discuss? help?

[GrayLensman]

great posts....but... i just find it slightly unnerving when i read "scientific fact"-- ...how can one define AND slate a topic based on half-assed linguistics given by a self-proclaimed scientist?  accepting a "famous" scientist's  "theory" is what i would call "taking the easy way out"-- attempting to disprove an otherwise liberal//radical idea via anything defined by the law of man... sucks.  if hawking can come to the conclusion, which he did last year, that his black hole time travel theory doesn't actually "work"... i'm pretty sure most theoretical rhetoric spouted can't be determined to be 100% true.... i mean, what do we know?  we govern our lives by the laws and rules that "we" ourselves created.

Scientists don't just make stuff up (well, except for M-Theory ).  I'm not sure where "half-assed linguistics" come into the picture.  The whole point of science is to test theories through experimentation.  In cutting edge research, you have to expect scientists to revise their conclusions in response to new findings.  There is no such thing as a "100% true" scientific theory, because it is impossible to actually prove anything outside of mathematics.  

I got this definition of "scientific fact" off google:

an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)

[AgentOrangeKid]

well, the part about the rhetoric usually applies to most theoretical findings which we are quick to call "science".  things are "theories" for a reason-- they are usually unprovable abstract thoughts... and even IF tested, they are only proving themselves true within the realm of which man has created... i mean, not knocking 'us', but it is pretty naive to assume that our primitive phonotetic alphabet and sharp tongues can explain the majority of anamolies.  sort of like the frank herbert quote...
"Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."

[GrayLensman]

well, the part about the rhetoric usually applies to most theoretical findings which we are quick to call "science".  things are "theories" for a reason-- they are usually unprovable abstract thoughts... and even IF tested, they are only proving themselves true within the realm of which man has created... i mean, not knocking 'us', but it is pretty naive to assume that our primitive phonotetic alphabet and sharp tongues can explain the majority of anamolies.  sort of like the frank herbert quote...
"Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."

Scientific theories can only be falsified, not proven.  Science assumes that here is a testable, objective reality.  We may not be able to see atoms, but be can create experiments to detect measure their properties.

In response to your philosophical statements, where do you think the computer your sitting at came from?  The "proof" of our understanding of natural laws through scientific investigation is all around us.

[GreenGannon]

In cutting edge research, you have to expect scientists to revise their conclusions in response to new findings.

Like Newton's original theory of gravity?

[Magus22]

Scientific theories can only be falsified, not proven.  Science assumes that here is a testable, objective reality.

we don't hav the knowledge yet to prove theories, but it doesn't mean that they will never ever be proven

[GrayLensman]

In cutting edge research, you have to expect scientists to revise their conclusions in response to new findings.

Like Newton's original theory of gravity?

I shouldn't have phrased it like that.  All theories are provisional.

we don't hav the knowledge yet to prove theories, but it doesn't mean that they will never ever be proven

That would require infinite and complete knowledge.

Edit: provisional was tentative.

[GreenGannon]

Doesn't it fit though? As I understand it, Newton's original theory was flawed, and based on new information said theory was later revised--though not necessarily by Newton.

[Chrono'99]

Doesn't it fit though? As I understand it, Newton's original theory was flawed, and based on new information said theory was later revised--though not necessarily by Newton.

If I'm not mistaking, a theory is never flawed (as long as it's logical). A theory is never "true" or "false", it is just a mean which can explain some parts of nature. A theory which can explain more natural stuff than another theory is better (like the relativist theories can explain more stuff than the Newton one), but it doesn't mean that one is true and one is false, it just depends on the level of precision that you want to achieve. For everyday's life for instance, the Newton theory is well enough to explain everything. A "flawed" theory which could only explain one particular phenomena and nothing else, would not be "false" but just be... good to explain one single phenomena.

[GrayLensman]

Doesn't it fit though? As I understand it, Newton's original theory was flawed, and based on new information said theory was later revised--though not necessarily by Newton.

Newton's 2nd law of motion isn't "wrong." It is still very accurate at speeds not approaching the speed of light.  Relativity is a more general theory, encompassing Newton's 2nd law, which is accurate at speeds approaching the speed of light.  At lower speeds, relativity reduces to the familiar F=ma.

[Burning Zeppelin]

well, except for M-Theory

Wow, first time I've seen you use a Razz smiley. First time I've seen you use a smiley period.

And I highly doubt that his original theory was flawed. Sure it wasn't totally "true" (whatever THAT is) but what is? Topic split?

[Magus22]

jumped from time lines to fate and free will and then to newton

amazing

[Burning Zeppelin]

Thats the compendium for ya

[Namara]

I can see that this is a topic that is bound to run around in circles with people trying to defend either fate or science and then someone coming behind them disproving it.  The fact is that what is real depends solely on the perspective of the individual person.  Nothing is absolutely provable, so we just have to decide what we want to believe is real or not.

I like using the example of sight for differing views about things.  What if my eyes actually made the world around me inverse colors than what everybody sees?  How would anybody know?  I couldn't wrongly say that something looks dark when it really looks light because I had been taught that what other perceive as light is called light and what others perceive as dark is dark.  The only way that anybody would be able to know if my sight perception in inverted would be if somebody went inside my head and saw through my eyes.  But just because I see a different way doesn't make it wrong.  It is simply how I perceive the world, and others will probably come up with different ideas than mine because they see the world different than the way that I see it.  There is no way for us to absolutely prove anything to each other, but we can convince each other to change our minds even without absolute proof.  We could even opt to argue till we turn blue in the face, but the argument will still lack absolute truths because of the fact that we perceive the world differently.

It sounds like to me that people are hiding behind both fate and science in this discussion by simply stating "because it is so."  I admit that I hide behind fate, but I also recognize that this discussion will prove no absolute truths for anyone.  We can try to convince each other of our ideas, but there can not be any absolute answer that comes from this discussion.

I just wanted to go ahead and state that for the benifit of anyone who adds to this discussion hoping that someone will present them with an absolute truth or affirm that their idea is an absolute truth.  Sorry if I lost anybody.

[Magus22]

no everything else is good, i understand where ur coming from

except . . .

Nothing is absolutely provable, so we just have to decide what we want to believe is real or not.

i can easily say that 2+2=4

but do u mean that it's wrong souly on our interpretation of the solution?

2+2=5?

[GreenGannon]

"Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight."