My point was they deduced all those things as facts given their knowledge and tools they had then, just as we deduce what is fact from our scientific method which is flawed in itself because we will never have one hundred percent understanding of everything around us.
As it stands now, facts are facts. In the future? Who knows.
@ Irrational:
You failed to get the point. The term 'perfection' contradicts the sometimes iterative and always continuous evidence-supported works of science.
Even scientific methods are not perfect. And no scientific mind would even consider that term since it would imply stagnation which strongly opposes the very nature of science.
My point was they deduced all those things as facts given their knowledge and tools they had then, just as we deduce what is fact from our scientific method which is flawed in itself because we will never have one hundred percent understanding of everything around us.
As it stands now, facts are facts. In the future? Who knows.
Actually, you are talking about theories. Theories are deductible, and are subject to change. However, facts shall remain facts because they deal with mathematics. Mathematics still apply to the fact that it call comes down to whether or not 1+1=2. It does not matter whether it is abstract algebra, calculus, etc. It is still math, and it has rules. Those rules cannot be broken, as then 1+1=0 and the universe explodes.
@ Irrational:
You failed to get the point. The term 'perfection' contradicts the sometimes iterative and always continuous evidence-supported works of science.
Even scientific methods are not perfect. And no scientific mind would even consider that term since it would imply stagnation which strongly opposes the very nature of science.
No I get the point. I am a scientific naturalist, so I have full faith in science. I don't question the validity of it because I recognize the process of a hypothesis, a theory, and a law. I understand that MIT, Yale, Stanford, and Harvard know what they are talking about before they make the claim of what is reality.
I wasn't talking about scientific fact, I was talking about scientific nature.
You can argue about which theory holds true, but you can't argue that it's not actually happening. Take for example computers and typing. You can debate the process in which a computer recognizes keystrokes on your keyboard and processes it to appear on your monitor, but you can't argue that it's not happening.
That was my original point. Hope you understand, I'm going to bed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
I wasn't talking about scientific fact, I was talking about scientific nature.
You can argue about which theory holds true, but you can't argue that it's not actually happening. Take for example computers and typing. You can debate the process in which a computer recognizes keystrokes on your keyboard and processes it to appear on your monitor, but you can't argue that it's not happening.
That was my original point. Hope you understand, I'm going to bed.
Ah I understand now. No but reached the core of the scientific method. You know that something is happening, so you make a hypothesis, and it goes through that entire process until it can officially be called a theory. I think we disagreed on an agreement here.
You've been trying to come off as some kind of badass lately, I don't even know what to peg it as, but it doesn't fit you at all.
Stop doing it, I used to really enjoy reading your posts, but they've become pretty lame lately.
:/ Well, I am sorry. I didn't know I was acting so badly. I am glad that you told me though.
I wasn't talking about scientific fact, I was talking about scientific nature.
You can argue about which theory holds true, but you can't argue that it's not actually happening. Take for example computers and typing. You can debate the process in which a computer recognizes keystrokes on your keyboard and processes it to appear on your monitor, but you can't argue that it's not happening.
That was my original point. Hope you understand, I'm going to bed.
Ah I understand now. No but reached the core of the scientific method. You know that something is happening, so you make a hypothesis, and it goes through that entire process until it can officially be called a theory. I think we disagreed on an agreement here.
I think the main problem here is that many people confuse theories with laws. :/
I still stick to facts are only facts until proved otherwise. Many things were considered facts in the past and now are not so because times change, we learn more. Einstein came close to disproving the Law of Gravity with his Theory of Relativity.
The problem with what's considered fact is that it has to be recognized by the scientific community and when you involve the human train of thought in anything it becomes imperfect and nonfactual because our brains are not perfect and we do not know or perceive everything.
Scientists know that the human mind is imperfect, so we devise methods to minimize all the possible errors. This is why mathematics plays a huge part in science, because math is really just a lot of proofs. The ones that are proven fact remain fact, because they are fact.
I still stick to facts are only facts until proved otherwise. Many things were considered facts in the past and now are not so because times change, we learn more. Einstein came close to disproving the Law of Gravity with his Theory of Relativity.
The problem with what's considered fact is that it has to be recognized by the scientific community and when you involve the human train of thought in anything it becomes imperfect and nonfactual because our brains are not perfect and we do not know or perceive everything.
So your argument is that, because we improved our knowledge, we cannot trust science?
So your argument is that, because we improved our knowledge, we cannot trust science?
No my argument is that science isn't perfect. What holds true today may not tomorrow. It's happened all throughout human history. Everyone at the time thought they had fool proof logic and science but we can't see the future so who knows what will remain the same and what will change. I don't think science will become stagnant simply because we've learned it all. We'll never learn it all.
I'm not saying religion is based on facts or any such thing either. I'm not siding with either. I just think facts are a silly concept, nothing is permanent or perfect.
I'm sure 100 years ago it would have been a fact that the sky is blue, but really it's just light bouncing around that makes it look that way. If you were to fly up there none of it is actually blue.
