Almalieque wrote:
I didn't say theories weren't based on facts, but it's a theory, because there are still missing facts.
You're implying that it's possible for a theory to become something more than a theory, which isn't true.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Atheism or agnosticism?
Atheism or agnosticism?Follow
You're implying that it's possible for a theory to become something more than a theory, which isn't true.
Almalieque wrote:
kiworrior wrote:
Again, I must say here that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method.
Science never proves anything, ever.
As for your example of the big bang, it is indeed a theory that could be completely wrong. Just because some people argue that it is a fact does not make it inline with the scientific method.
Science never proves anything, ever.
As for your example of the big bang, it is indeed a theory that could be completely wrong. Just because some people argue that it is a fact does not make it inline with the scientific method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method wrote:
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results.
Dude.. you're wrong.. scientific explanations and reasons are proofs and evidences of questions and concerns that we have.
The whole point in science is to explain why things are the way they are and the only way you can do that is by proving a hypothesis true or false. Which is exactly what I said. Science is nothing but proving things true and false.
I thought that was very common knowledge.
First, that wiki quote doesn't say what you are saying it says.
And you are right as to the whole point of science, which is to explain why things are they way they are. But you are wrong in that in order to do that science proves a hypothesis true or false. Science never proves something true, they only propose hypothesis and theories based on evidence, but when new evidence arises then those theories are either changed accordingly or discarded.
You are half right in that science is all about proving things false, but it never proves things to be true. If what you really mean is that science accepts certain things as true for practical reasons, then you have just been playing a game of semantics and/or you are a decent troll, and even in those cases when new evidence contradicts those accepted truths they are discarded. But, if you really do mean science proposes epistemic truths, then you are flat out wrong.
#230Almalieque,
Posted: May 01 2011 at 12:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Explanations are proofs. I have a strong feeling this is nothing but semantics, so as I said in the other post, I will just concede with the references that I've provided.
Almalieque wrote:
Explanations are proofs. I have a strong feeling this is nothing but semantics, so as I said in the other post, I will just concede with the references that I've provided.
I see, then it was a game of semantics. Then we should agree that science does not put forward epistemic truths, and only puts forward theories which are supported by evidence and testing.
Quote:
I had a response to that statement before he even read my post
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Almalieque wrote:
Explanations are proofs.
Statements like these are why I heavily question your claims that you have a math-based background.
#234Almalieque,
Posted: May 01 2011 at 2:28 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You mean actually knowing what a proof is? Dude, unless you want to deny actual definitions, then you're wrong. I quoted the definition for you and linked it. If you still think otherwise, then that is a personal problem.
kiworrior wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Explanations are proofs. I have a strong feeling this is nothing but semantics, so as I said in the other post, I will just concede with the references that I've provided.
I see, then it was a game of semantics. Then we should agree that science does not put forward epistemic truths, and only puts forward theories which are supported by evidence and testing.
I agree with the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fact#Fact_in_science wrote:
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20] (For an example, see Evolution as theory and fact.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method wrote:
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results.
Almalieque wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Statements like these are why I heavily question your claims that you have a math-based background.
You mean actually knowing what a proof is? Dude, unless you want to deny actual definitions, then you're wrong. I quoted the definition for you and linked it. If you still think otherwise, then that is a personal problem.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#237Almalieque,
Posted: May 01 2011 at 2:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm just using the word the only way I've ever seen it to be used. I only had a couple of heavy proofing classes, Topology and Algorithms (that I recall atm), and that's exactly how the word was used.
Alma wrote:
I'm just using the word the only way I've ever seen it to be used. I only had a couple of heavy proofing classes, Topology and Algorithms (that I recall atm), and that's exactly how the word was used.
As I said, I'm sure this is nothing but semantics, so instead of debating our own definitions, I'm sticking with what I quoted. If you guys provide a quoted definition that says something else, then I will adjust my interpretation.
Its obvious now why this whole argument started if you think scientific proof is the same as mathematical proof.
Here is a quick google definition of mathematical proof (since you are so set on seeing one).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof wrote:
In mathematics, a proof is a convincing demonstration (within the accepted standards of the field) that some mathematical statement is necessarily true. Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments. That is, a proof must demonstrate that a statement is true in all cases, without a single exception. An unproven proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture.
Can you see now how scientific proof is not the same as mathematical proof?
