Originally posted by ColettiWell, if 'all things exist,' then how meaningful is it to say that 'X exists' when
All things exist - the TOE exists as a theory - that is not the issue. The issue is, is it s scientific fact.
such a claim doesn't distinguish it from any other thing.
The fact is that it doesn't. To say 'X exists' is, by your definition, an utterly
meaningless statement.
What doesn't 'exist?' The second you say X, BLAM!, it comes into existence.
Sure the 'idea' of God exists. Even Rwingett agrees with that. But whether
He/She/It factually exists (or 'scientifically factually' or whatever odd
nomenclature you choose to invent) is utterly untrue.
In fact, there is NO empirical evidence for that (you know, observable, measurable,
repeatable). But, there is some empirical evidence for macroevolution (for
a simple example, all of the various homonid skeletons with decreasing brain size,
increasing arm length, increasing bend in posture as the skeletons get older).
Is the empirical evidence conclusive? That is the debate. I find that it is
reasonably conclusive, whereas the 'evidence' for a literal creation (i.e., that the
earth is 6k or 10k or 100k years of age) is easily controverted.
I'll ask ONE MORE TIME: Is it a (scientific) fact that Pluto was going around the
Sun 200 years ago? Please answer 'yes' or 'no.'
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiIf all intelligent life were wiped from the universe, would there never be any more facts?
[b]I see. So, one person's observation of something is sufficient for that something to be a fact?
An observation is fact - but it may not be considered a scientific fact. A Repeated independent observations would be scientific fact ...[text shortened]... inion whether what they played was "music."
[/b]
[/b]
Originally posted by lucifershammerSorry liar but you said:
Err... sorry to rain on your parade, but isn't an "injunction against teaching, holding or writing" a disciplinary order?
He was imprisoned for violating a disciplinary order he recieved for meddling in theology.
Your whole sentence is a falsehood; Galilleo was NOT "meddling in theology"; he was writing and teaching the truth that the Earth moved around the Sun. So sorry to rain on your parade, but you lied; I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were merely ignorant, but your refusal to admit your error now leads me to believe that you deliberately spoke an untruth.
Originally posted by no1marauderDo you actually research the subjects you post about or do you just shoot off the top of your head?
Sorry liar but you said:
He was imprisoned for violating a disciplinary order he recieved for meddling in theology.
Your whole sentence is a falsehood; Galilleo was NOT "meddling in theology"; he was writing and teaching the truth that the Earth moved around the Sun. So sorry to rain on your parade, but you lied; I wa ...[text shortened]... your refusal to admit your error now leads me to believe that you deliberately spoke an untruth.
Galileo's research in Copernicanism had plenty of support (and plenty of opposition too!) within the Church - particularly among the Jesuits. In fact, he even got a favourable go-ahead from Pope Paul V in 1611.
The point, of course, is that Galileo did not confine his statements to scientific matters. His famous Letter to Benedetto Castelli (1613) is mostly about Scriptural exegesis. He also launched a campaign of pamphlets and letters all over Europe. It was this letter that eventually made it to the files of the Holy Office and led to his injunction.
Originally posted by NemesioX does not stand alone - it has a definition. The question would then be is X defined correctly. For instance, a unicorn is a mythical horse-like animal with a single horn in the middle of its forehead. This is true. But it is not a scientific fact since one has never been observed. And one could not build a good scientific theory of unicorns since there is no empirical data to support them. Further, unicorns are not a process - making it hard to define a theory of unicorns.
Well, if 'all things exist,' then how meaningful is it to say that 'X exists' when
such a claim doesn't distinguish it from any other thing.
The fact is that it doesn't. To say 'X exists' is, by your definition, an utterly
meaningless statement.
What doesn't 'exist?' The second you say X, BLAM!, it comes into existence.
Sure the 'i ...[text shortened]... hat Pluto was going around the
Sun 200 years ago? Please answer 'yes' or 'no.'
Nemesio
Now TOE is a process, so defining a theory of evolution is simple (if not very scientific). But since TOE is a process, and processes are not data, it can not rightly be called a fact. One may considerer calling evolution a law, but since it is so poor as a scientific theory, calling it a law is absurd. Calling TOE a fact is unscientific AND illogical by definition.
