RE: The Covert Messiah

RE: The Covert Messiah (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/11/2013 2:44:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen By your twisted pseudo logic all of science is simply assumptions. Well no shit, Sherlock. Not "all" of course, but then I never said that. Aren't you one of the fellows who argues that science is constantly moving forward, refining its conceptions on the basis of new evidence? That wouldn't be possible unless the understandings current at any point in time were assumptions. Reasonable assumptions (usually) given our interpretation of the available evidence, but assumptions nonetheless: hypotheses, conjectures, theories. Assumption has a very different meaning from the scientific meaning of theory or even hypothesis. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assumption quote: Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory quote: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypothesis quote: A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation So no, science is not all assumptions. Science is careful to never claim to have the "truth" as it is always attempting to refine knowledge and better explain the universe but science is based on evidence and testing of that evidence not some assumption.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/11/2013 4:08:03 PM)
An assumption is something taken to be the case in the absence of proof. Granting the existence of synonyms that connote varying degrees of certainty, i.e., the assumption's position on a scale of tentativeness, there is no escaping what is apparently for some people the inconvenient fact that they remain assumptions in that they are taken to be the case in the absence of proof. That is why scientific theories can evolve, change, and sometimes end up being thrown out altogether. Get over it. K.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/11/2013 4:59:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata An assumption is something taken to be the case in the absence of proof. Granting the existence of synonyms that connote varying degrees of certainty, i.e., the assumption's position on a scale of tentativeness, there is no escaping what is apparently for some people the inconvenient fact that they remain assumptions in that they are taken to be the case in the absence of proof. That is why scientific theories can evolve, change, and sometimes end up being thrown out altogether. Get over it. K. No. An assumption is "Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition." Since proof in this case is not mathematical proof but simply "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof So a theory in science is not an assumption since it is proven in that more general sense. Are we now done with you mangling English to support your anti science position?

vincentML -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/11/2013 5:47:14 PM)
quote: Yes, she did. She said that chaos theory posits "random interventions." http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4583423 No. She said systems are SUBJECT to random interventions. [8\|]

vincentML -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/11/2013 6:08:10 PM)
quote: You should go ask a volcanologist. They are devoting quite a lot of effort in learning how to predict something you claim is random. I said the activity of a single volcano is deterministic WHEN it erupts. But the worldwide distributions of patterns of eruptions is random. At the present time there is no method for predicting either subset of events. Quite frankly I am bored with your constant efforts to shoehorn my words into your narrow framework of thought. We are through here.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/11/2013 6:40:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So a theory in science is not an assumption since it is proven in that more general sense. So now you're going to go with the claim that theories are "proven," eh? Well damn, get yourself a monkey and a tin cup and the picture will be complete. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Are we now done with you mangling English to support your anti science position? I have not advanced an "anti-science" position. And if you were half as good at English as you are at making shit up, we wouldn't be having this exchange. K.

RedMagic1 -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/11/2013 6:45:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata So now you're going to go with the claim that theories are "proven," eh? I saw this in the scroller just now. I haven't read the rest of the thread, and for all I know there's a long history between the two of you, and I am a fool for stepping into this. But the short answer to your question is: yes. Scientific theories, like the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity, are proven. Meaning they are verified to a high degree using the best instrumentation and techniques currently available. The word "theory" is used differently in colloquial English.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/11/2013 6:49:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Scientific theories, like the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity, are proven. Once something is proven, it is by definition not a "theory" anymore. K.

GotSteel -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/11/2013 8:08:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML But the worldwide distributions of patterns of eruptions is random. No. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML At the present time there is no method for predicting either subset of events. That wouldn't equate to random.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/11/2013 8:23:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Scientific theories, like the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity, are proven. Once something is proven, it is by definition not a "theory" anymore. K. In science once something is proven in the general sense that is when it becomes a theory. Before that it is at best a hypothesis.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/11/2013 8:25:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Yes, she did. She said that chaos theory posits "random interventions." http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4583423 No. She said systems are SUBJECT to random interventions. [8\|] No. She wrote quote: Chaos Theory posit that all systems are subject to random interventions And as I've now explained several times chaos theory deals with deterministic systems which are by definition not random.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/11/2013 8:29:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: You should go ask a volcanologist. They are devoting quite a lot of effort in learning how to predict something you claim is random. I said the activity of a single volcano is deterministic WHEN it erupts. But the worldwide distributions of patterns of eruptions is random. At the present time there is no method for predicting either subset of events. Quite frankly I am bored with your constant efforts to shoehorn my words into your narrow framework of thought. We are through here. I'm bored with your continued wrong assertions. If volcanic eruptions were random volcanoes would erupt out of stable rock with no warning and no rhyme or reason. Instead volcanoes occur along plate margins or at a few hotspots elsewhere and we are making progress in predicting the eruptions.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/11/2013 11:05:26 PM)
Sticking with the theme of 'truth' vs probability vs assumption: We should note that the standard of proof in much of science is not mathematical proof, but probability and consensus. Hypotheses are shown to have a certain rate of probability, and when this rate is minute enough, it becomes subject to a consensus of scientists involved in the field. When a sufficient number of the cognoscenti agree that the hypothesis is proven, it said to be 'proven'. Essentially this is a political process of risk analysis and consensus. Thus scientific 'truth' is not 'truth' in the sense that most of us understand 'truth' in everyday use - it is neither immutable nor eternal or even factual. It is provisional. Scientific 'truth' can, and will be made redundant if someone comes along with a better hypothesis with a lower probability at some future date. Usually these crucial distinctions are lost by the time scientific 'truth' emerges from the lab into general discourse, or when an acolyte of the cult/Church of Scientism starts holding forth about their particular understanding of their particular cult/secular religion. Despite the claims of the acolytes of the cult/Church of Scientism, these limits on scientific 'truth' remain in place and are operative at all times. If follows directly from the above that the claim that the scientific method is the only method of discovering truth is untenable. However, the claim that the scientific method will never discover 'truth' (in the sense that most of us understand 'truth' ie an immutable and eternal fact) is more than tenable. This claim is completely consistent with a thorough understanding of the scientific method, its potentials and its limitations. Nor is any of this a criticism of science, it is simply an uncontroversial description of 'scientific truth'.

