Do you want "scientific proof"?

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

ErtaiNaGia
Still moving goalposts I see.

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

Ah, then forgive me for assuming that you understood the meaning of this logical fallacy (It's not an Idiom)

Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor meaning changing the target of a process or competition by one side in order to gain advantage.

This phrase is a straightforward derivation from sports that use goalposts, such as football. The figurative use alludes to the perceived unfairness in changing the goal one is trying to achieve after the process one is engaged in has already started.

Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.

en.wikipedia.org...

You seem to always come back to semantics.

That's because you don't know what the words that you are using mean.

When I made the claim of "proof" in the OP, I was referring to "absolute truth".

The first mention of "Absolute Truth" was on page 4... not page 1.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

........Consider this a rant if you wish, but the statement stands the same: "You can't prove anything scientific."

Which is why THIS statement from your OP, is wrong.

I'm not using the EXACT dictionary definition, I am using the practical usage in relevancy to the threads here at ATS.

You still have not provided a definition to "Absolute Truth"

You are debating with a term that you just made up.

In your OP, you stated that "You can't prove anything scientific.", when I challenged you on it, and I pressed the matter, you moved the goalpost from "Proof" to "Absolute Truth" which is as yet undefined.

You are still trying to weasel your way out of being PROVEN wrong.

When someone talks about scientific proof, it must be read as "supported by evidence beyond any reasonable doubt". I don't really see the use of this semantics game, except for attempting to make an unsupported believe look as valid as a believe supported by science. Which is of course not the case.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Ah, then forgive me for assuming that you understood the meaning of this logical fallacy (It's not an Idiom)

Courtesy of your beloved Wikipedia:

Idiom (Latin: idioma, "special property", f. Greek: ἰδίωμα – idiōma, "special feature, special phrasing", f. Greek: ἴδιος – idios, "one’s own") is an expression, word, or phrase that has a figurative meaning that is comprehended in regard to a common use of that expression that is separate from the literal meaning or definition of the words of which it is made.[1] There are estimated to be at least 25,000 idiomatic expressions in the English language.[2]
In linguistics, idioms are usually presumed to be figures of speech contradicting the principle of compositionality; yet the matter remains debated.[citation needed] In phraseology, they are defined in a similar way as a sub-type of phraseme whose meaning is not the regular sum of the meanings of its components.[3] John Saeed defines an "idiom" as words collocated that became affixed to each other until metamorphosing into a fossilised term.[4] This collocation—words commonly used in a group—redefines each component word in the word-group and becomes an idiomatic expression. The words develop a specialized meaning as an entity, as an idiom. Moreover, an idiom is an expression, word, or phrase whose sense means something different from what the words literally imply. The idiom "beating around the bush" means to hint or discuss obliquely; nobody is literally beating any person or thing, and the bush is a metaphor. When a speaker uses an idiom, the listener might mistake its actual meaning, if he or she has not heard this figure of speech before.[5] Idioms usually do not translate well; in some cases, when an idiom is translated into another language, either its meaning is changed or it is meaningless.

en.wikipedia.org...

Courtesy of your beloved dictionary:
idioms.thefreedictionary.com...

Notice the first part of that link.

The first mention of "Absolute Truth" was on page 4... not page 1.

That is because I didn't have to mention it. It was an obvious reference to its practical use on the site.

You still have not provided a definition to "Absolute Truth"

You are debating with a term that you just made up.

In your OP, you stated that "You can't prove anything scientific.", when I challenged you on it, and I pressed the matter, you moved the goalpost from "Proof" to "Absolute Truth" which is as yet undefined.

You are still trying to weasel your way out of being PROVEN wrong.

I wasn't aware I had to provide a definition of "absolute truth". But I will satisfy your love of words.

Absolute Truth:

An absolute truth, sometimes called a universal truth, is an unalterable and permanent fact. The concept of absolute truths - what they are and whether they exist - has been debated among many different groups of people. Philosophers have waded in the muck of defining absolute truth for millennia. For example, Plato believed that absolute truth existed, but that truth on earth was merely a shadow of great forms of absolute truth existing in the universe. Alternatively, many believe in relative truths, where facts may vary depending on the circumstances.

It's not a term "I just made up". If you think that then you have no place in this argument, no offense.

