222 replies to this topic

[8143FF763271]

That's not the same as proof.

Noun: Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
proven


That's the meaning of proof. Things only become theories after they have plenty of 'proof' on their favour. Are you arguing that things repeatedly falling to the ground isn't proof for the statement 'things fall to the ground'?

If things haven't been verified through experimentation, they are NOT theories. You can make the argument that "NOTHIN IS ABSOLUTE" and derail this into an epistemological discussion but it would be irrelevant: In science, we only call things theory when its propositions are accurate predictions of phenomena.

[Sweeney]

Noun: Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
proven


That's the meaning of proof. Things only become theories after they have plenty of 'proof' on their favour. Are you arguing that things repeatedly falling to the ground isn't proof for the statement 'things fall to the ground'?

If things haven't been verified through experimentation, they are NOT theories. You can make the argument that "NOTHIN IS ABSOLUTE" and derail this into an epistemological discussion but it would be irrelevant: In science, we only call things theory when its propositions are accurate predictions of phenomena.

You're attempting to mix the colloquial meaning of proof, with the scientific meaning of theory.
I suppose I shouldn't have expected any different.

That said, no scientific theory is established as truth or fact.
You can't just dismiss an entire line of reasoning simply because it doesn't suit you. Scientific theories should never be regarded as absolutely true - because they are not.

[8143FF763271]

I am 100% confident that I understand the difference between scientific law and scientific theory a little better than you do, for a variety of reasons, none of which I feel the need to point out to you.

But as an example of how you regard your opinions as law as opposed to theory:

kami12: The purpose of life is to seek pleasure. (Paraphrasing)

This offers NO explanation as to why this is the case. None of your arguments supporting yourself gave any evidence toward this claim. You simply stated that this was the case and then repeated yourself over and over. The entire thread was full of you trying to refute other people's claims while not fleshing out your own. If this was a THEORY, then it would offer an explanation as to why pleasure is the meaning of life. Offering no explanation whatsoever, and simply stating that pleasure is the meaning of life, makes it scientific law.

Pleasure is the meaning of life because it is only TERMINAL end for human beings? I don't know why people are still having trouble grasping that concept.

Suppose that I fleshed you out into a robot. You'd have no control over your actions. Instead, you'd do only what I wanted you to do. The purpose of your life would certainly not be pleasure. The purpose of your life would be serving me, as all of your actions would be intended to that goal. Since human beings direct all of their actions towards the goal of FEELING GOOD, then it is the purpose of our lives. It's a simple logical exercise. Would you do something if it didn't feel good? No? Why? Are you not in control of your actions and, thus, do what you WANT to do? Why would you WANT to do something if that did not feel good to you?

You're attempting to mix the colloquial meaning of proof, with the scientific meaning of theory.
I suppose I shouldn't have expected any different.

That said, no scientific theory is established as truth or fact.
You can't just dismiss an entire line of reasoning simply because it doesn't suit you. Scientific theories should never be regarded as absolutely true - because they are not.

You're attempting to mix the colloquial meaning of proof, with the scientific meaning of theory.
I suppose I shouldn't have expected any different.

That said, no scientific theory is established as truth or fact.
You can't just dismiss an entire line of reasoning simply because it doesn't suit you. Scientific theories should never be regarded as absolutely true - because they are not.

Again, I expected you to derail this into an epistemological argument (you have a knack for derailing arguments into irrelevant territory). Scientific theories may not be absolutely true, but they rest on a pretty solid foundation of proof towards them. They do have a level of accuracy. Hence, consistent results. So, yes, we can approach scientific theories with a degree of certainty. Or are you afraid things will go up flying in the sky because "SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARENT ABSOLUTELY TRUE"? No, they are practical truths. Just like all truths.

Edited by kami12, 21 August 2012 - 08:30 AM.

[Waser Lave]

I thought this thread was supposed to be about me...

[Sweeney]

Again, I expected you to derail this into an epistemological argument (you have a knack for derailing arguments into irrelevant territory). Scientific theories may not be absolute true, but they rest on a pretty solid foundation of proof towards them. They do have a level of accuracy. Hence, consistent results. So, yes, we can approach scientific theories with a degree of certainty. Or are you afraid things will go up flying in the sky because "SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARENT ABSOLUTE TRUE"? No, they are practical truths. Just like all truths.

A solid foundation of evidence. Not proof.
We can approach them with a degree of certainty, at least 95% certainty, usually.
But they are not proven, and continuing to argue that they are is absurd.

[Bone]

lol

[tri]

I thought this thread was supposed to be about me...

It is. Don't judge a topic by it's post. Only it's title. =)

[8143FF763271]

A solid foundation of evidence. Not proof.
We can approach them with a degree of certainty, at least 95% certainty, usually.
But they are not proven, and continuing to argue that they are is absurd.

Evidence = Proof.

Again, they are practical truths like all truths. Or when you're having an argument on evolution, do you add a clause telling people "I DONT ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION BCUZ ITS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY"? No. You say you believe in it because the consistent results it has going on for it is enough to take it for granted on a practical basis. It could be that we're in the matrix and none of this is real therefore I am wrong about everything I say, that's a possibility. It's just not a possibility anyone seriously entertains in argument. You're being epistemologically rigorous to derail the argument by pretending that people's arguments aren't valid just because they speak with certainty.

