Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Do you want "scientific proof"?

page: 6
60
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
Well, too bad. You'll never get it.

I have been seeing a lot of people during my time here, and specifically from this thread here lately, claim that they choose not to believe something because it lacks "scientific proof". It is really quite embarrassing too, because most of the people screaming for "proof!" are, what I would judge as, quite intelligent individuals.

You do realize that the term "scientific proof" is some what a form of oxymora, right?
Proof can be defined in different ways. The terms in the dictionary are a bit ambiguous.

Something that's proven true, may later be proven false when there's more and better evidence. Such is the ambiguity of the word proof. It's not permanent, if that's your point. But to say nothing is ever proven ignores the dictionary.

For example, take the Higgs particle at CERN. It's considered not yet proven:

www.thehindu.com...

The ATLAS results are well above a standard deviation of 3 which is considered as evidence that a particular particle may exist.

A statistical significance of 5 standard deviations is considered as proof of a particle's existence.
So if and when there are 5 standard deviations of statistical evidence, that will be considered proof. That doesn't mean later, better evidence can't change it, but then that's not what proof means.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of PROOF
1
a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
Five standard deviations certainly meets that definition, as it is statistically quite compelling. But yes, even proven concepts are still falsifiable and impermanent. That doesn't mean they aren't proven, according to the dictionary.

The US Supreme Court defined science as "falsifiable", that's probably what you're trying to say. That's different than saying nothing is ever proven.


BOOM! He just did that!

Seriously though, you cannot argue against this point.




posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkest4
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


Ok, lol, so how about if people say "show me scientific evidence/data supported by credible scientists/witnesses and multiple sources to lend some more weight/credibility to your story/claim" would that be better for you buddy? Seems like a lot to type to really get the same point across. Otherwise I'm not sure what your post is getting at, that we should just believe anything we read at face value as long as it sounds cool and calling for evidence ("proof") is stupid because of your silly semantics argument?

Who cares what word or phrase people use, and how you personally feel about it, the important thing is that the intelligent people on this site want more than just a cool sounding story or claim with nothing backing it up. They want data/evidence/credible sources etc. and that is what "deny ignorance" should be all about, not just blindly accepting any theory/story/claim just because it's not mainstream or fits in with their personal, and often overly paranoid (in the case of those who seem to think literally everything is a tptb conspiracy, supernatural or a ufo), world views.
to this thread
edit on 13-1-2012 by darkest4 because: (no reason given)


Unfortunately, this thread has developed into a semantics battle, where people can only agree to something if it meets the dictionary definition as opposed to the practical definition. The intention of the thread, however, is not about semantics, but the principle of the matter. Otherwise, I would have stated "people should use '[the statement you made above]' instead of the word 'proof'".

No, this was merely a shot at the people who naively claim they won't believe something unless it is "proven", as I have found means nothing. They make claims as if they will not believe something based on their opinion alone and need something to be factually proven. However, it is their opinion to create a belief based on this so-called "evidence". I believe mathematics and logic to be provable and absolute truth because the answers lies in binary. That is not the case with science, however. It is based on theoretic (usually multiple) claims of evidence that make a subject's truths outweigh the falses.

It is ignorant to assume all science has a final result of absolute truth. If you want to deny ignorance, start with knowing that science can only be partially true or false, buddy.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
Well, too bad. You'll never get it.

I have been seeing a lot of people during my time here, and specifically from this thread here lately, claim that they choose not to believe something because it lacks "scientific proof". It is really quite embarrassing too, because most of the people screaming for "proof!" are, what I would judge as, quite intelligent individuals.

You do realize that the term "scientific proof" is some what a form of oxymora, right?
Proof can be defined in different ways. The terms in the dictionary are a bit ambiguous.

Something that's proven true, may later be proven false when there's more and better evidence. Such is the ambiguity of the word proof. It's not permanent, if that's your point. But to say nothing is ever proven ignores the dictionary.

For example, take the Higgs particle at CERN. It's considered not yet proven:

www.thehindu.com...

