are right. And yet there is no difference between us, you just won't accept the possibility that you are wrong on certain things. Such certainty is dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant. Completely ignoring the point that the "fact" (so called) that you gave as an absolute is, in fact, not a "fact", but considerably more complex.

 

I also had other examples, one of which you (unintentionally) conceded was a fact (meaning you conceded the point)... So who is ignoring who's point here?... I still have 2 arms...

 

 

As I said, I have blue eyes... that is a fact... whether the blue is from pigmentation or another source doesn't change the fact that I have blue eyes... So you're trying to argue a point with something which does nothing for the point you are arguing. It's absolute lunacy.

 

Or the "fact" that thunder & lightning were supernatural, until we discovered how they work.

 

Um no, this is a belief... Please try and learn the difference between a belief and a fact :) I already gave you the definition, please use it.

 

 

If science accepts "facts" as being fixed, we'd be in a sorry state.

 

Well firstly science isn't sentient so it cannot "accept" anything... Science is simply a method of investigation.

 

Where is Fjuri when you need him, people personifying science was a bugbear of his... I guess until we kept showing that it is mainly the evolutionists who do such.

 

 

As given before the very definition of fact means it is indeed "fixed"... So the "facts" you are arguing for or about are not facts at all.

 

Simply put, the definition alone ensures that your belief is incorrect. Let alone the other arguments given in this thread, and my examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... So you're trying to argue a point with something which does nothing for the point you are arguing. It's absolute lunacy.

I believe thistle's worldview will force him to kick and scream on his point until he's twisted into a proverbial pretzel because it's his fallback rescue device to avoid pondering realities that interfere with his constructed outlook.

 

I guess we all have rescue devices. I started this thread with the express purpose of, yet again, squashing this one as a particularly bad one.

 

So far so good. :)

 

Um no, this is a belief... Please try and learn the difference between a belief and a fact :) I already gave you the definition, please use it.

Are you willing to bet that it won't happen without thistle embarking on a weighty and healthy paradigm shift?

 

Well firstly science isn't sentient so it cannot "accept" anything... Science is simply a method of investigation.

I always enjoy it when you reiterate this point, Gilbo. It needs to be said. Repeatedly it seems.

 

I guess creatures that are geared for acknowledgement to their creator will personify inanimate objects/concepts to replace that starved portion of their being that knows acknowledging God is not optional. Since they can't shut it off they just pervert it to worship the creature rather than the creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I also had other examples, one of which you (unintentionally) conceded was a fact (meaning you conceded the point)... So who is ignoring who's point here?... I still have 2 arms....

 

Ha. Actually I intentionally agreed you had 2 arms, as I said I trust you when you say you do. But that there are facts is not in question. What is in question is how do we know something IS a fact. Some of yours weren't, proving the point. Some were, of course. So what would the thinking man/woman do in such a complicated nuanced situation, where some of the things we think are facts are, and some prove not to be? Stick rigidly (dogmatically?) to a position, grimly hanging on to the "facts" as we have been taught/believe them to be? Or accept that facts must be open to challenge.

 

Thats all this is. As I've said numerous times ... it's surely uncontroversial. Except here, it seems.

 

 

As I said, I have blue eyes... that is a fact... whether the blue is from pigmentation or another source doesn't change the fact that I have blue eyes... So you're trying to argue a point with something which does nothing for the point you are arguing. It's absolute lunacy.

 

No, you don't have blue eyes. There is no blue. They look blue due to the scattering of the light and the frequency of the light returned to the viewer. There surely couldn't be a better example - we all think our eyes (if blue) are blue. But they aren't. People thought lightning was supernatural. It wasn't. There's an obvious parallel, only by being open to challenge and new evidence will any "fact" be found to be incorrect, and corrected. Science.

 

 

Um no, this is a belief... Please try and learn the difference between a belief and a fact smile.png I already gave you the definition, please use it.

 

Hey, you think your eyes are blue rolleyes.gif I'm not sure you're my goto guy for definitions.

 

 

Well firstly science isn't sentient so it cannot "accept" anything... Science is simply a method of investigation.

 

Granted, it's flowery imprecise use of language, shoot me. You know full well what I'm saying but if you must ...

 

 

Where is Fjuri when you need him, people personifying science was a bugbear of his... I guess until we kept showing that it is mainly the evolutionists who do such.

