Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

#202 Apr 30 2011 at 8:47 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,958 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Majivo wrote:
I have no proof that pigs don't fly, or that a Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the universe, or that Alma isn't a massive ****.


Well it's about time someone admits that s/he doesn't have any proof to counter my overwhelming intelligence. As for the flying pigs and the FSM, there exist proof, YOU just don't posses it.
Screenshot
____________________________
MyAnimeList FFXIV Krystal Spoonless
#203 Apr 30 2011 at 8:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Majivo wrote:
I have no proof that pigs don't fly, or that a Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the universe, or that Alma isn't a massive ****.


Well it's about time someone admits that s/he doesn't have any proof to counter my overwhelming intelligence.

I said I don't have proof that you aren't a massive ****. Shit man, if you were any dumber your parents would've just strangled you in the crib.
#204 Apr 30 2011 at 8:52 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Also, in before Alma says "I knew that, I was just trolling you".
#205 Apr 30 2011 at 10:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,949 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
bsphil wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Thats not what I said at all. I said that there is no evidence that God does not exist.
You're missing the point.

Anything that doesn't exist has no proof that it doesn't exist.


Yeah, I read rdm's paragraph and thought to myself, "Man, Alma just keeps getting dumber." Then saw the author and went "Oh..."


=( harsh.

Also how do you know a "God" does not exist though?


I don't. Er, hence the point of this entire topic, where I used the quote
Quote:
“I don’t believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence and from what I’ve heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe”

I never said anything about knowing - in fact, I mentioned that you can't know something not real doesn't exist. Hence the dissonance between what I thought was the atheist position ("I know there is no God") and what I thought was the agnostic position ("You can't really know one way or the other.").

You literally just took us back 5 pages Smiley: glare
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#206 May 01 2011 at 3:57 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Nilatai wrote:
I'm not being pedantic, they don't mean the same thing. Sorry.


You don't have to be - and indeed shouldn't be - wrong in order to be pedantic.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#207Almalieque, Posted: May 01 2011 at 5:57 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) /sigh..
#208 May 01 2011 at 7:01 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Majivo wrote:
Also, in before Alma says "I knew that, I was just trolling you".
#209Almalieque, Posted: May 01 2011 at 7:20 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If that makes you feel less stupid, then go with that story. Just because you say that first, doesn't actually make anything magically true. I literally separated the sentence and responded differently to each segment of the sentence for that exact reason.
#210 May 01 2011 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,362 posts
Quote:
Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.[1][2][3][4] An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained (see "History and etymology" section below).[5]
Err, where does that say anything about absolutes or proving anything? If you bothered to read halfway down the **** page, on the conveniently named section "Certainty and Science," you'd read this:
Quote:
A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism.

Are you really that stupid, or are you willing to admit you're wrong yet?
#211 May 01 2011 at 8:31 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Back-pedal in 5....4....3....2...1....Take it away Alma!
____________________________
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
#212Almalieque, Posted: May 01 2011 at 9:02 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) There's a difference between a scientific fact and a scientific theory. I was never debating the definition of a scientific theory. People have argued that the Big Bang, along with other explanations, were not theories.
#213 May 01 2011 at 9:22 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Almalieque wrote:
It was a 2 for 1.

We call that a twofer or 2fer.

Almalieque wrote:
what a coincky dinky!!!

We call that a coinkidink.

____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#214 May 01 2011 at 9:28 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
It was a 2 for 1.

We call that a twofer or 2fer.

Almalieque wrote:
what a coincky dinky!!!

We call that a coinkidink.



Coinkidinky sounds funnier to me...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#215 May 01 2011 at 9:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Theories only exist due to a lack of facts.
Wrong! A scientific theory is a body of knowledge that has been accumulated to describe a certain observed phenomena.

For example, there is the fact that evolution takes place, and there is the theory of evolution which accurately describes this fact based upon empirical evidence.


Things like evolution, gravity, the big bang are facts that have theories ascribed to them. Understand?

Edited, May 1st 2011 11:59am by Nilatai
____________________________
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
#216 May 01 2011 at 10:00 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Theories only exist due to a lack of facts.
Wrong! A scientific theory is a body of knowledge that has been accumulated to describe a certain observed phenomena.

For example, there is the fact that evolution takes place, and there is the theory of evolution which accurately describes this fact based upon empirical evidence.


Things like evolution, gravity, the big bang are facts that have theories ascribed to them. Understand?

Edited, May 1st 2011 11:59am by Nilatai


You haven't contradicted anything that I said. How again is it wrong? Let me break it down. Is a theory a fact? Yes or no?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#217 May 01 2011 at 10:02 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Theories only exist due to a lack of facts.
Wrong! A scientific theory is a body of knowledge that has been accumulated to describe a certain observed phenomena.

For example, there is the fact that evolution takes place, and there is the theory of evolution which accurately describes this fact based upon empirical evidence.


Things like evolution, gravity, the big bang are facts that have theories ascribed to them. Understand?

Edited, May 1st 2011 11:59am by Nilatai


You haven't contradicted anything that I said. How again is it wrong? Let me break it down. Is a theory a fact? Yes or no?
Usually, yes.
____________________________
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
#218 May 01 2011 at 10:09 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Theories only exist due to a lack of facts.
Wrong! A scientific theory is a body of knowledge that has been accumulated to describe a certain observed phenomena.

For example, there is the fact that evolution takes place, and there is the theory of evolution which accurately describes this fact based upon empirical evidence.


Things like evolution, gravity, the big bang are facts that have theories ascribed to them. Understand?

Edited, May 1st 2011 11:59am by Nilatai


You haven't contradicted anything that I said. How again is it wrong? Let me break it down. Is a theory a fact? Yes or no?
Usually, yes.


So, what differentiates a scientific theory from a scientific fact? What's the difference between evidence and empirical evidence?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#219 May 01 2011 at 10:19 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Theories only exist due to a lack of facts.
Wrong! A scientific theory is a body of knowledge that has been accumulated to describe a certain observed phenomena.

For example, there is the fact that evolution takes place, and there is the theory of evolution which accurately describes this fact based upon empirical evidence.


Things like evolution, gravity, the big bang are facts that have theories ascribed to them. Understand?

Edited, May 1st 2011 11:59am by Nilatai


You haven't contradicted anything that I said. How again is it wrong? Let me break it down. Is a theory a fact? Yes or no?
Usually, yes.


So, what differentiates a scientific theory from a scientific fact? What's the difference between evidence and empirical evidence?
Did I not just explain that? Things can be both, and they usually are.

A scientific theory usually sets out the details of something that is an accepted and established fact. Like gravity.

We know Gravity is. Just because we don't know all the details about it does not stop it from being. Same goes for things like Evolution and the Big Bang.

Edited, May 1st 2011 12:19pm by Nilatai
____________________________
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
#220 May 01 2011 at 10:28 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
50 posts
Almalieque wrote:

LeWoVoc wrote:
Err, where does that say anything about absolutes or proving anything?


It was a 2 for 1. I wanted to point out that not only do you not understand the purpose of science, but you don't understand what proofing is. If you did, you would have been able to put the two together. Instead, as predicted, you responded with wanting to know the connection.

My quote stated science as " testable explanations and predictions.... reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained". WTF do you think a proof does? Let me help you out, as I already had the quote fired up and ready to go..


1.evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

2.anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

3.the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.


Wow... what a coincky dinky!!! That's what a proof is....

LeWoVoc wrote:
If you bothered to read halfway down the @#%^ing page, on the conveniently named section "Certainty and Science," you'd read this:
Quote:
A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism.


There's a difference between a scientific fact and a scientific theory. I was never debating the definition of a scientific theory. People have argued that the Big Bang, along with other explanations, were not theories.

Theories only exist due to a lack of facts.

So which one is it? Is it a theory that could be completely wrong or is it a scientific fact?


The ball is now in your court...... go....

Edited, May 1st 2011 5:08pm by Almalieque


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.

Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Theories only exist due to a lack of facts.
Wrong! A scientific theory is a body of knowledge that has been accumulated to describe a certain observed phenomena.

For example, there is the fact that evolution takes place, and there is the theory of evolution which accurately describes this fact based upon empirical evidence.


Things like evolution, gravity, the big bang are facts that have theories ascribed to them. Understand?

Edited, May 1st 2011 11:59am by Nilatai


While it probably is an empirical fact that evolution takes place, it is not a fact that is put forward by the scientific method. Science may accept things as fact for the purpose of practicality, but it never puts forward certain truths.
____________________________
"Cogito Ergo Sum" - Rene Descartes
#221 May 01 2011 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
kiworrior wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Theories only exist due to a lack of facts.
Wrong! A scientific theory is a body of knowledge that has been accumulated to describe a certain observed phenomena.

For example, there is the fact that evolution takes place, and there is the theory of evolution which accurately describes this fact based upon empirical evidence.


Things like evolution, gravity, the big bang are facts that have theories ascribed to them. Understand?

Edited, May 1st 2011 11:59am by Nilatai


While it probably is an empirical fact that evolution takes place, it is not a fact that is put forward by the scientific method. Science may accept things as fact for the purpose of practicality, but it never puts forward certain truths.
That's because science can not conclusively prove anything. The only thing known to man that can be conclusively proven beyond all doubt are mathematical concepts, like 1 = 1. Or that the area of a circle is π(r . r).
____________________________
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
#222 May 01 2011 at 11:00 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
50 posts
Nilatai wrote:
]That's because science can not conclusively prove anything. The only thing known to man that can be conclusively proven beyond all doubt are mathematical concepts, like 1 = 1. Or that the area of a circle is π(r . r).


That is correct. Logical systems (such as mathematics) are the only things that can put forward certain truths, but only within the confines of their own rules. When one questions the axioms of a logical system, they begin to fall apart, but, that is neither here nor there.

