Do you want "scientific proof"?

I think really what he's saying is that science leaves a window of opportunity for someone to come and change it...

Moores Law has been concrete science and has been used for years as gospel, but is on the verge of changing.

A rock on the floor, a scientist can't 'proove it's a rock'? Who says it's a rock? The books? The teachers? The books and teachers have been wrong... what if it's not a rock but a dormant animal, a living organism? The fact that we believe it's a rock, that could change.

Nothing can go faster than the speed of light... Well although these scientists who have the final say, said it would never happen... these scientists are now contemplating whether they were wrong (wrong being a good pointer).

Are there any planets like Earth out there? 10 years ago a majority of scientists would have said no... would those same scientists say no now? Does that mean they were wrong? Does that mean scientific evidence is 100%?

Scientists say that if they don't find an answer, the most logical answer must be taken... Does that not give you an idea of scientific evidence?

It's not foolproof and CAN be manipulated.

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

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by ErroneousDylan

 

You do realize that the term "scientific proof" is some what a form of oxymora, right?

And how do you mean that, exactly?

Do you mean that Knowledge and Proof are mutually exclusive?

Is that really your perspective on the matter? Because I can assure you that you are wrong.


A = A

There, Your entire thread has been rendered meaningless by 3 characters.

Have fun being Ignorant.

Uhh... Sorry, buddy, but you do realize that "A = A" has nothing to do with science, right? That is a logical or mathematical equation...

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

Uhh... Sorry, buddy, but you do realize that "A = A" has nothing to do with science, right?

Science:

1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

2. A particular area of this

3. A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject

4. Knowledge of any kind

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1] An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.

en.wikipedia.org...

And that is why you are wrong.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


WRT the assertion of truth regarding the following statement:

A=A


this depends entirely upon the geometry of the conceptual space onto which you are mapping this piece of information. I could imagine a 2-dimensional or 4-dimensional hyperbolic space (which are not mere abstractions but have application to scientific reality) in which your statement would not be true.

hyperbolic space image

in fact, the argument between you two is the perfect illustration of the point of this thread. application of non-eucledian geometry is more than sufficient to account for all such "mystical" occurrences (which are ALSO a part of reality and should not be discounted).

reply to post by tgidkp

this depends entirely upon the geometry of the conceptual space onto which you are mapping this piece of information.

With all due respect... I am talking about whether A is A.

This is not a geometric argument, this is an argument of whether a thing is itself.

Furthermore, would you like to explain how hyperbolic space even relates the the identity of "A"? or an argument in relation to this subject?

I mean, other than just posting a link to a pretty picture, and claiming that it serves to verify your position, I mean.....

Real scientists need proof in everything that they do.

For instance, due to science airplanes can fly. That is is possible to design an airplane proves that the scientific principles involved to work.

The computer you are working on is due to unbelievable advances in science.

When you get into theoretical sciences, such as evolutionary history, paleontology, and things in which proof cannot unequivocally be found, than you perhaps are right.

But don't confuse physical hard science with the more abstract sciences that require a heavy dose of "opinion" from the scientist.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by ErroneousDylan

 

Uhh... Sorry, buddy, but you do realize that "A = A" has nothing to do with science, right?

Science:

1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

2. A particular area of this

3. A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject

4. Knowledge of any kind

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1] An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.

en.wikipedia.org...

And that is why you are wrong.

You are being too literal about this. I'm kind of surprised you would limit your argument simply to a text book definition of a word. Science has a relation to logic, sure, but science differens from logic. You can have the "science OF logic" or "logicology", which in the definition you sited would be the "knowledge of logic" but not the actual appliance of logic.

Again, as I stated, A = A is simply a mathematical equation.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


K, SnF OP for both thread and subject.seems to me A - A.. Science can say this is infinetly a rock and it will always be a rock that our consciousness has percieved in reality. I'll need some pop corn for this I think.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


Ummm OK

So your saying the study of Spectroscopy does not prove that our sun is mostly composed of hydrogen?

Composition of the Sun

Or that there is a difference between Current Electricity and Static Electricity?

