Difference between a fact ,theory and a guess

[mindlight]

Im in no way responsible for your education.

Actually the real answer was it cannot be done. A view you have affirmed by copping out.

 

[VirOptimus]

Actually the real answer was it cannot be done. A view you have affirmed by copping out.

You believe scientists the world round are lying?

 

[mindlight]

Because it was the best theory on the table for many years. Even Ptolemaic astronomy was of real worth at one point, given that it was supported by the calculations. People weren't just making stuff up.



You are familiar with how astronomy works, I hope? People build models to best explain the empirical observations--this is how Ptolemaic astronomy was eventually overthrown in favor of Capernican astronomy, since once Kepler came onto the scene and ditched the idea of perfect circular orbits, the heliocentrists finally got their calculations together so that their model explained more.

The Big Bang Theory is popular because it is currently the best explanation of empirical observations. Not because of any sort of philosophical agenda. The fact that it requires billions of years is not actually a problem for it.

Even the Ptolemaic theory made accurate predictions about the movement of stars and planets. The Copernican model is simpler and does this better. These were both workable scientific theories and contrast with the 3 examples in my OP

 

[mindlight]

You believe scientists the world round are lying?

No i think what they say has little worth when discussing many of the facts of human history. Regarding the 3 examples in the OP it is about being swept along by the momentum of theories we cannot prove and which are of little practical relevance. If you cannot even demonstrate Waterloo took place then why should I trust a word you say about things for which you have no witnesses and which yku cannot demonstrate either when nothing much useful comes out of these theories.

 

[VirOptimus]

No i think what they say has little worth when discussing many of the facts of human history. Regarding the 3 examples in the OP it is about being swept along by the momentum of theories we cannot prove and which are of little practical relevance. If you cannot even demonstrate Waterloo took place then why should I trust a word you say about things for which you have no witnesses and which yku cannot demonstrate either when nothing much useful comes out of these theories.

Yes yes, you dont understand science, I get it.

 

[LightLoveHope]

Science do not require "belief", "belief" is for religion.

Science is a tool do describe physical reality, no more no less.

Evolution is a fact, the ToE is an incredibly well-supported scientific theory on how evolution happen. Not accepting science is denying physical reality, not a good place to be.

I am a believer in things change.
You can show how animals adapt, or rather random changes in their genetic expression allow one set of creatures to survive while other die out.

To go from this, to given long enough anything can just come into existance is believing in what they call a goldilocks event, equivalent to a creative event.

I have no problem accepting evolution if there were not these steps of faith, which cannot be demonstrated. There are for instance many similarities between creatures based on DNA, but that does not make them related. It makes them developed from a similar template.

This is how science or knowledge develops by knowing the boundaries of knowledge. I can but be honest in my understanding. I am not denying science just recognising speculation from what we know today.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am a believer in things change.
You can show how animals adapt, or rather random changes in their genetic expression allow one set of creatures to survive while other die out.

To go from this, to given long enough anything can just come into existance is believing in what they call a goldilocks event, equivalent to a creative event.

I have no problem accepting evolution if there were not these steps of faith, which cannot be demonstrated. There are for instance many similarities between creatures based on DNA, but that does not make them related. It makes them developed from a similar template.

This is how science or knowledge develops by knowing the boundaries of knowledge. I can but be honest in my understanding. I am not denying science just recognising speculation from what we know today.

No, you are denying science.

 

[LightLoveHope]

No, you are denying science.

I think you do not understand science.
Science cannot say what has happened in the past. It can only project its ideas.
From a philosophical perspective the only reason why you know yesterday happened is you remember it. It is a sad reality, that it is our models of the world which are pragmatic, that are how we live and its the best we are ever going to have.

When you find out you do not actually see anything, your brain constructs the image out of information it gets from the eyes, but it has to be adapted to cope with things that change all the time, but relatively are the same, so it appears to us to be the same. This begins to put things into place.

What science has taught us? 96% of the universe that we see is unknown, dark matter. What appears solid is actually empty space. When we observe things, they behave in a way our measuring expects them to be. You maybe a determinist, believing there is no free will and everything is predictable.