I'm not really worried about being PROVEN wrong as I can't conclude that I nor you will be PROVEN wrong. If I had calculated a mathematical problem inaccurately, then sure, I could be proven wrong but this is an argument of semantics and a philosophical (at best) take on the theory of scientific absolute truths.

Good night for now.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

Courtesy of your beloved Wikipedia:

Ok, fair enough.

That is because I didn't have to mention it. It was an obvious reference to its practical use on the site.

No, it's not.

You are still confusing your terms, and I believe that we might have to move back into semantics in order to explain this one to you.

It's not a term "I just made up". If you think that then you have no place in this argument, no offense.

Ok, thank you for providing that text, now I have something to work with. And I think I see the problem now.....

I'm not really worried about being PROVEN wrong as I can't conclude that I nor you will be PROVEN wrong.

Ok, the problem here, is that you are using the term "Proof" ambiguously.

Here is the definition of Proof:

Proof: 1. Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement

And this DOES exist in Science.

Many things can be Proven in Science.... Because Evidence establishes the facts or truth of scientific statements.

You cannot Argue this.

What you have DONE, is confuse *MATHEMATICAL PROOF* with the common term "Proof", and that is the problem.

You are applying one definition of a term to a place that it doesn't belong.

This would be like me stating that you cannot swim in a pool, because then you would knock the billiard balls off of the table, and it isn't even a liquid.

You are using the Term "Proof" too ambiguously to be correct, and in fact, AS YOU ARE USING IT, you are quite wrong.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

You are stating that nothing in science can ever be Proven as a mathematical Axiom.

And this is quite ridiculous, seeing as how the rules of Mathematical proof do not apply to Observational Scientific Phenomenon, because Science is Not Mathematics.

Sure, Mathematics can be used IN science.... however the Mathematical term "Proof" does not have the same meaning as the Scientific term "Proof" (Which is the general usage meaning of proof)

You *CAN* prove the facts about Science..... Seeing as how *PROOF* is merely Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.... and Science is COMPRISED of Evidence and arguments that establish the truth of a statement.

So, yes, This did turn out to be an entirely semantic argument.....


Keep this in mind when you use the word "Proof" again.

This is interesting, Imagine what we could learn. Thinking about all this it would make sense how psychics can pick up stuff from objects that people have owned. Like hairs on a brush. Wouldn't that be something? Even more so if that DNA was still linked to a deceased person?

I think what they mean by proof
is scientific fact

that is final and unchanging , i.e scientific law does not change and is final and absolute !

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


I CHOOSE to believe my car can't work, because the internal combustion engine can't be proven with science.

Great post S%F

Not

Your just attempting to give people, who believe in thing non scientific things they don't understand, justification and that's all this thread is about.

Gosh nearly forgot about the sorcerers who conjur magical airplanes.

Can't be science, science is fallible.

Proof does exist.

Person A performs an experiment, and documents it completely. Person B then performs said experiment, from the notes of Person A. If Person B is able to replicate it, then the proof is in the observable replication.

When people say they want proof, they generally mean one of two things.

a] They want instrumental proof; that is, something like an EEG or a Geiger counter to confirm that something is real. Both psychology and atheism have taught us to believe that our own senses do not provide a legitimate form of evidence for anything.

b] They want the opinion of someone they consider an authority, and will consider that individual's opinion as proof; whether or not said individual has actually conducted an experiment themselves or not. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; and it is even moreso, when said experts make statements on a second-hand, or entirely theoretical basis. The latter in particular, is the main reason why most "skeptics," are a joke, from any genuinely rational point of view.

Originally posted by sean
This is interesting, Imagine what we could learn. Thinking about all this it would make sense how psychics can pick up stuff from objects that people have owned. Like hairs on a brush. Wouldn't that be something? Even more so if that DNA was still linked to a deceased person?

Google Danie Krugel,

Interesting guy, claims to have created such a device that finds missing people using their DNA.

Originally posted by angellicview
I agree - Star and Flag for you.