The ATLAS results are well above a standard deviation of 3 which is considered as evidence that a particular particle may exist.

A statistical significance of 5 standard deviations is considered as proof of a particle's existence.
So if and when there are 5 standard deviations of statistical evidence, that will be considered proof. That doesn't mean later, better evidence can't change it, but then that's not what proof means.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of PROOF
1
a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
Five standard deviations certainly meets that definition, as it is statistically quite compelling. But yes, even proven concepts are still falsifiable and impermanent. That doesn't mean they aren't proven, according to the dictionary.

The US Supreme Court defined science as "falsifiable", that's probably what you're trying to say. That's different than saying nothing is ever proven.


I'm not arguing that nothing is provable. Just science. I really would like to refrain from going to semantics though. I am referring to the fact that some people want proof as if it is absolute truth, like in mathematics. As if a science has an absolute truth. I never claimed that something can contain nil truths. Something can, in fact, be truthful, but not absolute.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


Still haven't answered my question.

Have we proven arsenic can kill you?

Another question

Are rocks compounds of elements?

If the answer is yes, then science has PROVEN something. Rocks are not formed by magical marshmallow faeries. How do I know this, because we have seen the formation of rocks, and we have created them our selves in labs.


We have proven that arsenic is and can be deadly. This does not mean it will, in fact, kill everyone. There are exceptions to everything and there are numerous cases of people surviving or being completely tolerant to things that would normally kill "most".

So, because we are able to synthesize rocks, this would mean that it is physically impossible for there to be "magical marshmallow faeries" out in the world creating rocks?



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Aboriginals for the longest have been discredited for NOT being able to count above the number '1', till this day even. As studies have shown, this is not true. Just because many individuals have colored WITHIN the archetype of what we perceive as truth does not mean that others will and must follow suit. I may be stretching a little but looking at anything from a whole will show that nothing is what it is perceived to be. True knowledge is conquering what we believe we know and coloring outside the lines. In an essence, it's as if everything is infinite, which if anything is an absolute truth.

LINK



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
It's not an idiom, it's an axiom.


I wasn't referring to your axiom, I was referring to your idiom. You had both in your post and the idiom, much like all of them, was being used to the point of losing value. (i.e cliché)


You mean that you are losing horribly.


I do love that you feel this is a competition. How many points have you scored so far? But no, I am getting rather bored of someone who cherry-picks responses and denies "evidence" laid before him because it does not agree with semantics. Because if something doesn't agree with the dictionary, it is wrong, right?


A fact is a truth.


A fact is truthful, but a truth is not always factual.


You seem to be sticking to your original position that "Nothing in science is provable", while simultaneously changing what you mean by "Proof" to be that of "Absolute Truth" which has ABSOLUTELY no meaning in science.


Absolutes have no meaning to science? Is this because nothing in science is absolute?



You have LOST the argument (the moment you posted your OP, actually) and now you are attempting to weasel your way out of your loss, by going straight to "Quantum Crystal Energy and religion"


Hm. That is very.. odd.. for you to say that because I never once mention "quantum crystal energy" nor did I say this had anything to do with "religion". Are you sure you are replying to the right person? If so, I am going to have to conclude that you may be a little out of it.

Regardless of your mentality or not, can't we agree to debate this in a friendly matter and have you throw away the idea that this is some type of competition? It isn't about winning or losing, because you can't win or lose a scientific argument haha.

There are truths and falses to each claim made, but as I stated earlier, this is not mathematics so there is no final answer. That being said, don't worry so much about winning something that can not be won.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


*sigh*

You can dissect your selected opponents replies, spin them to your advantage in text format... but it doesn't make you or your argument right.

Again, I suggest a more human approach. Leave the arrogance behind and you might learn something.

May I suggest this:

Submit what you might consider to be an undeniable scientific truth. Then, if you don't mind, allow that undeniable truth to be challenged. If I am am not overstepping, I would also suggest that you defend your truth based on that truth and not insults.

'Sup to you. I'll check back in on this.

