Yo, EminemBase

[GenePeer]

Heard of the neutrinos that can (seemingly) go faster than light? Top-notch scientist at CERN are baffled by them and asking for help. The light-speed barrier is as certain as anything will ever get in science, and now the experiments are consistently showing it being broken.

Now, it is a FACT that the laws of science are RIGHT.

Sure?

[EminemBase]

I said the laws of science are a fact.

As in, what we know gravity as, what we know light as...

Something not being able to break the light-speed barrier is a near-certainty, but not something that is absolute. That's a conclusion based on current knowledge.

[GenePeer]

The whole of relativity (including all that we know of gravity) is based on the light-speed barrier. E=mc^2, which led to nuclear power/bombs, was also a law of science based on it. According to your reasoning, if it works then it's correct. But then again, as a logician, you must know that any conclusion (such as e=mc^2, laws of gravity) derived from a uncertain premise (light-speed barrier) can not be accepted as a fact.

[EminemBase]

The whole of relativity (including all that we know of gravity) is based on the light-speed barrier. E=mc^2, which led to nuclear power/bombs, was also a law of science based on it. According to your reasoning, if it works then it's correct. But then again, as a logician, you must know that any conclusion (such as e=mc^2, laws of gravity) derived from a uncertain premise (light-speed barrier) can not be accepted as a fact.

Nothing is so certain that no possibility of another reality or principle is possible.

However, that does not therefore mean 'everything' is as uncertain as everything else and, the idea of a ghost say, is as valid as the idea of time travel.

We cannot absolutely say there is definitely no god either, but we also can't definitely say the world is not a triangle. But the probability of these things is as good as zero. We just have to entertain all possibilities in a conversationalist and logical sense.

But this fucking nonsense that the average joe has hijacked from philosophy of 'oh, your truth is as good as my truth' is ridiculous. There are facts, as we know them. We don't need to keep highlighting how certain 'facts' when broken down to the most inner-core element are not TRULY facts or as solid 'facts' as we think or refer to them. Anybody of any intelligence knows this.

However, they are facts in a practical sense. So unless you want to just get rid of the word all together, what the fuck is your point. It's just being pedantic and academic, for the sake of it.

[GenePeer]

So unless you want to just get rid of the word all together, what the fuck is your point.

That's exactly what I wanted to do if you read through my posts in the earlier thread. I said there are no facts in science. In no way, did I say it's a bad thing; it's still practical and has greatly changed our lifestyle/culture but, logically (the keyword), nothing in science can be a fact because it uses inductive logic. A fact means absolute certainty and inductive logic can never guarantee certainty. Actually, the laws may be facts, but we will never be certain of it.

If anybody with intelligence knows this, then they'd know not to say, "God doesn't not exist because that would make science wrong yet science is a fact."
There were two things wrong with that:

1. the idea anything that contradicts science is automatically false
2. the idea that God somehow contradicts science

I dealt with the former, while Class dealt with the latter in the other thread.

Ironically, you believe the laws are right because you see them work everyday, just like religious people believe a deity exist because they "see" the deity in their lives everyday.

[EminemBase]

So unless you want to just get rid of the word all together, what the fuck is your point.

That's exactly what I wanted to do if you read through my posts in the earlier thread. I said there are no facts in science. In no way, did I say it's a bad thing; it's still practical and has greatly changed our lifestyle/culture but, logically (the keyword), nothing in science can be a fact because it uses inductive logic. A fact means absolute certainty and inductive logic can never guarantee certainty. Actually, the laws may be facts, but we will never be certain of it.

If anybody with intelligence knows this, then they'd know not to say, "God doesn't not exist because that would make science wrong yet science is a fact."
There were two things wrong with that:

1. the idea anything that contradicts science is automatically false
2. the idea that God somehow contradicts science

I dealt with the former, while Class dealt with the latter in the other thread.

Ironically, you believe the laws are right because you see them work everyday, just like religious people believe a deity exist because they "see" the deity in their lives everyday.

We use the word 'fact' with this in deep knowledge though. Or, anybody with intelligence does. We don't need to highlight it, it's tedious.

In reality, we can't even be sure we're not the imaginings of some other 'self' in another dimension. BUT, that doesn't mean it's the flip of a coin, just as likely or that we should value all ideas as much as each other. Certain ideas are more valid than others.

Science proves itself by trying to disprove itself, and it strengthens. The laws of science are not a punt, a personal belief or a string of vague theories. They're generations of strengthened ideas, that only get stronger, and more true, and they're true to such a degree, we call them fact.

Just as some things are untrue or so unlikely to such a degree, we call them impossible. Would you also like to rid the dictionary of the word impossible too now? you're simply being pedantic and academic and what you're saying is very easy to say, to anybody with intellect, and it's going in circles. But we both know, the laws of science, are fact.

And comparing the understanding or belief or trust in them due to a wealth of proof and repeatable evidence and theory to... believing in something inherently irrational and inherently based on the idea of believing in it for its own sake, and believing, purposefully WITHOUT evidence, is absurd.

[GenePeer]

So not only do you use the word fact inappropriately, you are now misusing proof. Predicting somethin will happen a thousand or even a million times is still not proof you are right. So stop saying that science has been proven.