 

I'm not an evolutionist, no more than I'm a gravitationalist or a fossilist. And I'm not sure which is worse, "personifying" science, or claiming an absolute fact which isn't true? Hey ho, none of us is perfect.

 

 

As given before the very definition of fact means it is indeed "fixed"... So the "facts" you are arguing for or about are not facts at all.

 

Blue eyes? We all know of "facts" which turned out not to be true. Are you special and think this doesn't apply to you?

 

 

 

Simply put, the definition alone ensures that your belief is incorrect. Let alone the other arguments given in this thread, and my examples.

 

Word salad that simply says "I'm right, you're wrong, nanananana. Na."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe thistle's worldview will force him to kick and scream on his point until he's twisted into a proverbial pretzel because it's his fallback rescue device to avoid pondering realities that interfere with his constructed outlook.

 

Or, alternatively, you too could consider if the "facts" you hold absolute and fixed may indeed be incorrect. Would your "constructed outlook" be capable of spotting such errors? Or would they be dismissed as products of an evolutionist securalist worldview.

 

I guess we all have rescue devices. I started this thread with the express purpose of, yet again, squashing this one as a particularly bad one.

 

So far so good. smile.png

 

As long as you're happy, that's the important thing.

 

Are you willing to bet that it won't happen without thistle embarking on a weighty and healthy paradigm shift?

 

You mean it won't happen until I see the error of my ways and see the "absolute facts"? ie your opinion?

 

I always enjoy it when you reiterate this point, Gilbo. It needs to be said. Repeatedly it seems.

 

Seems like a microcosm of many of the arguments made since I've been here. Focus on the minutiae, and - accidentally perhaps - distract from the larger point.

 

I guess creatures that are geared for acknowledgement to their creator will personify inanimate objects/concepts to replace that starved portion of their being that knows acknowledging God is not optional. Since they can't shut it off they just pervert it to worship the creature rather than the creator.

 

Yeah, that's the most likely explanation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a little guy, my mom and dad grabbed my hand when we were about to cross the street--especially a busy street. The idea was that I was not skilled enough to determine if I had enough interval between an approaching vehicle and whether my little legs could carry me fast enough to get safely on the other side so I would'nt be hit by a car approaching. In other words I was'nt scientific enough.--I wasn't skilled enough to make a decision about what may happen in the future.

 

As I often say, given a cause what its most likely effect will be and given an effect what it's most likely cause was. Reasoning is what science is. Many young children are killed every year by poor judgment (reasoning for not being scientific enough) when crossing a street.

 

The essence of science is our reasoning ability. All of us have this innate ability. However some of us seem to want to believe there is another version of this ability that exist as an entity. As Gilbo and Adam have so eloquently stated in "other words" that there seems to be only our ability to reason and not some nonexistent entity called science. Our ability to reason and science are the same thing. If we give lifelike qualities to inanimate objects such as a thing, a concept or an idea we're personifying it. That may be fine if we're writing poetry but, it has very little place in everyday reasoning--the scientific process.

 

In the 60s doctors began giving thalidomide to pregnant women. It had been used to tranquilize horses successfully and so migrated into being prescribed by doctors for pregnant women. Nine months later birth defects began appearing in the mother's that took the tranquilizer. Someone had wrongly predicted (reasons) no side effect for the tranquilizer in human populations. When they discovered they were, wrong the doctors stopped prescribing it. The poor baby that was born with flippers instead of hands suffered because of poor reasoning--poor cause-and-effect assignment.

 

Now it's a "fact" that thalidomide causes birth defects in pregnant women.

 

The person administering the, "Scientific Seal of Approval" or in some cases The "Scientific Seal of Disapproval" is worshiping his or her own thinking as a sort of superego.

 

Evidence, the effect of a particular cause is therefore subject to interpretation by an "unreasonable" being who has confused his or her reasoning ability with an external nonexistent entity often called "Science!"

 

It seems to me that if we can't come to an agreement and stop misusing the term science like it's some all-knowing concept, we will never be able to agree with what a fact actually is. As Benjamin Franklin so aptly said, "Convinced against our will of the same opinion still."

 

Logically then, "if I want to believe it's true then it is truly a "fact." We are the owners of our definitions.