It was a fact we had 9 planets, now we have 8.
It was a fact there are 30 orders of insects, 87 years later we have 31.
It was considered a fact that humans evolved from tree dwelling apes. New information shows it was most likely ground dwelling apes.
It was a fact there were only 109 elements on the periodic table. Since 1994 six more have been discovered.
It was considered a scientific fact the first mammals evolved 155million years ago. A shrew like animal was discovered from around 195million years ago.
I just think it's silly to accept ANYTHING as fact. The "It's a fact because it can't be disproved" thing is completely flawed logic. That's like me saying ghosts are real and it's fact because it can't be disproved.
So your argument is that, because we improved our knowledge, we cannot trust science?
No my argument is that science isn't perfect. What holds true today may not tomorrow. It's happened all throughout human history. Everyone at the time thought they had fool proof logic and science but we can't see the future so who knows what will remain the same and what will change. I don't think science will become stagnant simply because we've learned it all. We'll never learn it all.
This is something I agree with. Science does come up with better things and better ways to deal with sickness and disease. But it isn't perfect, because cells that cause cancer or other ailments mutate because of whatever it is we put in us to deal with the sickness. Just one example.
I'm not saying religion is based on facts or any such thing either. I'm not siding with either. I just think facts are a silly concept, nothing is permanent or perfect.
Sorry, but I have to disagree only because of personal beliefs and nothing more. I'm not saying you are wrong or that I am right, just that I disagree.
I'm sure 100 years ago it would have been a fact that the sky is blue, but really it's just light bouncing around that makes it look that way. If you were to fly up there none of it is actually blue.
I like that. When in fact light is both waves and particles it makes it kind of a mind game to try and figure out how that is possible.
It was a fact we had 9 planets, now we have 8.
I still say we have 9 no matter what they say.
It was a fact there are 30 orders of insects, 87 years later we have 31.
It was considered a fact that humans evolved from tree dwelling apes. New information shows it was most likely ground dwelling apes.
It was a fact there were only 109 elements on the periodic table. Since 1994 six more have been discovered.
It was considered a scientific fact the first mammals evolved 155million years ago. A shrew like animal was discovered from around 195million years ago.
I just think it's silly to accept ANYTHING as fact. The "It's a fact because it can't be disproved" thing is completely flawed logic. That's like me saying ghosts are real and it's fact because it can't be disproved.
This is interesting. And I completely agree with the last paragraph.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Recruiting for East Realm Also recruiting for Sc2 on both EU and NA servers
The beauty of the scientific theory is that it allows plenty of room for error. When one explanation for a theory (= a fact when most scientists accept it) appears to be wrong, a new theory can take its place. That's how progress is made.
The beauty of the scientific theory is that it allows plenty of room for error. When one explanation for a theory (= a fact when most scientists accept it) appears to be wrong, a new theory can take its place. That's how progress is made.
It allows way too much room for error. It almost seems as if you are condoning them screwing up as many times as they want until they hopefully get it right. They make a hypothesis and through trial and error try to make the outcome fit that hypothesis. One reason I don't trust scientists.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Recruiting for East Realm Also recruiting for Sc2 on both EU and NA servers
You've been trying to come off as some kind of badass lately, I don't even know what to peg it as, but it doesn't fit you at all.
Stop doing it, I used to really enjoy reading your posts, but they've become pretty lame lately.
:/ Well, I am sorry. I didn't know I was acting so badly. I am glad that you told me though.
That was directed at me lol.
I really wanted to troll his face for that comment since he literally threw an insult towards me without adding anything of value to the porn discussion(and he was saying I was acting like a badass :rolleyes: .)
But whatever..
And oh yeah, humans aren't really fit for monogamy anyways.
Actually they are.
For better survival of their progeny, a strong relationship between two partners offers the optimal environment so that genes have a greater chance of success in being passed on to more than just the next immediate generation.
There has been quite a bit of debate on this issue but monogamy is much more than just a fancy moral ideal.
Porn completely disregards human dignity and it will probably affect relationships but so do many other things.
Actually, they are not. Humans are fit for polygamy, the idea of the nuclear family is a recent idea that has only come about a thousand or so years ago. Humans are designed to exist in groups or tribes, not families.
As for genes, if a male mates with 10 women, he has a greater chance to pass his genetic code on to the next generation then if he was to mate with just a single woman.
No, they really are suited for monogamy. A male mating with 10 females cannot provide (not just financially but in regards to parental presence as well) for 10 families, leaving the kids at risk and vulnerable in a physically and emotionally less secure surrounding.
A male mating with one female and forming a stable family has a much greater chance of producing an individual that contributes to a greater extent in society, therefore not only is he passing on his genes but also helping in shaping a better society.
What Dae said is pretty much the reason why I'll probably never accept the explanations for such far away concepts as macroevolution and Big Bang... it's just too much of "oh we're so smart with our science and all".
I understand the difference between the two but it changes nothing to my point.
