The Falsifiability Criterion

[AV1611VET]

No, they just treat it like the truest thing around at the time--which is not the same as absolute truth.

What would change if it did turn out to be absolute truth? anything?

 

[BCP1928]

What would change if it did turn out to be absolute truth? anything?

Unfortunately, that's not something that science can know.

 

[AV1611VET]

You clearly cannot present evidence for your claim,

And what is my claim exactly?

What you'd like me to do is present evidence for my claim -- (which I did, by the way)* -- so you can harp on me saying "not openly."

* I presented they moving forward with their mistakes -- albeit not knowing their mistakes at the time -- as cause-and-effect evidence that they thought they were being absolutely correct in their duties.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unfortunately, that's not something that science can know.

Science is myopic.

(They just don't know it.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And what is my claim exactly?

What you'd like me to do is present evidence for my claim -- (which I did, by the way)* -- so you can harp on me saying "not openly."

* I presented they moving forward with their mistakes -- albeit not knowing their mistakes at the time -- as cause-and-effect evidence that they thought they were being absolutely correct in their duties.

Your claim is that scientists treat scientific theories as absolute truth. That's a simple and plain fact in this thread, despite your cowardly waffling of going "Oh, but they won't say it openly... but I'll still say they'll do it." But you can't even provide, when pushed, to show an example of such a thing happening.

You claim that the list of disasters (some of which were genuine disasters, many of which are solely based around your own myopic view of what you claim science is) is an example of said scientists adhering to scientific theory as truth, but you can't show HOW that's evidence.

You just SAYING that something is evidence, doesn't mean it is. You can't show squat because you have nothing to show.

You are literally making crap up.

 

[Ophiolite]

What would change if it did turn out to be absolute truth? anything?

That's easy. It would mean science could ignore that specific aspect of the phenomenon from that point forward since there would be nothing new to learn about it. Science isn't about what we know, it's about what we don't know. (It's more complex than that, since it depends on the hierarchical status of the truth - is it a generic truth, or a specific truth? But my statement will do as a starting point for your next illogical assertion.)

 

[AV1611VET]

That's easy. It would mean science could ignore that specific aspect of the phenomenon from that point forward since there would be nothing new to learn about it. Science isn't about what we know, it's about what we don't know. (It's more complex than that, since it depends on the hierarchical status of the truth - is it a generic truth, or a specific truth? But my statement will do as a starting point for your next illogical assertion.)

When Jesus came here the first time, His teachings threatened to put the priests out of a job; and they didn't take to that kindly.

And we all know how they retaliated.

Luke 23:21 But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.

When He comes back again, Satan is going to have a top-notch technocracy going, and Jesus is going to put academia out of business.

Only this time, attempts to shove Him off the earth aren't going to work.