Cheers

Perhaps I am not following you here : What do "you" call it when I can take a circuit schematic; a calculator, and a legal pad and predict the values of voltage and current present to several decimal places across components .
Then:
Go to the actual piece of equipment and verify my "predictions"(calculatons)by measurement ???
?
"faith"?
Or reproducible science and therefore "truth". I call it "truth" and verifiable/reproducible"proof" and anybody else can get the same results.People like to say we don't "know" the universe; we know quite abit at least at the "macro" level.

We have divined principles and rules that stand up to observation. For all effective purposes:" applicable; useful" truth(s).
edit on 12-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)


That is mathematical science, which can be proven as absolute because you are dealing with numbers. Not a theory.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sandalphon
To me, scientific proof is an "instant water - just add water" idea. It is an instant science - just add science thing.

Putting proof into language more understandable, you can understand the idea of bullet proof, or idiot proof.

In that regard, could it be said that when something is scientific proof, is it impervious to scientific?

Or is the confusion in the word scientific, would the better word be science-based, or just science proof? This is a question for a linguist. But then would the answer be a linguistic proof and not a scientific one?

Sometimes I think that the smart alek that is demanding the proof is too lazy to get it himself, to think for himself; he wants to be spoon fed. What is he really asking for, an equation with Greek symbols and arrows to a conclusion? A photograph? A video? It's like asking, how is 2+2 equals 4? There is a way for a mathematic proof of that but not quite a scientific one. And even then, if you gave the proof, would the smart alek want more proof that the proof you gave is proof?

Proof is just a scientific word that means a lot like the word why. Why, the question that can be put on everything for eternity. Proof is one similar eternal torment from the stupid to the ones who think they know.
edit on 13-1-2012 by Sandalphon because: added a d in understanable


I see what you are saying here in your first statement. As if science insists upon itself. Science is right because science says so.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 



I wasn't referring to your axiom, I was referring to your idiom.


Would you be so kind to quote what you believe is an idiom?

I mean, since you have YET to state anything that I have challenged you on in this thread.

Maybe do it once, for posterity?


I do love that you feel this is a competition.


Nah, A competition implies that there was ever a chance of you winning.....


How many points have you scored so far?


Just the One.


But no, I am getting rather bored of someone who cherry-picks responses and denies "evidence" laid before him


Let me get this straight....

You are claiming that Nothing can be Proven Scientifically, and yet you claim to have posted Evidence?

That's too funny.


because it does not agree with semantics.


Semantics NOTHING... what you are stating does not agree with *REALITY*


Because if something doesn't agree with the dictionary, it is wrong, right?


If that something is the meaning of a word.... then yes.

Look, you can banter on as much as you want.... the FACT is that you claimed that Nothing Scientific can ever be Proven.

And that is just absurd.... there is nothing semantic about it.... and you even tried to weasel out of it by stating that "Proof" means "Absolute Truth" or whatever.

You are wrong, just accept it and move on.


A fact is truthful, but a truth is not always factual.


Care to spell out an example?



ErtaiNaGia
You seem to be sticking to your original position that "Nothing in science is provable", while simultaneously changing what you mean by "Proof" to be that of "Absolute Truth" which has ABSOLUTELY no meaning in science.


Absolutes have no meaning to science? Is this because nothing in science is absolute?


Who's cherry picking the semantics now?

Oh, and by the way.... stating that:

"Nothing in science is absolute".... is an absolute.

You

Fail.


Hm. That is very.. odd.. for you to say that because I never once mention "quantum crystal energy"


It was hyperbole.


Are you sure you are replying to the right person? If so, I am going to have to conclude that you may be a little out of it.


And of course, you can't recognize hyperbole.... Figures....


Regardless of your mentality or not


Which is quite stable.


can't we agree to debate this in a friendly matter and have you throw away the idea that this is some type of competition?


Your premise is Fatally flawed on a foundational level.

I have already proven this Time after Time after Time after TIME.

Let me go ahead and QUOTE your OP *AGAIN*


There is no such thing as "proof" when it comes to science


Concede DEFEAT.

