Crux of the biscuit right there. Facts must be able to withstand open debate and all attempts to disprove them. Science (and hence the public) are better served by researchers attempting to disprove themselves and others more than any amount of research done solely to prove a desired outcome.
There are just declarative statements. These statements can possibly correctly describe reality, to a measurable degree, where those measurements are constrained to specific moments in time and possibly specific regions of space.
"Science" as a verb is simply the process of taking this measurement.
That's a strange point of view that I'm going to disagree with based on the observable nature of reality.
If you put one bottle on a table, could you expect it to become two bottles without intervention? Of course not. You wouldn't even have to think about it because you are in possession of the facts about bottles and their capabilities to spontaneously generate.
A statement that always describes reality is a statement of fact.
could you expect it to become two bottles without intervention? Of course not.
You shouldn't expect it in any way. You can't absolutely rule it out either. You're basically using a backwards ontological argument to "prove" a negative. Which, you can't actually do, which is precisely related to my point of view.
because you are in possession of the facts about bottles and their capabilities to spontaneously generate.
The bottle could duplicate through some rational process without you being capable of measuring it. You don't actually possess anything other than your ability and capacity to measure things. You are far more confident in this than you should be.
A statement that always describes reality is a statement of fact.
Well, let's try to hit bedrock: "There is a universe."
Well.. probably, but genuinely, since we can't get outside of it, we have to resolve ourselves to a solid "maybe." From here, most hope for "absolute truth" is also gone. Since.. we live in this object that we believe is a "universe."
Still.. our best guess is that the laws of nature inside this "universe" have not been constant for the life of the universe. So, some of your statements, while possibly valid for billions of years, are almost certainly constrained in time (and again, possibly space, which is why dark matter theories are a thing), and if you think they aren't, you'll need to hypothesize and present a different possible explanation for our measurements and observations.
You are far more confident in this than you should be.
Maybe so, but I think you might be right alongside me in that.
Well, let's try to hit bedrock: "There is a universe."
Seems like a good bedrock. We have to be somewhere. This exchange alone could be said to be proof of that because we are certainly not arguing with ourselves.
laws of nature inside this "universe" have not been constant for the life of the universe
Time to slow your roll for a moment. I never said facts aren't variable in that a change of circumstance can bring a change of environment or disposition. If you look at the theorized conditions of the early universe you might find many differences between that and its current condition (even if you think that is theorized as well).
I'm not sure where your position that physical laws should not change to fit physical conditions comes from, but I'm curious to know more.
need to hypothesize and present a different possible explanation for our measurements and observations
Perhaps you could elucidate the particular observations and measurements you're referring to.
Since the focus has relaxed to observable states of the universe, we can also speak of accuracy. An accurate statement of fact describes the change in reality in accordance to circumstance. One might argue that a fact that describes any amount of change is more accurate because change is one of the few observable constants. This is more commonly known as cause and effect.
How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?
Four legs. Just because you call a tail a leg, does not make it one.
They just "call" or "define" something and assume they are creating a different reality, by their linguistic tricks. Then go about enforcing it like bullies. To force more people to pretend that they agree with utter nonsense.
In fact they took over our government with language fraud. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA means something different from the United States of America, according to them.
They have been abusing language for decades, on purpose, to change people's perceptions. By manipulation. We have to use real words connected to reality and call them out on the perversions of language that they employ to manipulate for political gain.
For example, there's the "theory of evolution." But "scientists" act like it's absolutely proven fact. Untrue. Even Darwin wrote that if anything in life was shown to be impossible to develop over time, then his "theory" would be blown out of the water. And things like that have been found that have what is called "irreducible complexity," such as the single cell organisms that have tiny motors and propellers for locomotion. It's a complete assembly that wouldn't work without all those part simultaneously.
The "theory of relativity" is just a theory, but I think it has more going for it in the way of experiments.
Yes but also facts are supported by proven scientific trials.
Crux of the biscuit right there. Facts must be able to withstand open debate and all attempts to disprove them. Science (and hence the public) are better served by researchers attempting to disprove themselves and others more than any amount of research done solely to prove a desired outcome.
There aren't facts.
There are just declarative statements. These statements can possibly correctly describe reality, to a measurable degree, where those measurements are constrained to specific moments in time and possibly specific regions of space.
"Science" as a verb is simply the process of taking this measurement.
That's a strange point of view that I'm going to disagree with based on the observable nature of reality.
If you put one bottle on a table, could you expect it to become two bottles without intervention? Of course not. You wouldn't even have to think about it because you are in possession of the facts about bottles and their capabilities to spontaneously generate.
A statement that always describes reality is a statement of fact.
You shouldn't expect it in any way. You can't absolutely rule it out either. You're basically using a backwards ontological argument to "prove" a negative. Which, you can't actually do, which is precisely related to my point of view.
The bottle could duplicate through some rational process without you being capable of measuring it. You don't actually possess anything other than your ability and capacity to measure things. You are far more confident in this than you should be.
Well, let's try to hit bedrock: "There is a universe."
Well.. probably, but genuinely, since we can't get outside of it, we have to resolve ourselves to a solid "maybe." From here, most hope for "absolute truth" is also gone. Since.. we live in this object that we believe is a "universe."
Still.. our best guess is that the laws of nature inside this "universe" have not been constant for the life of the universe. So, some of your statements, while possibly valid for billions of years, are almost certainly constrained in time (and again, possibly space, which is why dark matter theories are a thing), and if you think they aren't, you'll need to hypothesize and present a different possible explanation for our measurements and observations.
Maybe so, but I think you might be right alongside me in that.
Seems like a good bedrock. We have to be somewhere. This exchange alone could be said to be proof of that because we are certainly not arguing with ourselves.
Time to slow your roll for a moment. I never said facts aren't variable in that a change of circumstance can bring a change of environment or disposition. If you look at the theorized conditions of the early universe you might find many differences between that and its current condition (even if you think that is theorized as well).
I'm not sure where your position that physical laws should not change to fit physical conditions comes from, but I'm curious to know more.
Perhaps you could elucidate the particular observations and measurements you're referring to.
Since the focus has relaxed to observable states of the universe, we can also speak of accuracy. An accurate statement of fact describes the change in reality in accordance to circumstance. One might argue that a fact that describes any amount of change is more accurate because change is one of the few observable constants. This is more commonly known as cause and effect.
I think it was Twain:
How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?
Four legs. Just because you call a tail a leg, does not make it one.
They just "call" or "define" something and assume they are creating a different reality, by their linguistic tricks. Then go about enforcing it like bullies. To force more people to pretend that they agree with utter nonsense.
In fact they took over our government with language fraud. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA means something different from the United States of America, according to them.
They have been abusing language for decades, on purpose, to change people's perceptions. By manipulation. We have to use real words connected to reality and call them out on the perversions of language that they employ to manipulate for political gain.
And everyone , including people here, need to understand that theories are called that for a reason.
For example, there's the "theory of evolution." But "scientists" act like it's absolutely proven fact. Untrue. Even Darwin wrote that if anything in life was shown to be impossible to develop over time, then his "theory" would be blown out of the water. And things like that have been found that have what is called "irreducible complexity," such as the single cell organisms that have tiny motors and propellers for locomotion. It's a complete assembly that wouldn't work without all those part simultaneously.
The "theory of relativity" is just a theory, but I think it has more going for it in the way of experiments.
If you are not careful, a potato in the microwave could be an exploded potato.
Poke some holes first.
Sighence