I can give an example or two. I have studied NDE's (Near Death Experiences) for years. I have read thousands of NDE cases. There are certain things that are a commonality in almost every single one of those cases. Here are some:

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 have other examples, but I don't want to make this too long. However, I would like to add that we are all connected. Every one of us people are pieces, if you will, of the same being. Science will someday prove it - or it won't. (But I believe it will).

what you think is reincarnation is actually cell memory but to each his own

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

For example, a few scientists in today's world come to an agreement on something. This claim gets brought to the public and now it is generally accepted as a standard and is considered "right" by the public. However, did the mass public do these experiments themselves? Did they calculate everything? Do all the measurements? Most certainly not, but since it is generally agreed by everyone, they believe it. I've talked about this before in a thread of mine and in logic this is known as an argumentum ad populum, which basically means "people believe something to be true merely because everybody else believes it". This is a fallacy, mind you.

This paragraph tells me, screams to me, that you have a very tenuous grasp of science.

However, did the mass public do these experiments themselves?

No but they can, that's the entire point of the scientific method, through controllable testing and reproduction.

Most certainly not, but since it is generally agreed by everyone, they believe it.

No, I believe it because the people doing the testing are trained and educated in their field and if you look, will provide whatever data is required to reproduce their tests. THAT'S science.

And through science, giving us PROOF of how things work, we've split the atom, developed countless cancer treatments, peered back to the minutes after the birth of the universe, explored other planets with robots, created complex micro-circuitry that allows the device you posted this on to work.

Science tells me there is this thing called gravity. It works in such a way that objects that have mass, distort "spacetime" much like a bowling ball on a bed but in 3 dimensions, causing objects with great mass to "pull" objects of lower mass towards it.

Because this is a scientific "theory" of gravity, it has to provide testable, and repeatable, things to measure to either prove it right or wrong.

Einstein stipulated that since space and time are actually two faces of the same thing, when "gravity" distorts space it also distorts time. And because of the scientific method, a test was devised using two atomic clocks. These clocks measure time via radioactive decay and are synchronized. One is left on earth, the other is taken to the highest possible point on earth, or higher, into the sky, even into orbit.

Once the clocks are brought back together, something amazing should happen, according to the scientific theory: Though clockA was on earth, and time passed normally for it, and clockB was say in orbit, and each second passed as normal for it, they are now out of sync because of the time dilation effect gravity has.

And guess what? At a later date this was tested, and PROVEN to be accurate. Anyone with the technology can test this themselves.

Which brings me to my point, and hopefully you've stuck in this far:

Just because you choose NOT to test the theory yourself, doesn't mean you CAN'T. You can. You might need more education, you might need the right devices. But the underpinning principle that makes something a scientific theory, instead of just an idea, is the fact that anyone anywhere can reproduce the test, and if it's accurate, the results as well.

This isn't to say all science is static and correct, it's an ever changing field as our technology and ability to "look" expands.

For example, "way back when" the smallest particle of 'matter' was the atom. It was the basic building block and nothing could be smaller. Til someone theorized you could split it, and it was itself made up of other things (protons, electrons, nucleus ) which became the new standard model, until we started splitting electrons and protons to find even MORE particles, adding layer upon layer to our understanding of reality.

Lets use some of your own examples. "The earth was flat" well, that's ignorance. That wasn't a scientific theory, that's religion, right out of religious texts, and when SCIENCE tried to show the opposite, religion opposed it and in some cases, killed people over it.

"The sun orbits the earth!" Again, religion disguised as science. The reason that "theory" was pushed is because the contrary (earth orbits the sun) doesn't make earth, and man, the center piece of "gods" universe.

disbelief in science is born from ignorance. But at least back then I could understand the religious undertones. But what we have here is something entirely new. People debating the validity of science to prove anything, while expecting me to take word of mouth and blurry fakable videos as fact.

I really love the OP's thinking as I too think along the same lines. I mean..what is truth anyway?

Truth is an individual perception. An OPINION that is based on observation and or experience.

With time, everything changes. Is this not Universal law? I believe it is.

Nothing is "set in stone"...not even a rock.

Perhaps the strange views on the validity of science are coming about due to the ridiculous assertions being put forth in recent times by the proponents of evolution. Evolutionists expect us to believe quite extraordinary things without any compelling evidence. Evolution is indeed a faith more than a science and in my opinion has brought a great deal of discredit to the legitimate field of scientific endeavor.

You can't handle scientific proof!

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
In the end, it really does come down to your own personal belief. Unless, of course, you are a nihilist and don't believe in anything.

It is quite an irrational leap to go from "no such thing as scientific proof" to "it all boils down to personal belief".

What we need is to calculate a probabilistic likelihood of something being true based on the available evidence, and of course, accept that if that evidence changes or increases in value, so may our calculations. But still, we can make a good estimate on what is true based on good reasoning and accumulation of evidence. If my conclusion is completely different to yours, we should debate and discuss our differences, and through an unbiased pursuit of this nature we can get as close to what is and isn't real as logically possible.

Your comment implies that a statement like "my dog is really a rabbit wearing a magic alien-built suit, that causes him to have the appearance of a dog" is just as reasonable as the statement "if I jump out of this window, I won't spontaneously turn into a monkey". This is an absurd position to take.

I think, what people mean when they talk of "scientific proof", is not "absolute proof", it is something shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt, and we certainly can "prove" things to this degree. If we couldn't, science wouldn't work, and you'd not be using computers and flying across the world on sound proven scientific laws that allow us to predict the way the Universe will act with remarkable accuracy.

So let's get real, you're quibbling semantics and arguing for an absurd world where anything goes, belief wise.

That is true nihilism.

While scientists do change their minds, and theories are updated, and revised, each has an error margin associated with it, based on our confidence in its validity. For some theories, the error margin has become tiny, meaning a significant change of the theory is highly unlikely, for other theories, the error margin is large, as with things like String Theory. When science corrects, it still moves forward, and each new theory is based on sounder principles and improved, more reliable evidence.

Scientific theories need to be accepted tentatively, but don't throw out the baby with the bath water because you'll send us back to the dark ages.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by redoubt

 

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.

This is correct.

Me being RIGHT, however, *DOES* make me right.

I was just attempting to explain WHY I am right to you.

I can see that I still have a ways to go before my teaching style is sufficient to explain my correctness to you.

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

This coming from someone who states that Knowledge is unknowable?

That's quite humorous.

May I suggest this:

I'll allow your suggestion for now.

Submit what you might consider to be an undeniable scientific truth.

Not very good at paying attention, are you?

A = A

Checkmate.

Then, if you don't mind, allow that undeniable truth to be challenged.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....

You are more than welcome to try.

If I am am not overstepping, I would also suggest that you defend your truth based on that truth and not insults.

If you think that you can disprove the validity of my statement, then by all means.... Defend your position like you have one.

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

I think your reply in this matter will be quite hilarious, actually, So I will be checking back also.

See you then.

Cheers

edit on 12-1-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)

Just stop! You add nothing to the conversation, and simply repeating A = A louder doesn't do anything for your case.

I'll indulge your argument with something equally juvenile. Just this once.

A = A
A = 1
Therefore, 1 = 1
1 = 3/3
3/3 = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3
1/3 = .3333333333 (repeating, of course)
.333333333333 + .333333333333 +.33333333333 = .9999999999999

1 does not = .9999999999999
Therefore A does not = A. In this case, A infinitely approaches A, but never = A.


Point being, A = A is a definition. It is arbitrary, and has no relevance when discussing matters of scientific reliability, or even the nature of knowledge. It is used, as all definitions are, as a starting point for a line of reasoning. It's is not an observation of the physical world, or an empirical truth in any fashion. It is also not true for all variables, depending on the reasoning from that base.

I'm glad you read some Descartes in your Intro to Philosophy class. There's more out there though, and you should probably read it before you go all in on one simple soundbite.

So please, drop the A = A so checkmate, I'm smart and you're dumb act.

reply to post by Jiggyfly


The found out that there is a smallest unit. Plank's length.


Rounding, .999999999 infinite = 1 once it goes past planks length.



Funny that the universe knows how to round up numbers.


Your thought is true, but the thought doesn't work with reality.

Reality does, in fact, have a limit to how much you can cut something down into pieces.

Originally posted by petrus4
Proof does exist.

Person A performs an experiment, and documents it completely. Person B then performs said experiment, from the notes of Person A. If Person B is able to replicate it, then the proof is in the observable replication.

When people say they want proof, they generally mean one of two things.

a] They want instrumental proof; that is, something like an EEG or a Geiger counter to confirm that something is real. Both psychology and atheism have taught us to believe that our own senses do not provide a legitimate form of evidence for anything.

b] They want the opinion of someone they consider an authority, and will consider that individual's opinion as proof; whether or not said individual has actually conducted an experiment themselves or not. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; and it is even moreso, when said experts make statements on a second-hand, or entirely theoretical basis. The latter in particular, is the main reason why most "skeptics," are a joke, from any genuinely rational point of view.

here is my point-
an experiment by A replicated by others dosent make it a proof.
reason is they have some common knowledge.
remove that common link, everything becomes unprovable.

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Ah, then forgive me for assuming that you understood the meaning of this logical fallacy (It's not an Idiom)

Courtesy of your beloved Wikipedia:

Idiom (Latin: idioma, "special property", f. Greek: ἰδίωμα – idiōma, "special feature, special phrasing", f. Greek: ἴδιος – idios, "one’s own") is an expression, word, or phrase that has a figurative meaning that is comprehended in regard to a common use of that expression that is separate from the literal meaning or definition of the words of which it is made.[1] There are estimated to be at least 25,000 idiomatic expressions in the English language.[2]
In linguistics, idioms are usually presumed to be figures of speech contradicting the principle of compositionality; yet the matter remains debated.[citation needed] In phraseology, they are defined in a similar way as a sub-type of phraseme whose meaning is not the regular sum of the meanings of its components.[3] John Saeed defines an "idiom" as words collocated that became affixed to each other until metamorphosing into a fossilised term.[4] This collocation—words commonly used in a group—redefines each component word in the word-group and becomes an idiomatic expression. The words develop a specialized meaning as an entity, as an idiom. Moreover, an idiom is an expression, word, or phrase whose sense means something different from what the words literally imply. The idiom "beating around the bush" means to hint or discuss obliquely; nobody is literally beating any person or thing, and the bush is a metaphor. When a speaker uses an idiom, the listener might mistake its actual meaning, if he or she has not heard this figure of speech before.[5] Idioms usually do not translate well; in some cases, when an idiom is translated into another language, either its meaning is changed or it is meaningless.

en.wikipedia.org...

Courtesy of your beloved dictionary:
idioms.thefreedictionary.com...

Notice the first part of that link.

The first mention of "Absolute Truth" was on page 4... not page 1.

That is because I didn't have to mention it. It was an obvious reference to its practical use on the site.

You still have not provided a definition to "Absolute Truth"

You are debating with a term that you just made up.

In your OP, you stated that "You can't prove anything scientific.", when I challenged you on it, and I pressed the matter, you moved the goalpost from "Proof" to "Absolute Truth" which is as yet undefined.

You are still trying to weasel your way out of being PROVEN wrong.

I wasn't aware I had to provide a definition of "absolute truth". But I will satisfy your love of words.

Absolute Truth:

An absolute truth, sometimes called a universal truth, is an unalterable and permanent fact. The concept of absolute truths - what they are and whether they exist - has been debated among many different groups of people. Philosophers have waded in the muck of defining absolute truth for millennia. For example, Plato believed that absolute truth existed, but that truth on earth was merely a shadow of great forms of absolute truth existing in the universe. Alternatively, many believe in relative truths, where facts may vary depending on the circumstances.

It's not a term "I just made up". If you think that then you have no place in this argument, no offense.

I'm not really worried about being PROVEN wrong as I can't conclude that I nor you will be PROVEN wrong. If I had calculated a mathematical problem inaccurately, then sure, I could be proven wrong but this is an argument of semantics and a philosophical (at best) take on the theory of scientific absolute truths.

Good night for now.

edit on 13-1-2012 by ErroneousDylan because: (no reason given)

I understand you have to defend your thread ,,but Don't waste your time with these idiots. They are just as blind and delusional as christians and muslims.

Again, great thread!!

How about this concerning the Thread this thread was posted in response to.

Strange no one counter argued what I showed there, even though unlike written it does relate to the premise of the original OP

Some More EVERYTHING IS ONE



Hope some can get to grips with this as its made easy to understand.

No woo Laa laa here as he says himself.

Love to all your DNA

All Your DNA's are mine lol.

Elf