Plus this talk of being true to a certain degree is completely useless if there's always a chance of it being completely false. All science laws have a chance of being wrong and that's what the scientist are always trying to find out. If they aren't sure of their laws, why are you? There's a reason you never get headings like "Laws of So-and-so proven right" but instead we get "Newton disproven once again", lol/ There are only two things in science: things that are known to be false, and those that are yet to be shown false. Nothing more nor less.

And what do you mean they have no evidence? They see miracles in their lives everyday; their testimonies are just as true and valuable to them as science experiments are to scientist. They don't prove their beliefs, but strengthens them. There's a double standard for you will accuse religious testimonies of not being logical, reliable and what not, but then call me pedantic when I start scrutinizing science with the same logic.

[EminemBase]

^ You lost me when you said religious people's testimonies are as valid / comparable to scientific proof. You truly are being absolutely ridiculous.

Think what you like, like I care. I'm sure we can agree that we pretty much dislike each other and think on a different line of thinking, this is getting repetitive. Done.

[GenePeer]

^ You lost me when you said religious people's testimonies are as valid / comparable to scientific proof. You truly are being absolutely ridiculous. You're not an intellectual.

There is no such thing as scientific proof. You're not a scientist...

[EminemBase]

^ You lost me when you said religious people's testimonies are as valid / comparable to scientific proof. You truly are being absolutely ridiculous. You're not an intellectual.

There is no such thing as scientific proof. You're not a scientist...

Yes there is. And yes I'm aware I'm not a scientist. I'm also not a dancer, a musician, a poet, an actor... we could be here all day. You're not intelligent.

[momentsgolden]

So not only do you use the word fact inappropriately, you are now misusing proof. Predicting somethin will happen a thousand or even a million times is still not proof you are right. So stop saying that science has been proven.

Hence the need for disambiguation in mathematics between laws, lemmas and theorems.

If anybody with intelligence knows this, then they'd know not to say, "God doesn't not exist because that would make science wrong yet science is a fact."
There were two things wrong with that:

the idea anything that contradicts science is automatically false
the idea that God somehow contradicts science
I dealt with the former, while Class dealt with the latter in the other thread.

True but

while Class dealt with the latter in the other thread

^ You lost me when you said religious people's testimonies are as valid / comparable to scientific proof. You truly are being absolutely ridiculous.

Again, another double standard. People who practice, follow, apply their areas of expertise are considered the authority in determing validity in all common areas. Lawyers in law, Physicists in physics, physcologists in physcology and economics in economics. Each discipline has different ways to derive knowledge, different acceptance levels of commonly held ideas and specific ways of self-evaluation. Why then should a RELIGIOUS person's testimony in a RELIGOUS subject be discarded like that? And by those i mean the priests, nuns and pastors with YEARS of dedicated service in just that field.

[GenePeer]

Yes there is. And yes I'm aware I'm not a scientist. I'm also not a dancer, a musician, a poet, an actor... we could be here all day. You're not intelligent.

I really love it when you run out of things to say...

There's a double standard for you will accuse religious testimonies of not being logical, reliable and what not, but then call me pedantic when I start scrutinizing science with the same logic.

You really have nothing to add to that?

[EminemBase]

Yes there is. And yes I'm aware I'm not a scientist. I'm also not a dancer, a musician, a poet, an actor... we could be here all day. You're not intelligent.

I really love it when you run out of things to say...

I've not run out of things to say at all.

Anything I do say is responded to you in the same way, and it's repetition. There comes a point when neither side is progressing to a significant degree, we're just wasting time.

You're being overly pedantic and saying old academic chesnuts in ways I've heard a million times, you're not saying anything new or interesting to me. It's tedious.

[EminemBase]

Again, another double standard. People who practice, follow, apply their areas of expertise are considered the authority in determing validity in all common areas. Lawyers in law, Physicists in physics, physcologists in physcology and economics in economics. Each discipline has different ways to derive knowledge, different acceptance levels of commonly held ideas and specific ways of self-evaluation. Why then should a RELIGIOUS person's testimony in a RELIGOUS subject be discarded like that? And by those i mean the priests, nuns and pastors with YEARS of dedicated service in just that field.

No, it's not a double-standard.

Religion and science are not comparable. They're inherently different. Science, bases itself on evidence which can be proven through observable, repeatable testing.

Religion on the other hand, is founded and centred on the very opposite kind of thinking. It promotes and values the idea of believing without evidence, of not needing to justify your beliefs in any reasonable sense but simply believing them, because you want to.

Well that's all well fine and dandy but it means nothing in the real world. I can make up any number of beliefs, as we all can, and not justify them by any reasonable means. Do you think those kinds of beliefs deserve JUST AS MUCH respect or to be taken as seriously as rules such as gravity or things we can touch, smell or sense in some way?

That's insanity, and it's ridiculous. That is why a priest is not given the same respect - because all they're an expert in is fictional stories and bronze-aged mentality. It means nothing.

[GenePeer]

You're being overly pedantic and saying old academic chesnuts in ways I've heard a million times, you're not saying anything new or interesting to me. It's tedious.

It's sad that you've heard it a million times from scientists themselves and you still think science is fact and proven.