Static electricity occurs when there is an imbalance of positively and negatively charged atoms.Electrons then jump from atom to atom, releasing energy. Two examples of static electricity are lightning and rubbing your feet on the carpet and then touching a doorknob. Current electricity is a constant flow of electrons. There are two kinds of current electricity: direct current (DC) and alternating current (AC). With direct current electricity the electrons move in one direction. Batteries produce direct current. In alternating current, electrons flow in both directions. Power plants produce AC electric current. Alternating current (AC) is the type of electricity that JCPB distributes to you for use.

I'm sorry...I know science has flaws and it will be ever expanded upon, but that does not mean certain things have not been proven true and others false.

reply to post by Openeye


As user "AzureSky" quoted:

"In science there is no right or wrong answer, only the theory that best fits, and its just that. A theory."

I know it is hard to perceive but just because there is a very "solid" explanation of something does not mean it is subject to change in the future.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by ErroneousDylan

 

K, SnF OP for both thread and subject.seems to me A - A.. Science can say this is infinetly a rock and it will always be a rock that our consciousness has percieved in reality. I'll need some pop corn for this I think.

Hehe. Enjoy, my friend. Surely, there is about to be a Hell released upon this thread of arguments.

So if that be the case then even what you are explaining to us has no basis and cannot be proven to be "True" because it has the potential to change.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


YOU SAID IT!, lay it to them.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

You are being too literal about this.

As opposed to taking your assertion that knowledge is not provable as fact?

Yes.

I'm kind of surprised you would limit your argument simply to a text book definition of a word.

I'm kind of surprised that you would disregard meaning in your search for the destruction of reality.

Science has a relation to logic, sure,

If by that you mean that Science *IS* Logic, then yes...

but science differens from logic.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge according to reality.

Science actually MEANS knowledge.

Knowledge presupposes Logic.

Hence, Science and Logic are the same thing.

You can have the "science OF logic" or "logicology"

logicology is not a real word.

which in the definition you sited would be the "knowledge of logic" but not the actual appliance of logic.

Logic is Knowledge.

You seem to keep missing this point.

Logic is how we can know what is true, and what is false.

Notice that the previous sentence used the word "Know"

Logic:
1. Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity

2. A particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference

Knowledge:
1. Facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject

2. What is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information

3. True, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion

4. Awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation

Again, as I stated, A = A is simply a mathematical equation.

Yes, it is a mathematical equation that *PROVES* that you don't know what you are talking about.

Q.E.D.

Science (Knowledge) can be PROVEN.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


No I get where your coming from, I'm just pointing out that there are facts.

The Earth is round.

We breathe oxygen.

Arsenic exposure can lead to Arsenic Poisoning.

Don't believe me start chugging Arsenic in water and tell me how that goes.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


Great post OP a star and a flag for you, and i just wish people could understand this in that nothing can be proving true or false when it comes to somethings. but when 1000's of people are saying it the most be some truth to it even if it cant be proving yet..

reply to post by mcdgray129

nothing can be proving true or false

Would you say that this statement is True?

Originally posted by mcdgray129
reply to post by ErroneousDylan

 

Great post OP a star and a flag for you, and i just wish people could understand this in that nothing can be proving true or false when it comes to somethings. but when 1000's of people are saying it the most be some truth to it even if it cant be proving yet..

You cannot prove this statement so why bother.

The greater sum of the human race exists trusting certain perceptions and concepts that they have no avenue to on a personal level.

Those who believe in God, trust that their leaders are honest with them and their interpretation of ancient texts is correct. This is, by definition, faith.

Those who believe in science, trust that their scholars and professors are honest with them and their interpretation of numerous experiments and outcomes are correct. This is also, by definition, faith.

We can read any number of statements from churches, laboratories, popes and geniuses but we are left to believe what we choose based in our trust of those who do the work of study. Those who become angry when their beliefs are challenged are locked within themselves and either neglect to understand those around them or simply take the most convenient route by assuming the worst of complete strangers. It serves ego but... nothing else in either science or faith.

We live in a vast universe that we have only begun to try and understand. To stand forth proclaiming any knowledge to be unchallenged at this point, is nothing short of blind arrogance.

In 1903, after the Wright Brothers had made their maiden flight, there were still respected people in science declaring that powered, heavier-than-air-flight was impossible.
In faith, even after it became obvious that the Earth was not the center of the universe, the Church remained adamant.

In a century, how many of today's scientific facts or religious tenets, will have been rewritten or ignored?

We are, as a species, not nearly as smart as we like think we are.