Science, although build upon logical systems, is not a logical system itself. It is an empirical system.
____________________________
"Cogito Ergo Sum" - Rene Descartes
#223 May 01 2011 at 11:02 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Theories only exist due to a lack of facts.
Wrong! A scientific theory is a body of knowledge that has been accumulated to describe a certain observed phenomena.

For example, there is the fact that evolution takes place, and there is the theory of evolution which accurately describes this fact based upon empirical evidence.


Things like evolution, gravity, the big bang are facts that have theories ascribed to them. Understand?

Edited, May 1st 2011 11:59am by Nilatai


You haven't contradicted anything that I said. How again is it wrong? Let me break it down. Is a theory a fact? Yes or no?
Usually, yes.


So, what differentiates a scientific theory from a scientific fact? What's the difference between evidence and empirical evidence?
Did I not just explain that? Things can be both, and they usually are.

A scientific theory usually sets out the details of something that is an accepted and established fact. Like gravity.

We know Gravity is. Just because we don't know all the details about it does not stop it from being. Same goes for things like Evolution and the Big Bang.

Edited, May 1st 2011 12:19pm by Nilatai


I only asked, because what I googled/wiki'd "scientific theory vs scientific fact", I got something similar yet different.

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.)


To be fair, there are various other interpretations if you read the entire page.

Consistent with the theory of confirmation holism, some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn and others pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires the use of some other theory (e.g., age of fossils is based on radiocarbon dating which is justified by reasoning that radioactive decay follows a Poisson process rather than a Bernoulli process). Similarly, Percy Williams Bridgman is credited with the methodological position known as operationalism, which asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily defined by the means and assumptions used to measure them.


I just wanted to know your interpretation. I favor the first quote, which is the point I was trying to make.

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.


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.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#224 May 01 2011 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,576 posts
Almalieque wrote:
There's a difference between a scientific fact and a scientific theory. I was never debating the definition of a scientific theory. People have argued that the Big Bang, along with other explanations, were not theories.

Theories only exist due to a lack of facts.

I don't mind you being wrong, but I do mind you spreading misinformation.

Theories aren't guesses. Theories are rigorously established scientific explanation for phenomena. They seek to answer why something works. They are built upon factual evidence. First scientific facts are discerned, and then from them arise both theories and laws.
#225Almalieque, Posted: May 01 2011 at 11:43 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You completely took that the wrong way. I didn't say theories weren't based on facts, but it's a theory, because there are still missing facts.
#226 May 01 2011 at 11:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,576 posts
Almalieque wrote:
but it's a theory, because there are still missing facts.

No. Absence of facts does not make it a theory. No amount of additional facts changes a theory, unless they are to the contrary. There is no more rigorously approved or vetted explanation for a scientific principle.
#227 May 01 2011 at 12:06 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
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.
#228Almalieque, Posted: May 01 2011 at 12:30 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Read above.
#229 May 01 2011 at 12:31 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
50 posts
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.


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.
____________________________
"Cogito Ergo Sum" - Rene Descartes
#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.
#231 May 01 2011 at 12:56 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
50 posts
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.
____________________________
"Cogito Ergo Sum" - Rene Descartes
#232 May 01 2011 at 1:06 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Quote:
I had a response to that statement before he even read my post
Why do you do that? Why wouldn't you jsut adress it in the original post if you know someone is going to respond a certain way? Make the clarification before anyone has a chance to question it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#233 May 01 2011 at 2:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
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.
#235 May 01 2011 at 2:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
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:


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.)



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.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#236 May 01 2011 at 2:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
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.
In this context, you're not using the word proof right. You're using it in a laymen's sense, meaning "truth". This is not what proof is, and with your claimed knowledge of mathematics, you know it isn't. Kind of like when you 'deliberately' use the word "theory" wrongly.
____________________________
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.
#238 May 01 2011 at 3:36 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
50 posts
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).


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
____________________________
"Cogito Ergo Sum" - Rene Descartes
#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.
#240 May 01 2011 at 3:47 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
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).


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
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#241 May 01 2011 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
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).


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
Thanks, I was a little confused there...
____________________________
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
#242 May 01 2011 at 3:52 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
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.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#243 May 01 2011 at 4:39 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
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.
Quite right!
____________________________
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.
#245 May 01 2011 at 4:47 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
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.
You're funny. Funny clown!
____________________________
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...
#247 May 01 2011 at 4:55 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
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...
Oh, okay. Um, something along the lines of "Killing babies is wrong". It's either that or you have no argument against abortion, because the option to have an abortion is categorically a good thing.
____________________________
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?
#249 May 01 2011 at 5:35 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
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...
Oh, okay. Um, something along the lines of "Killing babies is wrong". It's either that or you have no argument against abortion, because the option to have an abortion is categorically a good thing.


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?
You made me look like a bible basher! How dares you! Or, y'know, something.


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
#250 May 01 2011 at 5:36 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Life begins at the erection.

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.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 53 All times are in CDT
Allegory, Debalic, Elinda, Poldaran, Samira, Anonymous Guests (48)