GotSteel -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/11/2013 11:28:09 PM)
Hey tweak your were talking about "18 months" before, did you mean that this whole OBE thing is fairly new? If so have you been doing something different sexually or are you getting very different results from the same old thing? Also have you blacked out during orgasm and do you tend to have issues with hyperventilating during sex?

RedMagic1 -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/12/2013 3:58:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Scientific theories, like the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity, are proven. Once something is proven, it is by definition not a "theory" anymore. K. You're in good company, because that's a common error, but you're just wrong. Once a scheme of understanding is proven, it becomes a scientific theory. You can read more about it here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/12/2013 5:25:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle However, the claim that the scientific method will never discover 'truth' (in the sense that most of us understand 'truth' ie an immutable and eternal fact) is more than tenable. This claim is completely consistent with a thorough understanding of the scientific method, its potentials and its limitations. Nor is any of this a criticism of science, it is simply an uncontroversial description of 'scientific truth'. As usual you are wrong on just about everything you wrote. Science stays away from saying "this is the absolutely TRUE and FINAL explanation" for anything. Science always leaves open the possibility that we will learn more and refine and expand what we know about something. Sometimes science even finds out something believed to be true is simply incorrect. However science is very effective at discovering truth. Experiments discover true things all the time. Look at a tissue sample under a microscope and you will truly see cells. Combine lemon juice and baking soda and you will truly get CO2 gas. Science doubts explanations not observations.

Rule -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/12/2013 6:26:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Scientific theories, like the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity, are proven. Once something is proven, it is by definition not a "theory" anymore. quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 The word "theory" is used differently in colloquial English. As RM1 said: In science the concept 'theory' has another meaning than it has in colloquial English. To be succinct: What colloquial English means by 'theory' in science is called a hypothesis. What science means by 'theory' in colloquial English is called 'a million year headache' (as in when one drives a car at the velocity of light into an immovable wall of adamantium).

vincentML -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/12/2013 12:43:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: You should go ask a volcanologist. They are devoting quite a lot of effort in learning how to predict something you claim is random. I said the activity of a single volcano is deterministic WHEN it erupts. But the worldwide distributions of patterns of eruptions is random. At the present time there is no method for predicting either subset of events. Quite frankly I am bored with your constant efforts to shoehorn my words into your narrow framework of thought. We are through here. I'm bored with your continued wrong assertions. If volcanic eruptions were random volcanoes would erupt out of stable rock with no warning and no rhyme or reason. Instead volcanoes occur along plate margins or at a few hotspots elsewhere and we are making progress in predicting the eruptions. Yawnnnn . . . . I have already answered this silly shit.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/12/2013 12:45:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: You should go ask a volcanologist. They are devoting quite a lot of effort in learning how to predict something you claim is random. I said the activity of a single volcano is deterministic WHEN it erupts. But the worldwide distributions of patterns of eruptions is random. At the present time there is no method for predicting either subset of events. Quite frankly I am bored with your constant efforts to shoehorn my words into your narrow framework of thought. We are through here. I'm bored with your continued wrong assertions. If volcanic eruptions were random volcanoes would erupt out of stable rock with no warning and no rhyme or reason. Instead volcanoes occur along plate margins or at a few hotspots elsewhere and we are making progress in predicting the eruptions. Yawnnnn . . . . I have already answered this silly shit. No, you didn't. You asserted something that isn't true and absolutely refused to acknowledge that fact despite two different people explaining to you what was wrong with your claim.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/12/2013 1:40:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 You're in good company, because that's a common error, but you're just wrong. Once a scheme of understanding is proven, it becomes a scientific theory. You can read more about it here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory From your link: This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative. From the dictionary (primary definition): a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena So the primary usage is not as ignorant as it pleases certain clergy to claim. Moreover, the secondary definition is: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. There's the "scientific" distinction that's making its way into the language. But while theories may be "regarded as reporting matters of fact" by those it pleases to do so, the reality remains that theories evolve, change, and sometimes are discarded while facts remain facts. Experimental results in accord with calculations do not prove that a theory is conceptually correct, and there remains some contention about certain aspects of even widely accepted theories. In other words, English is thankfully still English despite the attempt of ecclesiastics to corrupt it with Orwellian "newspeak". K.

Page: << < prev 28 29 [30] 31 32 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875