Shade of Chemtrails

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Things falling is indication of something, but what gravity suggests, i.e., larger bodies attracting smaller, is absolute rubbish.

So, you observe that things fall, but you think gravity is a fiction.

What about this: observe that when you flip a switch, the light bulb goes on; but do you think electricity is a fiction?

You observe that when you bake milk and eggs and sugar and flour, a cake happens; but do you think chemical bonds are a fiction?

Originally posted by moonbus
So, you observe that things fall, but you think gravity is a fiction.

What about this: observe that when you flip a switch, the light bulb goes on; but do you think electricity is a fiction?

You observe that when you bake milk and eggs and sugar and flour, a cake happens; but do you think chemical bonds are a fiction?

Good stuff.
Now, can you think of a good place to put it?

Originally posted by moonbus
So, you observe that things fall, but you think gravity is a fiction.

What about this: observe that when you flip a switch, the light bulb goes on; but do you think electricity is a fiction?

You observe that when you bake milk and eggs and sugar and flour, a cake happens; but do you think chemical bonds are a fiction?

My advice is to stop communicating with this troll. His paranoia runs very deep, deeper than I suspected and I have been being trolled by this dude for a long time. Fortunatelly I am on his ignore list so I don't have to deal with his paranoid bullshyte but his favorite game is seeing how long he can keep the bullshyte going so prepare for a month long diatribe. Well, in his case, a monotribe...

Originally posted by humy
No, that isn't what I said. You have taken that out of its proper context;. I actually said;

"Pythagoras' theorem is an example of a maths theorem that can come from pure deduction i.e. with no empirical evidence in the physical world and yet still be applied in useful applications in the real world in engineering etc. "
(the whole sentence)

Therefore, f ...[text shortened]... al evidence but rather proven purely deductively/mathematically i.e. proven via reasoning alone?

It doesn't make sense to say a theory has no empirical evidence to support it and can still be applied to useful applications. If the application was indeed useful, it would provide the requisite evidence to support the theory.

Scientific theories do not exist without supportive evidence. Per the wiki page ".... the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models."

Originally posted by humy

Do you agree there are scientific theories (such as Pythagoras' theorem) that are now proven and not by the empirical evidence but rather proven purely deductively/mathematically i.e. proven via reasoning alone?

Pythagoras's theorem is not a theory (scientific or otherwise). "Theorem" and "theory" are different and should not be conflated.

Originally posted by moonbus
Pythagoras's theorem is not a theory (scientific or otherwise). "Theorem" and "theory" are different and should not be conflated.

agreed; my mistake.

after much further study and analysis, I concluded I was simply wrong with the way I defined "science" and "scientific method", giving it a much more generic meaning than what I should do and an erroneous meaning which can erroneously have just deduction in the place of involvement of empirical evidence. So, mathematical (and all other purely deductive-logic-based disciplines) is NOT a "science".

BUT, ANYONE, can it be exactly semantically correct in some context to speak of "the SCIENCE of statistics"?
---
I really want to know the answer to this question because it is directly relevant to some of the exact wording I should use in my book I am currently writing which is mainly about a revolutionary new branch of statistics and some examples of actual concrete applications of it and with analysis of those applications that is 'sort of' based on empirical evidence in the form of observed output of computer simulations I have run.


BUT;

"All 'scientific facts' can be validly viewed/defined as 'theories with proof they are true'."

All agreed?

Originally posted by humy
[b"All 'scientific facts' can be validly viewed/defined as 'theories with proof they are true'."
All agreed?[/b]

Elizabeth Anscombe used say, "'Fact' is a weasel word. Is it a fact that it's easy to ride a horse?"

Don't be so sure anyone knows what a fact is, much less a 'scientific fact'.

I suppose you could say that it's a fact, or maybe a 'scientific fact,' that light bulbs go on when someone flips a switch, but there is hardly any theory which specifically addresses this case.

It's a fact that Goethe was one of the great minds of his or any generation, probably a genius. It's a fact the Ceasar conquered Gaul. But there is no theory which proves these things, and any putative theory which attempted to prove them would be ludicrous.

"Proof" in relation to an empirical hypothesis is not equivalent to proof in relation to a theorem of mathematics or logic or set theory. There is evidence confirming or dis-confirming empirical hypotheses. Scientific truth is inherently revisable in light of future as-yet unseen evidence; a scientific theory may be said to be extremely well-established when the preponderance of evidence supports it and little or no credible evidence dis-confirms it. There may, however, be anomalies which suggest that the current best-available theory may not be complete (e.g., dark matter, dark energy). Proving a scientific theory true must in any case be assumed to mean "the best available explanation, given the preponderance of evidence at hand" and distinguished from the proof of something like Pythagoras's theorem. There is no possible future evidence which could revise Pythagoras's theorem.

