Yo, EminemBase

[EminemBase]

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.

Once again, you're stripping terms of their casual meaning and being predictably academic for its own sake. We can all do this with anything, and with many words.

IN common practice, scientists call certain things fact. Nothing is truly (again, you thinking you've had an epiphany for highlighting that 'nothing' is truly true is hilarious, and tedious, in reality, this is silly thinking) fact but certain things are proven to such a standard, we commonly refer to them as such. Many words, when stripped down to a literal foundation, can be technically bad practice, that doesn't mean we don't use them.

You're arguing philosophy, your arguments are not practical, reasonable or realistic. Deal with reality, stop trying to make your own reality.

If, you do not think that say... gravity is actually fact and that it's as spurious as believing in god - I invite you to go and jump off a high-rise building. See if you can fly - see if the laws of gravity don't bring you crashing down the ground, and let's see if the basic undertones of physics and impact don't kill you. After all, none of this is TRULY fact right? so why not.

[GenePeer]

You tried to use logic to defend your claims and I pointed out the flaws in your reasoning. Logic leaves no room for compromises, even when barely stripped down (look up Socrates for more info). It appears you are not much of a logician as well...

[EminemBase]

You tried to use logic to defend your claims and I pointed out the flaws in your reasoning. Logic leaves no room for compromises, even when barely stripped down (look up Socrates for more info). It appears you are not much of a logician as well...

If, you do not think that say... gravity is actually fact and that it's as spurious as believing in god - I invite you to go and jump off a high-rise building. See if you can fly - see if the laws of gravity don't bring you crashing down the ground, and let's see if the basic undertones of physics and impact don't kill you. After all, none of this is TRULY fact right? so why not.

< Any response?

I assume you wouldn't try this no? because you have an element of trust in gravity and the idea that you WILL die if you jump from a certain height. Why do you believe this? on what basis is this belief formed and how do you justify it?

After all, scientific evidence doesn't exist right?

Waiting...

(You've pointed out no flaws. You've reiterated basic, obvious philosophy of truth, that is older than your lifespan thus far. You're not trying to prove me wrong, you're trying to devalue science itself. And you've failed, miserably.)

[GenePeer]

If, you do not think that say... gravity is actually fact and that it's as spurious as believing in god - I invite you to go and jump off a high-rise building. See if you can fly - see if the laws of gravity don't bring you crashing down the ground, and let's see if the basic undertones of physics and impact don't kill you. After all, none of this is TRULY fact right? so why not.

It's obviously not a fact that I will die if I play russian roulette. But I still won't play it... Not being willing to jump has nothing to do with gravity being a fact.

[EminemBase]

If, you do not think that say... gravity is actually fact and that it's as spurious as believing in god - I invite you to go and jump off a high-rise building. See if you can fly - see if the laws of gravity don't bring you crashing down the ground, and let's see if the basic undertones of physics and impact don't kill you. After all, none of this is TRULY fact right? so why not.

It's obviously not a fact that I will die if I play russian roulette. But I still won't play it... Not being willing to jump has nothing to do with gravity being a fact.

Why are you not willing to jump? you said there's no such thing as scientific evidence, no such thing as fact or truth. So why do have any belief at all in these ideas?

[GenePeer]

I acknowledge that there's is a possibility that if I jump I might or might not die. It's just like every other experiment in science. Scientists acknowledge that there prediction of outcomes may or may not be true. The difference is the risk of losing my life is much greater than the satisfaction of proving you wrong. In fact, even if I die, it still wouldn't be proof that gravity is fact. That is the flaw in your logic.

Plus, I said there is no such thing as "scientific proof", not evidence. Stop misquoting me.

[EminemBase]

I acknowledge that there's is a possibility that if I jump I might or might not die. It's just like every other experiment in science. Scientists acknowledge that there prediction of outcomes may or may not be true. The difference is the risk of losing my life is much greater than the satisfaction of proving you wrong. In fact, even if I die, it still wouldn't be proof that gravity is fact. That is the flaw in your logic.

So - you believe that jumping... out of a plane that is 30,000 feet high say, with no parachute or protection, you think the chances of surviving are 50/50?

If not, what is swaying you either way? you don't believe in evidence, so on what basis do you justify a belief greater than chance either way...