I DEMAND IT!


It isn't about winning or losing, because you can't win or lose a scientific argument haha.


You can be Right, or Wrong.

And this case, I am right, and you are WRONG.

Your stubborn refusal to admit this fact is childish at best.

You keep moving the goalpost so that you can maintain your false Ego and claim that you are still right.

Despite the *Fact* that Proof EXISTS within Science.


There are truths and falses to each claim made


No, only SOME of the claims are false, and some of them are true.


but as I stated earlier, this is not mathematics so there is no final answer.


Yes... there *IS*

You are WRONG!

That is a FACT.


That being said, don't worry so much about winning something that can not be won.


The battle is already over, this is what I have been trying to explain to you for about 3 pages now.


You remind me of the black knight....




posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
I like this thread, just saying



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 



I wasn't referring to your axiom, I was referring to your idiom.


Would you be so kind to quote what you believe is an idiom?

I mean, since you have YET to state anything that I have challenged you on in this thread.

Maybe do it once, for posterity?


I do love that you feel this is a competition.


Nah, A competition implies that there was ever a chance of you winning.....


How many points have you scored so far?


Just the One.


But no, I am getting rather bored of someone who cherry-picks responses and denies "evidence" laid before him


Let me get this straight....

You are claiming that Nothing can be Proven Scientifically, and yet you claim to have posted Evidence?

That's too funny.


because it does not agree with semantics.


Semantics NOTHING... what you are stating does not agree with *REALITY*


Because if something doesn't agree with the dictionary, it is wrong, right?


If that something is the meaning of a word.... then yes.

Look, you can banter on as much as you want.... the FACT is that you claimed that Nothing Scientific can ever be Proven.

And that is just absurd.... there is nothing semantic about it.... and you even tried to weasel out of it by stating that "Proof" means "Absolute Truth" or whatever.

You are wrong, just accept it and move on.


A fact is truthful, but a truth is not always factual.


Care to spell out an example?



ErtaiNaGia
You seem to be sticking to your original position that "Nothing in science is provable", while simultaneously changing what you mean by "Proof" to be that of "Absolute Truth" which has ABSOLUTELY no meaning in science.


Absolutes have no meaning to science? Is this because nothing in science is absolute?


Who's cherry picking the semantics now?

Oh, and by the way.... stating that:

"Nothing in science is absolute".... is an absolute.

You

Fail.


Hm. That is very.. odd.. for you to say that because I never once mention "quantum crystal energy"


It was hyperbole.


Are you sure you are replying to the right person? If so, I am going to have to conclude that you may be a little out of it.


And of course, you can't recognize hyperbole.... Figures....


Regardless of your mentality or not


Which is quite stable.


can't we agree to debate this in a friendly matter and have you throw away the idea that this is some type of competition?


Your premise is Fatally flawed on a foundational level.

I have already proven this Time after Time after Time after TIME.

Let me go ahead and QUOTE your OP *AGAIN*


There is no such thing as "proof" when it comes to science


Concede DEFEAT.

I DEMAND IT!


It isn't about winning or losing, because you can't win or lose a scientific argument haha.


You can be Right, or Wrong.

And this case, I am right, and you are WRONG.

Your stubborn refusal to admit this fact is childish at best.

You keep moving the goalpost so that you can maintain your false Ego and claim that you are still right.

Despite the *Fact* that Proof EXISTS within Science.


There are truths and falses to each claim made


No, only SOME of the claims are false, and some of them are true.


but as I stated earlier, this is not mathematics so there is no final answer.


Yes... there *IS*

You are WRONG!

That is a FACT.


That being said, don't worry so much about winning something that can not be won.


The battle is already over, this is what I have been trying to explain to you for about 3 pages now.


You remind me of the black knight....



You haven't been explaining anything. You just say "this is" and "this isn't". You are coming off as naively arrogant.

Here, let me try:

YOU ARE WRONG.

I AM RIGHT.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


The Sun Gives off Light.

