10 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiWe observed Pluto going around the sun?
Again you are taking about past tenses. There are many facts we have yet to observe. But talking about them before we observe them would not make them facts. Since we have observed Pluto going around the sun, we can say it is a fact that Pluto goes around the sun. If it went around the sun 9,000 years ago could be debated if there are no observations. B ...[text shortened]... ne to believe it is true. Not all truths are scientific facts. All scientific facts are true.
If so, by your definitions, it's a fact that Pluto went around the sun at the time we observed it. It is not a fact that it went around the sun any other time.
10 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiAll scientific facts are true.
Scientific facts are a subset of true knowledge. Not all truths are known (measured or observed). Not all truths are provable. Scientific facts are empirical, not all truth is empirical.
Not all scientific facts are necessarily true. That would require 100% reliable perceptions. Perceptions have been wrong - thus a previously considered true scientific fact can later become false.
Not all scientific facts are necessarily true.
You're confusing me Coletti. Which is it?
10 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThe problem with your extrapolation is the further beyond the observed data you project, the more room for error there is. Correct?
Originally posted by Coletti
[b]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 m ...[text shortened]... o rest before tackling the absurdity of that statement.
Nemesio[/b]
And how many unknowns must be assumed to make the projection?
Technically, any project beyond observed data could be considered hypothetical - assuming x, y, and z, and based on the correctness of observations a, b, and c - the probability that Pluto was orbiting the sun 200 years before our oldest recorded observations is (for instance) 99%. And 10000 years before that it is 95%. Again, these calculations are contingent on certain assumptions.
So I would not call it a scientific fact since that would not be technically correct. I would call it a scientific probability.
I think the problems is the lack of distinction between terms like theory, law, fact, probability, truth, and existence. A definition of fact is not a good scientific definition if it blurs the deference between a fact and a probability. Or it assumes no difference between a scientific fact and a believed truth. If you can not tell these things apart, science becomes senseless at worst, and religion at best.
(Existence is a question of metaphysics - not empirical (natural)science.)
10 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat is patently false and you know it. As stated on the website I gave you, the letter to Castelli was in response to a movement to have his works banned by some Church officials. Far from "meddling in theological matters", he was trying to prevent religious based suppression of his freedom to write, teach and think. His campaign across Europe was in support of his scientific theories, the predominant one being the FACT that the Earth revolves around the Sun; that Church official made this a theological matter shows only how repressive and unjust they were. You ultra-conservatives sure have a funny way of attempting to re-write history; maybe you should go to a Holocaust deniers website and compare notes.
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: The truth:
In 1613, just as Galileo published his Letters on the Solar Spots, an openly Copernican writing, the first attack came from a Dominican friar and professor of ecclesiastical history in Florence, Father Lorini. Preaching on All Soul's Day, Lorini said that Copernican doctrine violated Scripture, which clearly places Earth, and not the Sun at the center of the universe. What, if Copernicus were right, would be the sense of Joshua 10:13 which says "So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven" or Isaiah 40:22 that speaks of "the heavens stretched out as a curtain" above "the circle of the earth"? Pressured later to apologize for his attack, Lorini later said that he "said a couple of words to the effect that the doctrine of Ipernicus [sic], or whatever his name is, was against Holy Scripture."
Galileo responded to criticism of his Copernican views in a December 1613 Letter to Castelli. In his letter, Galileo argued that the Scripture--although truth itself--must be understood sometimes in a figurative sense. A reference, for example, to "the hand of God" is not meant to be interpreted as referring to a five-fingered appendage, but rather to His presence in human lives. Given that the Bible should not be interpreted literally in every case, Galileo contended, it is senseless to see it as supporting one view of the physical universe over another. "Who," Galileo asked, "would dare assert that we know all there is to be known?"
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html
10 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSorry - let me clarify:
[b]All scientific facts are true.
Not all scientific facts are necessarily true.