Sexual polygamy helps in no way build a stable relationship that would ideal for bringing up a child. It is nothing to do with morals and values but everything to do with the amount of time and effort focused into upbringing.
As for the circus and single-parent kids, they are exceptional cases. I am speaking relative to an ideal concept and environment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As it stands now, facts are facts. In the future? Who knows.
You failed to get the point. The term 'perfection' contradicts the sometimes iterative and always continuous evidence-supported works of science.
Even scientific methods are not perfect. And no scientific mind would even consider that term since it would imply stagnation which strongly opposes the very nature of science.
Actually, you are talking about theories. Theories are deductible, and are subject to change. However, facts shall remain facts because they deal with mathematics. Mathematics still apply to the fact that it call comes down to whether or not 1+1=2. It does not matter whether it is abstract algebra, calculus, etc. It is still math, and it has rules. Those rules cannot be broken, as then 1+1=0 and the universe explodes.
No I get the point. I am a scientific naturalist, so I have full faith in science. I don't question the validity of it because I recognize the process of a hypothesis, a theory, and a law. I understand that MIT, Yale, Stanford, and Harvard know what they are talking about before they make the claim of what is reality.
You can argue about which theory holds true, but you can't argue that it's not actually happening. Take for example computers and typing. You can debate the process in which a computer recognizes keystrokes on your keyboard and processes it to appear on your monitor, but you can't argue that it's not happening.
That was my original point. Hope you understand, I'm going to bed.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Ah I understand now. No but reached the core of the scientific method. You know that something is happening, so you make a hypothesis, and it goes through that entire process until it can officially be called a theory. I think we disagreed on an agreement here.
:/ Well, I am sorry. I didn't know I was acting so badly. I am glad that you told me though.
I think the main problem here is that many people confuse theories with laws. :/
The problem with what's considered fact is that it has to be recognized by the scientific community and when you involve the human train of thought in anything it becomes imperfect and nonfactual because our brains are not perfect and we do not know or perceive everything.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
...... That wasn't even directed at you, but whatever.
It can be, actually, even though I never enjoyed reading his posts, but whatever.
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions
Proof?
So your argument is that, because we improved our knowledge, we cannot trust science?
Yea, can we get some proof/examples?
Oh? Well that's good to hear.
I had meph over there bitching and crying, then when a legitimate user said something, I just assumed it was to me. Glad it wasn't. Lol.
Wait does that mean you don't enjoy reading my posts? Meany!
No my argument is that science isn't perfect. What holds true today may not tomorrow. It's happened all throughout human history. Everyone at the time thought they had fool proof logic and science but we can't see the future so who knows what will remain the same and what will change. I don't think science will become stagnant simply because we've learned it all. We'll never learn it all.
I'm not saying religion is based on facts or any such thing either. I'm not siding with either. I just think facts are a silly concept, nothing is permanent or perfect.
I'm sure 100 years ago it would have been a fact that the sky is blue, but really it's just light bouncing around that makes it look that way. If you were to fly up there none of it is actually blue.
It was a fact we had 9 planets, now we have 8.
It was a fact there are 30 orders of insects, 87 years later we have 31.
It was considered a fact that humans evolved from tree dwelling apes. New information shows it was most likely ground dwelling apes.
It was a fact there were only 109 elements on the periodic table. Since 1994 six more have been discovered.
It was considered a scientific fact the first mammals evolved 155million years ago. A shrew like animal was discovered from around 195million years ago.
I just think it's silly to accept ANYTHING as fact. The "It's a fact because it can't be disproved" thing is completely flawed logic. That's like me saying ghosts are real and it's fact because it can't be disproved.
Sorry, but I have to disagree only because of personal beliefs and nothing more. I'm not saying you are wrong or that I am right, just that I disagree.
I like that. When in fact light is both waves and particles it makes it kind of a mind game to try and figure out how that is possible.
I still say we have 9 no matter what they say.
This is interesting. And I completely agree with the last paragraph.
Recruiting for East Realm
Also recruiting for Sc2 on both EU and NA servers
Bod home Page
Recruiting for East Realm
Also recruiting for Sc2 on both EU and NA servers
Bod home Page
I really wanted to troll his face for that comment since he literally threw an insult towards me without adding anything of value to the porn discussion(and he was saying I was acting like a badass :rolleyes: .)
But whatever..
No, they really are suited for monogamy. A male mating with 10 females cannot provide (not just financially but in regards to parental presence as well) for 10 families, leaving the kids at risk and vulnerable in a physically and emotionally less secure surrounding.
A male mating with one female and forming a stable family has a much greater chance of producing an individual that contributes to a greater extent in society, therefore not only is he passing on his genes but also helping in shaping a better society.
Sexual polygamy helps in no way build a stable relationship that would ideal for bringing up a child. It is nothing to do with morals and values but everything to do with the amount of time and effort focused into upbringing.
As for the circus and single-parent kids, they are exceptional cases. I am speaking relative to an ideal concept and environment.