Do you want me to explain the Proof of this statement?



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


The Sun Gives off Light.

Do you want me to explain the Proof of this statement?


I would be more amused if you tried to explain the "absolute truth" of that statement.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 



I would be more amused if you tried to explain the "absolute truth" of that statement.


Still moving goalposts I see.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
I like this thread, just saying


I am glad you do =) Me too.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


There comes a time when something happens so many times it is proof.



If you live in a world without absolute proofs, you live in a world without truth, and ultimately, that's not a world at all. Nothing I just said can be understood.

Yet you do understand these words, because their definition is true. If I were to suddenly start writing in to your from garage pool base skin....you would not understand because it is not truth. The definitions are yet universally true in our heads even if we understand it in a different sense.

Science is no difference. At the end of the day, there ARE proofs in the real world. Things that will happen as they have for as long as time exists.


Come the day it is disproven? more knowledge is needed then. Until then, it is what it is until it is not.
edit on 13-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 



I would be more amused if you tried to explain the "absolute truth" of that statement.


Still moving goalposts I see.


That's the idiom I was referring to, by the way.

You seem to always come back to semantics. When I made the claim of "proof" in the OP, I was referring to "absolute truth". I'm not using the EXACT dictionary definition, I am using the practical usage in relevancy to the threads here at ATS.

Go ahead and explain the absolute truth of that your previous statement though.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


There comes a time when something happens so many times it is proof.



If you live in a world without absolute proofs, you live in a world without truth, and ultimately, that's not a world at all. Nothing I just said can be understood.

Yet you do understand these words, because their definition is true. If I were to suddenly start writing in to your from garage pool base skin....you would not understand because it is not truth. The definitions are yet universally true in our heads even if we understand it in a different sense.

Science is no difference. At the end of the day, there ARE proofs in the real world. Things that will happen as they have for as long as time exists.


Come the day it is disproven? more knowledge is needed then. Until then, it is what it is until it is not.
edit on 13-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


I do not live in a world without absolute truths. I only claimed science not to have absolute truths.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by angellicview
 





1. The Earth is a living organism with a consciousness.
2. Time is an illusion and does not really exist.
3. We are coming to a time when people will be awakened to their true self.
4. Reincarnation is a fact.
5. What religion you belong to (and whether or not you believe in Jesus) has no effect on your "afterlife".
6. We plan out our lives (contract or blueprint) before we are born.

Can I prove scientifically any of this? No. I can't. But I know these things to be true because of so many consistent reports on them. Thousands of people could not be all making this stuff up! What would they possibly have to gain from it?




I can say why this is wrong in one sentence:




People also consistently believe that women should serve men.



Consistency in what humans think is true is NEVER proof it is true.



What do they gain from that? Who knows. Some want a house servant that is also a sex toy. Others want control.

I see everything you listed as no different. Reincarnation serves to motivate a slave that if he plays his part and is a good worker he will be the master in the next life. After all, you can socially construct a system that says what good and evil is to your own designs.


Telling people that religion doesn't matter lets them be more easily controlled (as most religions motivate violence and rebellion)


Earth a living organism with consciousness? Just sounds like a "do what I say or be smote" thing.
edit on 13-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


Ah this is true indeed. Sorry for mixing it up.

However. Science does have laws.




Imagine it like this. The US constitution defines what is right and wrong....yet also makes the very rights you have to speak and believe as you say as an amendment...something that can be unamended at any time.

The spirit of the law says that we are free under it. But the legal binding of it says that those rights and freedoms can be taken whenever the elected say they can.

So which is truth?


At this point we have no choice but to play the common sense card. The Spirit of the Law is not the Word of the Law.

An important life lesson is to differentiate between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. That is what differentiates Hitler from Abraham Lincoln. Both men followed the law to the code and to the point. But one followed the spirit of the law, the other the letter of the law. The results are what they are.


I view science no differently. The spirit of what scientific consensus is says that there are absolute truths. The letter says otherwise. But who cares about the letter when you have common sense?









 
60
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join