Edited by kami12, 21 August 2012 - 08:37 AM.

[Nymh]

Pleasure is the meaning of life because it is only TERMINAL end for human beings? I don't know why people are still having trouble grasping that concept.

Suppose that I fleshed you out into a robot. You'd have no control over your actions. Instead, you'd do only what I wanted you to do. The purpose of your life would certainly not be pleasure. The purpose of your life would be serving me, as all of your actions would be intended to that goal. Since human beings direct all of their actions towards the goal of FEELING GOOD, then it is the purpose of our lives. It's a simple logical exercise. Would you do something if it didn't feel good? No? Why? Are you not in control of your actions and, thus, do what you WANT to do? Why would you WANT to do something if that did not feel good to you?

So you don't deny that you regard your claims as law as opposed to theory? Good.

[Bone]

Evidence = Proof.

Again, they are practical truths like all truths. Or when you're having an argument on evolution, do you add a clause telling people "I DONT ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION BCUZ ITS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY"? No. You say you believe in it because the consistent results it has going on for it is enough to take it for granted on a practical basis. It could be that we're in the matrix and none of this is real therefore I am wrong about everything I say, that's a possibility. It's just not a possibility anyone seriously entertains in argument. You're being epistemologically rigorous just to derail the argument by pretending that people's arguments aren't valid just because they speak with certainty.

Things aren't right just because you say they are.

[8143FF763271]

So you don't deny that you regard your claims as law as opposed to theory? Good.

You didn't know the meaning of falsifiability, theory, or law. It's obvious that pride got in your way of admitting it and I wasn't going to entertain it any further with you when you and I both know I was right on the subject.

[Waser Lave]

You didn't know the meaning of falsifiability, theory, or law. It's obvious that pride got in your way of admitting it and I wasn't going to entertain it any further with you when you and I both know I was right on the subject.

Stop derailing my topic, it's supposed to be only about my ineptitude.

[Sweeney]

Evidence = Proof.

Again, they are practical truths like all truths. Or when you're having an argument on evolution, do you add a clause telling people "I DONT ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION BCUZ ITS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY"? No. You say you believe in it because the consistent results it has going on for it is enough to take it for granted on a practical basis. It could be that we're in the matrix and none of this is real therefore I am wrong about everything I say, that's a possibility. It's just not a possibility anyone seriously entertains in argument. You're being epistemologically rigorous to derail the argument by pretending that people's arguments aren't valid just because they speak with certainty.

No, I talk about it as a scientific theory with the understanding that people know what that means. I'm not talking about the idea that the world might be a fictional construct - that's irrelevant because even if it was, it behaves as if it isn't.
I'm talking about the possibility of future disproof, or theoretical inadequacy. I'm being epistemologically rigorous because your arguments aren't, and that's a flaw in your thinking.

I'll say it again; you cannot just declare a valid line of reasoning irrelevant and ignore it because it is inconvenient.

[Turnip]

Things aren't right just because you say they are.

>You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day
Well fuck

[Nymh]

You didn't know the meaning of falsifiability, theory, or law. It's obvious that pride got in your way of admitting it and I wasn't going to entertain it any further with you when you and I both know I was right on the subject.

The only thing that is obvious to me is that you are wrong, but cannot admit it. Instead of owning up to the fact that you have a lesser understanding of these concepts than multiple people who have been schooled in them for decades, you resort to being condescending and throwing around generalizations about how we "don't know the meaning" of things that we obviously do when you are undeniably wrong.

[tri]

Okay he is wrong we are right. Lets stop posting and move on.

[Sweeney]

You didn't know the meaning of falsifiability, theory, or law. It's obvious that pride got in your way of admitting it and I wasn't going to entertain it any further with you when you and I both know I was right on the subject.

The problem is that there is no evidence to at hand to make that assertion with. You're looking at the result of certain actions and accusing [her] of willingly engineering said results.

[Turnip]

Turnip, he can have one of mine. +1

Yaaaayy!!

[8143FF763271]

No, I talk about it as a scientific theory with the understanding that people know what that means. I'm not talking about the idea that the world might be a fictional construct - that's irrelevant because even if it was, it behaves as if it isn't.
I'm talking about the possibility of future disproof, or theoretical inadequacy. I'm being epistemologically rigorous because your arguments aren't, and that's a flaw in your thinking.

I'll say it again; you cannot just declare a valid line of reasoning irrelevant and ignore it because it is inconvenient.

I was arguing one thing with your GIRL (whom you are obviously derailing this argument for) and it's that things don't have to be FALSE to be falsifiable.

I quoted the definition of falsifiable from wikipedia and it stated that theories and hypothesis are falsifiable IF they can be empirically proven wrong.

She said that I think I am right, therefore, they don't count as theories. That's fallacious. That something is "RIGHT" doesn't prevent it from being a theory, nor does it prevent it from being falsifiable. That's the entire argument. Your epistemological debate here? Irrelevant to it.

[Nymh]

Okay he is wrong we are right. Lets stop posting and move on.

Dorkie, respectfully, if you don't like this thread so much, then stop reading it.

[Waser Lave]