You're confusing me Coletti. Which is it?[/b]
All scientific facts are considered (or assumed) true, but not all truths are scientific facts.
Science (by which I mean natural sciences) are based on the study of empirical knowledge (facts), and the theories and laws that explain those facts.
10 May 05
Originally posted by Coletti
Technically, any project beyond observed data could be considered hypothetical - assuming x, y, and z, and based on the correctness of observations a, b, and c - the probability that Pluto was orbiting the sun 200 years before our oldest recorded observations is (for instance) 99%. And 10000 years before that it is 95%. Again, these calculations are contingent on certain assumptions.
So I would not call it a scientific fact since that would not be technically correct. I would call it a scientific probability.
Okee-dokee. Now we are getting somewhere. I grant that one cannot be 100% certain that Pluto
was there 200 years ago. Indeed, we have no way of knowing that aliens didn't put it there,
spinning at the appropriate orbit speed and distance just one day before it was discovered in 1930.
Granted.
But, doesn't our 99.999999999% certainty that it did exist before then grant it as sufficient
evidence to factually conclude that it was, in fact, there the day before?
Similarly, isn't our 99.999999999% certainty that, tomorrow the Sun will come up barring
any extremely unlikely cataclysmic events? Isn't enough to say 'It is a fact that the Sun
will come up tomorrow?'
Does 'scientific factness' require 100% certainty? I don't agree with this assessment.
If you do, then very, very few scientific facts are properly labeled.
And, let's take TOE, again, as an example. What do you (personally) figure is the likelihood
that the TOE is fact? You said that (e.g.) it was 99% certain that Pluto was there 200 years
ago (based on calculations we are taking for granted). What do you figure is the likelihood
that TOE is true (this is a personal question, not a scientific one)?
What do you figure is the likelihood that Noah transported the whole of the animal race on
a big boat?
I need a barometer here.
Nemesio
10 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioYou have failed to distinguish between a scientific fact and something considered true. While I may consider it true that the sun will come up tomorrow, that does not make a prediction a scientific fact.
Originally posted by Coletti
[b]Technically, any project beyond observed data could be considered hypothetical - assuming x, y, and z, and based on the correctness of observations a, b, and c - the probability that Pluto was orbitin ...[text shortened]... al race on
a big boat?
I need a barometer here.
Nemesio[/b]
10 May 05
Originally posted by NemesioThe probability that TOE is true is incalculable. It is so vaguely defined that no true calculation can be made. Personally, I think this is one of the many deficiencies of TOE. Any answer would be a guess. But let's give it a 50-50 chance to be fair. But for anyone to saying TOE is certain requires faith.
And, let's take TOE, again, as an example. What do you (personally) figure is the likelihood
that the TOE is fact? You said that (e.g.) it was 99% certain that Pluto was there 200 years
ago (based on calculations we are taking for granted). What do you figure is the likelihood
that TOE is true (this is a personal question, not a scientific one)?
10 May 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe splitting of hairs.
Proposed Spirituality Forum Tenet #3: Bbarr's rejection of Proposed Spirituality Forum Tenet #1 is not consistent with Coletti's notion of "facts" ("Facts can be measured, observed, repeated." )
Do we all agree with this?
Something that is factual or real I agree can be measured,
observed, repeated, but are all things factual or real
measurable, can be observed, or repeated? If so it really
limits what is factual or real to just what we can grasp by
being able to measure, observe, or repeat.
We find a new planet someopne, it wasn't factual before we
found it, but it was real, unless it appeared only at the time
we found it.
Kelly
10 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's right, and that's why I think bbarr's notion of "fact" is more useful than Coletti's.
The splitting of hairs.
Something that is factual or real I agree can be measured,
observed, repeated, but are all things factual or real
measurable, can be observed, or repeated? If so it really
limits what is factual or real to just what we can grasp by
being able to measure, observe, or repeat.
We find a new planet someopne, it wasn't factual before we
found it, but it was real, unless it appeared only at the time
we found it.
Kelly