Edited, May 1st 2011 6:56pm by kiworrior
#239Almalieque,
Posted: May 01 2011 at 3:47 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That could very well be the issue. I tend to try to think of everything in math related terms, sometimes it doesn't work. I'm not convinced on your statement as your quote only defines what a math proof is while not discrediting my quotes on science, but I'm willing to accept possible error on my judgement. Once again, I assure you this is probably only semantics.
kiworrior wrote:
Alma... wrote:
I'm just using the word the only way I've ever seen it to be used. I only had a couple of heavy proofing classes, Topology and Algorithms (that I recall atm), and that's exactly how the word was used.
As I said, I'm sure this is nothing but semantics, so instead of debating our own definitions, I'm sticking with what I quoted. If you guys provide a quoted definition that says something else, then I will adjust my interpretation.
Its obvious now why this whole argument started if you think scientific proof is the same as mathematical proof.
Here is a quick google definition of mathematical proof (since you are so set on seeing one).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof wrote:
In mathematics, a proof is a convincing demonstration (within the accepted standards of the field) that some mathematical statement is necessarily true. Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments. That is, a proof must demonstrate that a statement is true in all cases, without a single exception. An unproven proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture.
Can you see now how scientific proof is not the same as mathematical proof?
Fixed misquote
Ailitardif wrote:
kiworrior wrote:
Alma... wrote:
I'm just using the word the only way I've ever seen it to be used. I only had a couple of heavy proofing classes, Topology and Algorithms (that I recall atm), and that's exactly how the word was used.
As I said, I'm sure this is nothing but semantics, so instead of debating our own definitions, I'm sticking with what I quoted. If you guys provide a quoted definition that says something else, then I will adjust my interpretation.
Its obvious now why this whole argument started if you think scientific proof is the same as mathematical proof.
Here is a quick google definition of mathematical proof (since you are so set on seeing one).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof wrote:
In mathematics, a proof is a convincing demonstration (within the accepted standards of the field) that some mathematical statement is necessarily true. Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments. That is, a proof must demonstrate that a statement is true in all cases, without a single exception. An unproven proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture.
Can you see now how scientific proof is not the same as mathematical proof?
Fixed misquote
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Nilatai wrote:
Thanks, I was a little confused there...
No problem, I just figured if you wanted to look stupid it should be for something you actually said.
Ailitardif wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Thanks, I was a little confused there...
No problem, I just figured if you wanted to look stupid it should be for something you actually said.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#244Almalieque,
Posted: May 01 2011 at 4:42 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I think he does that quite well on his own.
Almalieque wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Thanks, I was a little confused there...
No problem, I just figured if you wanted to look stupid it should be for something you actually said.
I think he does that quite well on his own.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#246Almalieque,
Posted: May 01 2011 at 4:51 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Well, this is kinda boring now.. Didn't you claim that I had emotional arguments on SSM and abortion? I'm still waiting for you to tell me what they are, especially abortion. Go...
Almalieque wrote:
Well, this is kinda boring now.. Didn't you claim that I had emotional arguments on SSM and abortion? I'm still waiting for you to tell me what they are, especially abortion. Go...
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#248Almalieque,
Posted: May 01 2011 at 5:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Wow, you're totally off. I figured.. you're just making stuff up.. By the way, Whether the option of abortion is "good" or "bad" is clearly an opinion. If you can't even accept that as a fact, then you're totally messed up in the head. The only alternative would be to believe that there is one set of morals and values that are scientifically and mathematically proven to be true. See what I did there?
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Well, this is kinda boring now.. Didn't you claim that I had emotional arguments on SSM and abortion? I'm still waiting for you to tell me what they are, especially abortion. Go...
Wow, you're totally off. I figured.. you're just making stuff up.. By the way, Whether the option of abortion is "good" or "bad" is clearly an opinion. If you can't even accept that as a fact, then you're totally messed up in the head. The only alternative would be to believe that there is one set of morals and values that are scientifically and mathematically proven to be true. See what I did there?
Also, cross-thread shenanigans, srsly?
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Life begins at the erection.
Edited, May 1st 2011 8:14pm by lolgaxe
Edited, May 1st 2011 8:14pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#251Almalieque,
Posted: May 01 2011 at 5:42 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Well that's what happens when you base your argument on personal emotions.
Recent Visitors: 192
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (192)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Atheism or agnosticism?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC