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.
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.