Evidence can be conclusive or even compelling in a court of law, for example: "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," but the fact that the sun has risen every day for the last ten billion years is still no proof that it must rise tomorrow. It is highly probable, but not necessary, that it will rise again tomorrow. As soon as you uncouple necessity from proof, you haven't got a proof in the strong (logical/mathematical) sense anymore; you've got something colloquial.

If you are writing a book about statistics, colloquial usage is not clear and unambiguous enough. Be rigorous. I suggest you do some reading on the topic of induction, deduction, and probability.

PS You might want to do some reading on the following topics:

hard sciences/soft sciences

theoretical sciences/applied sciences

I think you will find that any simple definition of what science is, and for that matter of what of truth is, is bound to be inadequate/incomplete/misleading.

Originally posted by moonbus
Elizabeth Anscombe used say, "'Fact' is a weasel word. Is it a fact that it's easy to ride a horse?"

Don't be so sure anyone knows what a fact is, much less a 'scientific fact'.

I suppose you could say that it's a fact, or maybe a 'scientific fact,' that light bulbs go on when someone flips a switch, but there is hardly any theory which specifically ad ...[text shortened]... ce is, and for that matter of what of truth is, is bound to be inadequate/incomplete/misleading.

Don't be so sure anyone knows what a fact is, much less a 'scientific fact'.

Not everyone is totally ignorant of some facts and/or what is a fact.

could say that it's a fact, or maybe a 'scientific fact,' that light bulbs go on when someone flips a switch, but there is hardly any theory which specifically addresses this case.

There is one such theory, the theory that light bulbs go on when someone flips a switch; it is far far too trivial to deserve to be called a "scientific theory" but it is a "theory" nevertheless.

It's a fact the Ceasar conquered Gaul. But there is no theory which proves these things,

Theories don't prove things. Evidence proves things.

"Proof" in relation to an empirical hypothesis is not equivalent to proof in relation to a theorem of mathematics or logic or set theory....
... There is no possible future evidence which could revise Pythagoras's theorem.

I agree with both above. I have revised and changed some of my opinion and agree you were right and I was wrong about a couple of things. I guess that is one of the things that makes me so different from the likes of Freaky etc; I change my beliefs the moment I see evidence and/or logic that contradicts them (in this case the 'evidence' was what was written in some web links I stumbled across). I have already done that countless times during my research and guess I might do so a few more times, we will see.

My research (my book is going to be about that research) is a weird combination of things that don't normally mix together (in just one coherent system of logic I call "leastic logic" ) of philosophy, statistics and probability theory, making exact accurate definitions of things with a number of 'laws' I invented to define what IS a valid definition (not sure what I should call that part but at least for now I call it "definology"; a new word I invented ), and AI and how the equations I discovered will be used in the AI programs. But if I was forced to say just one thing it is all about, I would definitely say statistics.

Good luck with it. Have you got a publisher lined up?

Originally posted by moonbus
Good luck with it. Have you got a publisher lined up?

From the sound of it, Mad Magazine is very interested.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
From the sound of it, Mad Magazine is very interested.

Must be true. The troll has spoken.

Originally posted by moonbus
Good luck with it. Have you got a publisher lined up?

No; far to early; I believe I need to actually write out the whole book first to completion. I know many book writers contact a publisher well before they competed the book but because of huge uncertainty of how much longer it would take and for various other reasons, in this case, it would be a very bad idea for me to do that; better I just write it all first.
It will take me anything form 6 months to 1.5 more years to write it (still researching) with my best estimate being 1 year.
But when it DOES finally get published it will revolutionize statistics and, eventually, AI, because I have already made two key discoveries that will guarantee it will to do just that!

Originally posted by humy
No; far to early; I believe I need to actually write out the whole book first to completion. I know many book writers contact a publisher well before they competed the book but because of huge uncertainty of how much longer it would take and for various other reasons, in this case, it would be a very bad idea for me to do that; better I just write it all first. ...[text shortened]... AI, because I have already made two key discoveries that will guarantee it will to do just that!

And if some mathemetician proves you wrong, 2 years down the drain so you have to see what the world says, maybe a couple years goes by and it is accepted, THEN you can make your movie🙂