 

I was a vocational teacher for a number of years. One of the classes I taught was HVAC-R (heating, ventilating, air-conditioning and refrigeration).The general

public does not realize there are several redundancies in this acronym. Take air-conditioning for example, it can mean cleaning the air, cooling the air, heating the air ddestratifying the air, bringing fresh air inside the home or building so that there is enough oxygen in the air for everyone to breathe, taking moisture out of the air and putting moisture in the air and exhausting stale air.

 

Typically, air-conditioning means all this to the professional. It generally will mean comfort cooling to the average layperson.

 

If you see the term occupancy 75 persons. That is an acknowledgment that that room or building has been certified to have enough oxygen in it or coming from outside to support the breathing function of 75 people. Any more than that number of people in the room would mean the possibility of the oxygen in the room being depleted. All public buildings must be certified for occupancy capacity in this country.

 

Sometimes there are what we call cascading cause-and-effect scenario. A malfunction of one component will cause another to malfunction. For example there is a in most furnaces that changes 120 V AC to 24 V AC. This is because the lower voltage is safer than using a higher voltage to control things like control modules gas vales, humidifiers etc.

Let's say the transformer becomes bad and puts out instead of 24 V AC it actually gives out 48 V AC.

The technician finds in testing out one of the 24 V AC components that's not working because it is open (meaning it is not a valid load). So he stops stops there and replaces the defective gas valve. He in their thinking that he has solved the problem because the furnace now runs. He gets a call back and the customer is complaining about the same thing again. The furnace is not working again . In traditional manner the technician may say to himself, "I don't know what's wrong it was working qhen I left. It must've be that I purchased a defective gas valve. Oh well, things like that can happen." So he goes over to the customer's home and tests the gas valve again and sure enough it's bad.. He then can say to himself I will put another gas on because this one was bad." And one can actually buy a defective new gas valve.

Once again the furnace begins to run but in a similar amount of time,he gets a call that the furnace is not working again

. Moreover, the customer's started to become irritated-- wondering if this technician knows what he's doing? However this time, the technician decides to do a more thorough investigation to see if there may be a cascading effect in process. He checks the transformer which is in the circuit before the gas valve. He decides that it's working but it's out of specification

. While it is is lowering voltage, it is not lowering it enough to match the specifications of the gas valve. The transformer is supposed to give out 24 V AC. It's putting out 48 VAC. rgugh the excess voltage is not enough to destroy the gas valve right away, it is enough to destroy it over Time. The technician has done a poor diagnosis. He has failed to determine what caused the gas valve to go bad. In this case it was excessive voltage coming from the transformer. When he replaces the transformer and the gas of the furnace he doesn't hear from customer anymore. However truthfully anything downstream from that 48 V with the exception of switches could possibly be damaged by too many volts reaching them. We can realize and how partial diagnosis can be problematic. Sure, the gas golf could dive itself. Or it could have been caused to die. Or, it could change resistance and cause a transformer to fail. That's why I encouraged my students not to jump to conclusions but to look and see if there was a cascading failure effect in place. "Did the component die of itself?" Did something cause a to die? Is it on its way out? Etc."

 

The point is that reasoning doesn't stop at any specific point and that is as they say the rest of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The essence of science is our reasoning ability. All of us have this innate ability. However some of us seem to want to believe there is another version of this ability that exist as an entity. As Gilbo and Adam have so eloquently stated in "other words" that there seems to be only our ability to reason and not some nonexistent entity called science. Our ability to reason and science are the same thing. If we give lifelike qualities to inanimate objects such as a thing, a concept or an idea we're personifying it. That may be fine if we're writing poetry but, it has very little place in everyday reasoning--the scientific process.

I agree, to a degree. But "Our ability to reason and science are the same thing", not so sure. It's what science is built upon sure, but any person's ability to reason does not make science. Having a structured method by which to organise and scrutinise is surely what differenciates the unconnected thoughts and work of individuals operating to different standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe thistle's worldview will force him to kick and scream on his point until he's twisted into a proverbial pretzel because it's his fallback rescue device to avoid pondering realities that interfere with his constructed outlook.

 

I guess we all have rescue devices. I started this thread with the express purpose of, yet again, squashing this one as a particularly bad one.

 

If only there was a mental gymnastics addition to the Olympics ;)

 

 

Are you willing to bet that it won't happen without thistle embarking on a weighty and healthy paradigm shift?

 

I assume a paradigm shift is the only way for him to change his tunnel-vision

 

 

I always enjoy it when you reiterate this point, Gilbo. It needs to be said. Repeatedly it seems.

 

I guess creatures that are geared for acknowledgement to their creator will personify inanimate objects/concepts to replace that starved portion of their being that knows acknowledging God is not optional. Since they can't shut it off they just pervert it to worship the creature rather than the creator.

 

Thanks Adam :)

 

I heard a saying which went like- 'there is a God-shaped hole in all of us'. I agree with you in that evolutionists / atheists personifying nature or science is an attempt to fill this hole.

 

 

 

 

 

I also had other examples, one of which you (unintentionally) conceded was a fact (meaning you conceded the point)... So who is ignoring who's point here?... I still have 2 arms....

 

Ha. Actually I intentionally agreed you had 2 arms, as I said I trust you when you say you do. But that there are facts is not in question.

 

Um that was the question... It was claimed that there are no absolute facts in science... Here we have an example of an absolute fact... Hence the claim made previously is found to be false. Case closed Just_Cuz.gif

 

What is in question is how do we know something IS a fact.

 

That is a whole new conversation, please feel free to create your own thread

 

Some of yours weren't, proving the point. Some were, of course. So what would the thinking man/woman do in such a complicated nuanced situation, where some of the things we think are facts are, and some prove not to be? Stick rigidly (dogmatically?) to a position, grimly hanging on to the "facts" as we have been taught/believe them to be? Or accept that facts must be open to challenge.

 

As I said create your own thread. The fact of the matter is that facts are absolute, ergo if something is in doubt then it isn't a fact to begin with... despite whatever a pro-evolutionist site says.

 

 

 

As I said, I have blue eyes... that is a fact... whether the blue is from pigmentation or another source doesn't change the fact that I have blue eyes... So you're trying to argue a point with something which does nothing for the point you are arguing. It's absolute lunacy.

 

No, you don't have blue eyes. There is no blue. They look blue due to the scattering of the light and the frequency of the light returned to the viewer. There surely couldn't be a better example - we all think our eyes (if blue) are blue. But they aren't. People thought lightning was supernatural. It wasn't. There's an obvious parallel, only by being open to challenge and new evidence will any "fact" be found to be incorrect, and corrected. Science.

 

Semantics... Ok, I'll change my statement. It is an absolute fact that my eyes look blue... No more problem.

 

 

 

 

Um no, this is a belief... Please try and learn the difference between a belief and a fact smile.png I already gave you the definition, please use it.

 

Hey, you think your eyes are blue rolleyes.gif I'm not sure you're my goto guy for definitions.

 

Just google online dictionary like I had... Its not hard.

 

 

 

 

Well firstly science isn't sentient so it cannot "accept" anything... Science is simply a method of investigation.

 

Granted, it's flowery imprecise use of language, shoot me. You know full well what I'm saying but if you must ...

 

Are you going to learn from your mistake? I've pointed this out to evolutionists before, yet they continue to do it... Perhaps also you can consider the philosophical undertones of why you did such a thing? (God-shaped hole, as above)

 

 

 

 

Where is Fjuri when you need him, people personifying science was a bugbear of his... I guess until we kept showing that it is mainly the evolutionists who do such.

 

I'm not an evolutionist, no more than I'm a gravitationalist or a fossilist. And I'm not sure which is worse, "personifying" science, or claiming an absolute fact which isn't true? Hey ho, none of us is perfect.

 

Ah ha ha ha... Why do evolutionists always attempt to correlate gravity (a law) with evolution (a model)...

 

 

 

 

As given before the very definition of fact means it is indeed "fixed"... So the "facts" you are arguing for or about are not facts at all.

 

Blue eyes? We all know of "facts" which turned out not to be true. Are you special and think this doesn't apply to you?

 

If they aren't true then they aren't facts... Get the point?... The only thing you can call a fact are things which you KNOW are absolutely true...

 

 

 

 

Simply put, the definition alone ensures that your belief is incorrect. Let alone the other arguments given in this thread, and my examples.

 

Word salad that simply says "I'm right, you're wrong, nanananana. Na."

 

Um, no... It means I am correct by default since facts are absolute BY DEFINITION... That is what being a fact is all about... If it isn't absolute then it isn't a fact, period.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If only there was a mental gymnastics addition to the Olympics wink.png

 

 

 

I assume a paradigm shift is the only way for him to change his tunnel-vision

 

 

 

Thanks Adam smile.png

 

I heard a saying which went like- 'there is a God-shaped hole in all of us'. I agree with you in that evolutionists / atheists personifying nature or science is an attempt to fill this hole.

 

 

 

Lol. You actually had the cheek to dismiss at least one of my points with "semantics", in a post which in it's entirety hinges on semantics (with a smigden of pedantry)

 

In fact this thread can legitimately be dismissed as "semantics".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. You actually had the cheek to dismiss at least one of my points with "semantics", in a post which in it's entirety hinges on semantics (with a smigden of pedantry)

 

In fact this thread can legitimately be dismissed as "semantics".

 

 

Still waiting for a reply to my points.... (in blue)...

 

Can you please DEMONSTRATE where in my reply I am arguing semantics? I know its hard since many evolutionists enjoy spouting out claims without supporting them, (as evidenced by the plethora of evolutionists doing this on this forum in the past, present and probable future).

 

 

 

 

 

I also had other examples, one of which you (unintentionally) conceded was a fact (meaning you conceded the point)... So who is ignoring who's point here?... I still have 2 arms....

 

Ha. Actually I intentionally agreed you had 2 arms, as I said I trust you when you say you do. But that there are facts is not in question.

 

Um that was the question... It was claimed that there are no absolute facts in science... Here we have an example of an absolute fact... Hence the claim made previously is found to be false. Case closed Just_Cuz.gif

 

 

 

What is in question is how do we know something IS a fact.

 

That is a whole new conversation, please feel free to create your own thread

 

Some of yours weren't, proving the point. Some were, of course. So what would the thinking man/woman do in such a complicated nuanced situation, where some of the things we think are facts are, and some prove not to be? Stick rigidly (dogmatically?) to a position, grimly hanging on to the "facts" as we have been taught/believe them to be? Or accept that facts must be open to challenge.

 

As I said create your own thread. The fact of the matter is that facts are absolute, ergo if something is in doubt then it isn't a fact to begin with... despite whatever a pro-evolutionist site says.

 

 

 

As I said, I have blue eyes... that is a fact... whether the blue is from pigmentation or another source doesn't change the fact that I have blue eyes... So you're trying to argue a point with something which does nothing for the point you are arguing. It's absolute lunacy.

 

No, you don't have blue eyes. There is no blue. They look blue due to the scattering of the light and the frequency of the light returned to the viewer. There surely couldn't be a better example - we all think our eyes (if blue) are blue. But they aren't. People thought lightning was supernatural. It wasn't. There's an obvious parallel, only by being open to challenge and new evidence will any "fact" be found to be incorrect, and corrected. Science.

 

Semantics... Ok, I'll change my statement. It is an absolute fact that my eyes look blue... No more problem.

 

 

 

 

Um no, this is a belief... Please try and learn the difference between a belief and a fact smile.png I already gave you the definition, please use it.

 

Hey, you think your eyes are blue rolleyes.gif I'm not sure you're my goto guy for definitions.

 

Just google online dictionary like I had... Its not hard.

 

 

 

 

Well firstly science isn't sentient so it cannot "accept" anything... Science is simply a method of investigation.

 

Granted, it's flowery imprecise use of language, shoot me. You know full well what I'm saying but if you must ...

 

Are you going to learn from your mistake? I've pointed this out to evolutionists before, yet they continue to do it... Perhaps also you can consider the philosophical undertones of why you did such a thing? (God-shaped hole, as above)

 

 

 

 

Where is Fjuri when you need him, people personifying science was a bugbear of his... I guess until we kept showing that it is mainly the evolutionists who do such.

 

I'm not an evolutionist, no more than I'm a gravitationalist or a fossilist. And I'm not sure which is worse, "personifying" science, or claiming an absolute fact which isn't true? Hey ho, none of us is perfect.

 

Ah ha ha ha... Why do evolutionists always attempt to correlate gravity (a law) with evolution (a model)...

 

 

 

 

As given before the very definition of fact means it is indeed "fixed"... So the "facts" you are arguing for or about are not facts at all.

 

Blue eyes? We all know of "facts" which turned out not to be true. Are you special and think this doesn't apply to you?

 

If they aren't true then they aren't facts... Get the point?... The only thing you can call a fact are things which you KNOW are absolutely true...

 

 

 

 

Simply put, the definition alone ensures that your belief is incorrect. Let alone the other arguments given in this thread, and my examples.