I'll ask ONE MORE TIME: Is it a (scientific) fact that Pluto was going around the
Sun 200 years ago? Please answer 'yes' or 'no.'
I already answered your question, but I will clarify my answer. The answer depends on whether it can be proven by scientific experimentation or mathematically from scientific data. Since I don't know if it can, I can not in good conscience answer yes or no.
How about this: assume, for the sake of argument, either a yes or no answer (or both), your choice. Or you can pretended like your whole argument depends on my "yes or no" answer and give up.
Originally posted by lucifershammer
Do you actually research the subjects you post about or do you just shoot off the top of your head?
Galileo's research in Copernicanism had plenty of support (and plenty of opposition too!) within the Church - particularly among the Jesuits. In fact, he even got a favourable go-ahead from Pope Paul V in 1611.
The point, of course, is that Galil ...[text shortened]... s this letter that eventually made it to the files of the Holy Office and led to his injunction.
Following the publication of Galileo's dialogues on Copernicanism in 1633 (for which he was charged and convicted of heresy and disobedience to the Catholic Church), he composed his second great work, entitled Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, in which the three fictional interlocutors - Salviati, Sagredo, and Simplicio - are re-united for four days of discussion on the fundamentals of quantitative reasoning as applied to two sciences: (1) the resistance of solids to fracture, and (2) the motions of objects (what we would call dynamics and mechanics).
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath217/kmath217.htm
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerFollowing the publication of Galileo's dialogues on Copernicanism in 1633 (for which he was charged and convicted of heresy and disobedience to the Catholic Church), he composed his second great work, entitled Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, in which the three fictional interlocutors - Salviati, Sagredo, and Simplicio - are re-united for four days of discussion on the fundamentals of quantitative reasoning as applied to two sciences: (1) the resistance of solids to fracture, and (2) the motions of objects (what we would call dynamics and mechanics).
Do you actually research the subjects you post about or do you just shoot off the top of your head?
Galileo's research in Copernicanism had plenty of support (and plenty of opposition too!) within the Church - particularly among ...[text shortened]... made it to the files of the Holy Office and led to his injunction.
edit its deja vu ,,, all over again
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath217/kmath217.htm
Originally posted by ColettiWould archaebacteria gone undiscovered with MacEvolution?
OK - saying it had nothing to do with it was excessive. But subtract out the TOE (at least MacEvolution) and leave the sciences of biology - and science would be fine. We'd still be studying nature, natural processes, genetics, medicine - what does MacEvolution contribute that makes it indispensable - or uniquely helpfully. Would archaebacteria gone undiscovered with MacEvolution?
I don't know. They wouldn't have been discovered as quickly if they ever did get discovered.
Originally posted by frogstompI think you meant to quote the previous post.
as far as I know , every gravititation field we have sent something through Newton's Laws applied.
Even the great Einsteinian "proof" of light bending in a gravitation only showed a slight deviation from Newton's Laws ( which does not predict a straight line for a massless object as was supposed, another LAW applies here the Law of Limits)
so I say " modified"
Why are Relativity and Quantum Mechanics called Theories while Newton's Laws are called Laws?
Originally posted by Coletti
I'll ask ONE MORE TIME: Is it a (scientific) fact that Pluto was going around the
Sun 200 years ago? Please answer 'yes' or 'no.'
I already answered your question, but I will clarify my answer. The answer depends on whether it can be proven by scientific experimentation or mathematically from scientific data. Since I don't know if it can, I can not in good conscience answer yes or no.
How about this: assume, for the sake of argument, either a yes or no answer (or both), your choice. Or you can pretended like your whole argument depends on my "yes or no" answer and give up.[/b]
Let's stick with this Pluto example, ok? And, yes I wish to explore your notion of 'factness'
so I'll probe until you give an answer instead of hedging with either 'yes, no or both.'
What would be acceptable mathematical criteria? Measuring its momentum, the nature of
its orbit and extrapolating backwards? What about 10000 years ago (before writing and thus
the transmission of observations), was Earth revolving around the Sun?
If you don't accept that Earth was revolving around the Sun 10000 years ago as a scientific
fact, then your notion of what constitutes a fact is so utterly bizzare that no reasonable person
can explore it.
I'll wait for your reply before responding to your 'unicorns exist,' but they aren't scientific
fact comment. I need to rest before tackling the absurdity of that statement.
Nemesio