If that were true, there would be no point to debate, or communicate, at all if objective truth could not be spoken.

I really feel you aren't actually listening to me at all. I am fairly certain I am going to have to stop this conversation unless you give my words the same amount of thought that I put into them.

I said that the endeavor of science is to get closer and closer to the truth, just like taking half a step closer towards your goal (i.e the sum, as n goes from 1 to infinity of 1/2^n).

What do you think "proving the null hypothesis" is? When we fail to prove the null hypothesis (which is ALL we ever attempt to do in science) we say, here is something statistically significant. Statistically significant is never truth. It's not even close to anything resembling truth. It is useful in future endeavors. It brings us closer, but it is not, nor can it ever be Truth, by it's very nature.

There you go. I just broke your rule.

What is counting? What are you counting? What "truth" have you exposed?

If I count how many apples I have, I have to first make the statement that all apples are identical. This is an abstraction, it isn't Truth. The apples are actually quite different. So I am counting something that doesn't exist. I am counting the idea of an apple. If I have two things, both of which I call an apple because they have similarities (even though they are actually very different in makeup), and I count them, I say "I have two apples."

But what the fuck is an apple? It is an idea of similarity that has nothing to do with the Truth of things.

Your statements of truth miss the point entirely.

1+1 = 2 is a tiny, itty bitty piece of the Truth. In Truth, it really doesn't say anything at all. It is a logical extrapolation of abstraction, based on axioms that are not proven to exist (that 1 and 1 are identical in any real world scenario).

You're essentially consigning yourself to an existence of total confusion and insufficient approximation

Once again, I believe you have completely missed my point, since this is the opposite of what I said, even in the previous post.

If you will attempt to understand what I am saying, I will keep speaking. If instead you will continue to respond in ways that suggest you have put no effort in whatsoever, I will have to bow out of this conversation. I have more important things to do.

If that were true, there would be no point to debate, or communicate, at all if objective truth could not be spoken.

I really feel you aren't actually listening to me at all. I am fairly certain I am going to have to stop this conversation unless you give my words the same amount of thought that I put into them.

I said that the endeavor of science is to get closer and closer to the truth, just like taking half a step closer towards your goal (i.e the sum, as n goes from 1 to infinity of 1/2^n).

What do you think "proving the null hypothesis" is? When we fail to prove the null hypothesis (which is ALL we ever attempt to do in science) we say, here is something statistically significant. Statistically significant is never truth. It's not even close to anything resembling truth. It is useful in future endeavors. It brings us closer, but it is not, nor can it ever be Truth, by it's very nature.

There you go. I just broke your rule.

What is counting? What are you counting? What "truth" have you exposed?

If I count how many apples I have, I have to first make the statement that all apples are identical. This is an abstraction, it isn't Truth. The apples are actually quite different. So I am counting something that doesn't exist. I am counting the idea of an apple. If I have two things, both of which I call an apple because they have similarities (even though they are actually very different in makeup), and I count them, I say "I have two apples."

But what the fuck is an apple? It is an idea of similarity that has nothing to do with the Truth of things.

Your statements of truth miss the point entirely.

1+1 = 2 is a tiny, itty bitty piece of the Truth. In Truth, it really doesn't say anything at all.

You're essentially consigning yourself to an existence of total confusion and insufficient approximation

Once again, I believe you have completely missed my point, since this is the opposite of what I said, even in the previous post.

If you will attempt to understand what I am saying, I will keep speaking. If instead you will continue to respond in ways that suggest you have put no effort in whatsoever, I will have to bow out of this conversation. I have more important things to do.