There is a hypothesis that there are an infinite set of multiverses. Except if the world is deterministic there will only ever be one alternative.

If you take simple life it need 500,000 dna base pairs, which to randomly arrange these base pairs to form life would take far longer than the universe appears to have been existence. Just to write an A4 page long sonnet randomly would also take longer than the universe exists. Nothing we experience that is this creative happens without a creator, but some scientists hate this idea so deeply, they speak about facts where they do not exist.

 

[VirOptimus]

I think you do not understand science.
Science cannot say what has happened in the past. It can only project its ideas.
From a philosophical perspective the only reason why you know yesterday happened is you remember it. It is a sad reality, that it is our models of the world which are pragmatic, that are how we live and its the best we are ever going to have.

When you find out you do not actually see anything, your brain constructs the image out of information it gets from the eyes, but it has to be adapted to cope with things that change all the time, but relatively are the same, so it appears to us to be the same.

What science has taught us? 96% of the universe that we see is unknown, dark matter. What appears solid is actually empty space. When we observe things, they behave is a way our measuring expects it to be. You maybe a determinist, believing there is no free will and everything is predictable.

There is a hypothesis that there are an infinite set of multiverses. Except if the world is deterministic there will only ever be one alternative.

If you take simple like 500,000 dna base pairs, to randomly arrange these base pairs to form life would take far longer than the universe appears to have been existance. Just to write an A4 page long sonnet would also take longer than the universe exists. Nothing we experience that is this creative happens without a creator, but some scientists hate this idea so deeply, they speak about facts where they do not exist.

Tl;dr.

You should really learn science 101 because you clearly dont understand even the basics.

 

[LightLoveHope]

Tl;dr.

You should really learn science 101 because you clearly dont understand even the basics.

You clearly do not understand the divide between philosophy and science.
Philosophy has shown we can never really know anything other than by assumption.
It is why pure materialism that talks in certainties, or even religious or atheists doing the same thing has always led to serious problems.

On a science question, is there life out their in the cosmos? Probably not. Why? Because we are so rare, we have not come close yet to finding anything that might support life as we know it anywhere else than the earth.

The theory was if there was life, it would have shown itself by now. Why? Because intelligence progresses extremely fast in billions of years scale. Or put it another way if life is the conclusion of existence, by natural processes why did it take 14.5 billion years for us to create telescopes to look at the universe?

Do you realise how unbelievably hostile our solar system is to life, let alone our galaxy? We live in heaven compared to out there.......

 

[VirOptimus]

You clearly do not understand the divide between philosophy and science.
Philosophy has shown we can never really know anything other than by assumption.
It is why pure materialism that talks in certainties, or even religious or atheists doing the same thing has always led to serious problems.

On a science question, is there life out their in the cosmos? Probably not. Why? Because we are so rare, we have not come close yet to finding anything that might support life as we know it anywhere else than the earth.

The theory was if there was life, it would have shown itself by now. Why? Because intelligence progresses extremely fast in billions of years scale. Or put it another way if life is the conclusion of existence, by natural processes why did it take 14.5 billion years for us to create telescopes to look at the universe?

Do you realise how unbelievably hostile our solar system is to life, let alone our galaxy? We live in heaven compared to out there.......

I do have educated myself in both science and philosophy. You should too, because you are quite simply wrong.

 

[LightLoveHope]

On a different note, the bible is a weird book, 4,000 years old but still relevant today.
And the stories it contains are unusual, unlike any stories from any other source.

I am staggard people who were just entering the iron age are people we can relate to because we have not changed though our technology has. And what the story is of a relationship with the creator, very odd. No other story speaks to the creator of everything, face to face. And even then, they messed up. Not exactly a good story for the state of how we cope with facts right in our face.

 

[LightLoveHope]

I do have educated myself in both science and philosophy. You should too, because you are quite simply wrong.

Thankfully I do not have to answer to you. If you cannot grasp the points I am making, we can not begin to have a good discussion about the limitations of knowledge and faith. It is this that interests me and how we relate this back to our daily lives.

 

[VirOptimus]

Thankfully I do not have to answer to you. If you cannot grasp the points I am making, we can not begin to have a good discussion about the limitations of knowledge and faith. It is this that interests me and how we relate this back to our daily lives.