Do you think you being able to jump over the moon is JUST AS LIKELY as you being able to drink a glass of water? if not, why not. How are you justifying one being more likely or unlikely than the other. Since, once again, evidence, to you, does not exist... ?

There is not flaw in 'my' logic as it's not 'my' logic. I didn't invent the concept of logic, I didn't invent science. You're trying to devalue science, all I'm doing is echoing pure reason, and you're being absolutely ridiculous. I'll be waiting on responses to the above questions.

[GenePeer]

Thank you, the keyword you used is "believe". Belief and facts should not be put on the same side of an argument and that is exactly what you're doing.

[EminemBase]

Thank you, the keyword you used is "believe". Belief and facts should not be put on the same side of an argument and that is exactly what you're doing.

I have no idea what your point is.

So you think the word fact should just be removed from the English language then? you seem to think it has no use and no facts exist.

Facts do exist, you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

Also, a definition of 'belief':
An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

And since 'facts' are things generally accepted to be true or the case, then I would say belief and facts very much go together. As, you believe, in facts.

You've contradicted yourself numerous times, tried to devalue science completely (and failed) and I really do not know what your aim is here. Beyond a personal gripe.

[GenePeer]

Accepting that something is true, and knowing for a fact that it is are two different things.

There are facts in life. The outcome of a science experiment could be a fact. It is a fact that after burning the candle for a day, barely any of it was left. It is the generalization that comes when forming the law that is not a fact. It's not a fact that ALL candles will "disappear" when burnt for a while. If for some reason, the existence of God would contradict the new law, I would not automatically disregard it because my law is a fact!

Mathematics is filled with facts. I know for a fact that if I multiply an integer by 5. The result is divisible by 5. I know for a fact that the sum of consecutive integers from 1 to n is n(n+1)/2. I can use logic to prove these facts. I can't use logic to prove that the laws of science are facts.

[EminemBase]

There are facts in life. The outcome of a science experiment could be a fact. It is a fact that after burning the candle for a day, barely any of it was left. It is the generalization that comes when forming the law that is not a fact.

Why is it a fact if there is no truth, no provable reality.

Who's to say you didn't imagine burning the candle, or imagine for how long, who's to say your perception of what a candle looks like isn't totally wrong and you've convinced yourself everybody else has the same perception of a candle that you have.

You can breakdown elements of your sentence / idea and come to the conclusion that it is also not a fact. But in reality, this is silly and just philosophy.

Certain things in science are proven to such a standard, they are fact. If you don't think so, I don't really care. I think that, as I value scientific evidence. Now, that is a broad statement but I have certain ideas in mind when saying that.

I'll believe what I want, you do the same.

[GenePeer]

Certain things in science are proven to such a standard, they are fact.

Relativity was one of such things and yet it is now on the verge of being disproven. What use is a standard if in a thousand years, our generation will be laughed at for thinking these things were facts. There are somethings that are facts, but laws of science aren't one of them.

[EminemBase]

Certain things in science are proven to such a standard, they are fact.

Relativity was one of such things and yet it is now on the verge of being disproven. What use is a standard if in a thousand years, our generation will be laughed at for thinking these things were facts. There are somethings that are facts, but laws of science aren't one of them.

Yes but I said 'certain things' in Science, not all things.

Certain things are... thought about in such a way or 'proven' in such a way that they can always be re-thought, revised or thrown out to a degree.

Let's take... Evolution for example. There's debates within Science amongst evolutionary biologists on how certain elements happened and so on but... the basic idea of change over time in the way Evolution pertains to it happening has been proven from so many angles that...

Yes it's conceivable it could be proven wrong or totally flipped upside down but so so unlikely given the proof of DNA (the fact all living organisms have the same base DNA structure and you can compare / analyze changes through species etc.), adaptation to environment and everything else.

And not only does every new stack of evidence from a different angle 're-prove' it, everything points to the same explanation, time and time again.

So whilst conservatively, even Darwin himself would probably not call it a fact - in general conversation, any respectable scientist who knows anything about Evolution would probably refer to it as such. It may 'technically' be a slight misuse of the word given that this and other theories within Science can't be proven in the way that things in mathematics can but, still.

[GenePeer]

@EminemBase, I think we've come to a conclusion and I'm done with this debate.