 

Word salad that simply says "I'm right, you're wrong, nanananana. Na."

 

Um, no... It means I am correct by default since facts are absolute BY DEFINITION... That is what being a fact is all about... If it isn't absolute then it isn't a fact, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Um, no... It means I am correct by default since facts are absolute BY DEFINITION... That is what being a fact is all about... If it isn't absolute then it isn't a fact, period.

And many things we thought were facts, absolutely, were shown not to be. Nobody is arguing that facts do not exist. What I am arguing is facts must be open to challenge. Feel free to rewrite/reinterpret/ignore this point if you will, but playing with words to suggest something different won't change what I have explained numerous times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And many things we thought were facts, absolutely, were shown not to be. Nobody is arguing that facts do not exist. What I am arguing is facts must be open to challenge. Feel free to rewrite/reinterpret/ignore this point if you will, but playing with words to suggest something different won't change what I have explained numerous times.

Thistle, if a "fact" is found to be incorrect then it wasn't a "fact". No one is saying we shouldn't challenge facts (this whole forum is for challenging the "fact" of evolution).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thistle, if a "fact" is found to be incorrect then it wasn't a "fact". No one is saying we shouldn't challenge facts (this whole forum is for challenging the "fact" of evolution).

How do you know what is fact and what is not? Ask that question of people who knew "facts" which have since turned out to be false. It's a fact that Gilbo has 2 arms, he's told me so, I believe him. Is that a fact? Is it a fact because of evidence? Or because Gilbo tells me? I'm not denying it's a fact, but there has to be a method to establish agreed facts, and they have to be open to challenge.

 

There's a semantic argument as the basis for this thread I think. I suspect it turns on the idea of "truth", and how some of those with faith believe they have that truth, set apart from those without.

 

 

Btw, you mention this forum is for challenging the "fact" of evolution. Agreed. So my original statement which started with thread was true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know what is fact and what is not?

 

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

 

First I think it's fair to establish there is such a thing. After that the only logical step is to look for the source. Christ Himself claimed to be that source. "I am the way the truth and the life…"

 

We know truth by knowing the correct Source of truth. It may sound simplistic, but can you name a more reliable method?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We know truth by knowing the correct Source of truth. It may sound simplistic, but can you name a more reliable method?

Is it true that you know the source of truth? I accept you believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And many things we thought were facts, absolutely, were shown not to be.

 

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

 

 

Nobody is arguing that facts do not exist.

 

Umm go read the thread... It seems you're now attempting to save face by claiming you never argued what you were arguing before... Here lets have a look-see.

 

 

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.

 

 

What I am arguing is facts must be open to challenge.

 

Who said they shouldn't be open to challenge?

 

 

 

Feel free to rewrite/reinterpret/ignore this point if you will, but playing with words to suggest something different won't change what I have explained numerous times.

 

Again, who said they shouldn't be open to challenge?

 

Ah so this is your shifting the goal posts in order to ignore admitting you were incorrect before...

 

 

How do you know what is fact and what is not?

 

As I said in my last reply, this is an entirely different topic... Please create your own thread, because in this one we are debating the patently absurd claim that there are no facts (absolutes) in science... That is what the title is about, that is what the OP is about and that is what our posts have been about... until this recent goal post shift of yours.

 

 

Perhaps when you make that new thread you can also ask how can evolutionists claim evolution is a fact? On what basis do they make this claim to knowledge? Despite evolution still being researched and thus is still largely unknown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it true that you know the source of truth? I accept you believe it.

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Umm go read the thread... It seems you're now attempting to save face by claiming you never argued what you were arguing before... Here lets have a look-see.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you just didn't see all the many times I've explained this. But pay attention now - the VERY first post in this offshoot thread - quotes me from the original parent thread:

 

 

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.

 

 

Do you see it? First, I didn't say there arent facts, in fact, highlighted above in red in the FIRST POST in this thread, I said it. There are facts.

 

What I said that caused all this, and which I still say, is that "nothing in science can be absolutely fixed as fact". There are facts, but science has to be able to challenge them.

 

So ... Can you actually read Gilbo? Or do you just see what you want to see? (opportunities to shout gotcha! which normally are not)

 

I won't hold my breath for anything more than another tangential nit-picking attempt to divert attention. Which is what this whole thread has been about, hilariously.

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