As Im an atheist I have no faith in god(s).

 

[LightLoveHope]

As Im an atheist I have no faith in god(s).

I think you miss my point. We live each day by faith.
The faith we all live by, is today will be similar enough to yesterday that we do not have to check it. When we suffer trauma, and our faith in this daily belief is shaken, we get agrophobia, and other anxiety disorders.

You begin to see how this is how we deal with fear is when something breaks it down. So this is what I mean by faith. It is why everyone has faith in something or else they could literally do nothing.

 

[LightLoveHope]

If there purpose in life?
If life is meaningless, you may as well be dead as much as being alive.
Yet our whole bodies find purpose and meaning in everything.

With no meaning why believe in morality or any framework because the outcome is ultimately pointless, even this conversation. People who believe life is meaningless want to tell people it matters that they believe and they should abandon their faith to believe nothing has meaning. Now that is a joke of an argument, because it destroys its own purpose and foundation. The argument really is people feel guilt and blame religion for it not realising religion is explaining the guilt not creating it.
So why is there guilt if in the universe there is no purpose or point?

 

[Mountainmike]

I see, well, my estimation is indeed correct. Thank you for the QED!

Estimation of what?
That your presumption of existence as a fact outside observation was false according to contemporary science?

Read the sources I gave. One of the hottest debates there ever was in physics.
Sadly the bell experiments proved that bohr wins and Einstein lost.

The debate and lack of consensus on meaning of existence and Copenhagen is stated as the" most embarrassing graph in modern physics" by one of our foremost quantum physicists Carrol.

If you believe the "moon exists before you observe it " , you disagree with most of the best known quantum physicists there are.

I doubt your science is advanced enough to see the problem.

Too many atheists base their philosophy of reality and existence , you say " fact" on a primitive and false view of science. As numerous quantum paradoxes prove.

But because your unreasoned faith in science is so strong, I doubt the truth of science will change your view of it.

 

[Mountainmike]

Except he strays well outside his sphere of competence into areas he knows nothing about , like probabilities from quantum chemistry , using pseudoscience to defend apriori faith in atheism, and his faith that life is a biochemical accident

In his books the atheist and science self are not separated. He abuses science to defend atheism.

If he was a scientist, he would not vouch for Sagans folly:
" extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence"
That subjective evaluation is the antithesis of science.
All claims must clear the same bar.
His belief in atheism defeats his science.

You only have to see his pitiful statements on telepathy to see his faith blinds him to science.

No.

Dawkins is an atheist, and he is also a scientist. These two positions are conceptually distinct.

I am an engineer. I am also a Christian.

Does that mean there is such a thing as “Christian engineering”.

Of course not.

 

[VirOptimus]

Estimation of what?
That your presumption of existence as a fact outside observation was false according to contemporary science?

Read the sources I gave. One of the hottest debates there ever was in physics.
Sadly the bell experiments proved that bohr wins and Einstein lost.

The debate and lack of consensus on meaning of existence and Copenhagen is stated as the" most embarrassing graph in modern physics" by one of our foremost quantum physicists Carrol.

If you believe the "moon exists before you observe it " , you disagree with most of the best known quantum physicists there are.

I doubt your science is advanced enough to see the problem.

Too many atheists base their philosophy of reality and existence , you say " fact" on a primitive and false view of science. As numerous quantum paradoxes prove.

But because your unreasoned faith in science is so strong, I doubt the truth of science will change your view of it.

No, Im positive my assumption about your knowledge is correct.

You don understand the difference between an observer in the general and the specific you as an observer for starters.

My guess is that you have no formal education in science.

 

[VirOptimus]

I think you miss my point. We live each day by faith.
The faith we all live by, is today will be similar enough to yesterday that we do not have to check it. When we suffer trauma, and our faith in this daily belief is shaken, we get agrophobia, and other anxiety disorders.

You begin to see how this is how we deal with fear is when something breaks it down. So this is what I mean by faith. It is why everyone has faith in something or else they could literally do nothing.

No, thats wrong. I have no faith.