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.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

For everyone's awareness, I am reporting anyone who demonstrates an unwillingness to argue in good-faith in this debate thread and who routinely posts content that does not directly address the objections they have received from their interlocutors.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

For everyone's awareness, I am reporting anyone who demonstrates an unwillingness to argue in good-faith in this debate thread and who routinely posts content that does not directly address the objections they have received from their interlocutors.

Addendum: It is necessary for us to demand intellectual honesty from ourselves and others in this way if we care about having meaningful and productive conversations.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

Well you said something, it might even be interesting, but can you explain how it relates to what I posted? I certainly can't.

 

[Ophiolite]

Addendum: It is necessary for us to demand intellectual honesty from ourselves and others in this way if we care about having meaningful and productive conversations.

I agree completely. I didn't recall if I had made any posts on the thread, apart from a single very recent one, so I want back through it looking for some. My intent was to check it against your proposed standard and alert you if I had fallen short, so I could alert you and get reported. (I daresay someone may accuse me of virtue signalling. To that person, you need to distinguish between virtue signalling and a combination of irony, tongue in cheek, implicit agreement, rhetorical devices and mischieviousness.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Well you said something, it might even be interesting, but can you explain how it relates to what I posted? I certainly can't.

You made this statement:

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.

(Emphasis mine.)

I'm wondering what academia would do at this point, if there's nothing more to teach or discover?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You made this statement:

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.

(Emphasis mine.)

I'm wondering what academia would do at this point, if there's nothing more to teach or discover?

It would basically mean the end of that discipline and inquiry or study of it. Why learn something new about a subject if you already know it all?

 

[AV1611VET]

For everyone's awareness, I am reporting anyone who demonstrates an unwillingness to argue in good-faith in this debate thread and who routinely posts content that does not directly address the objections they have received from their interlocutors.

Earth, you have an OP that's about a foot and a half of text.

You end it with this statement:

For debate: Any arguments theists could give to justify the acceptance of unfalsifiable religious claims about divine creation in the absence of a solution to the universal problems of confirmation bias, induction, and underdetermination.

Do you mind repeating that in words that are easy to understand?

 

[AV1611VET]

It would basically mean the end of that discipline and inquiry or study of it. Why learn something new about a subject if you already know it all?

I totally agree.

Why indeed?

That's gonna put a lot of people out of work.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I totally agree.

Why indeed?

That's gonna put a lot of people out of work.

Luckily that's not going to happen any time soon, since there's always something new to discover.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Earth, you have an OP that's about a foot and a half of text.

You end it with this statement:

For debate: Any arguments theists could give to justify the acceptance of unfalsifiable religious claims about divine creation in the absence of a solution to the universal problems of confirmation bias, induction, and underdetermination.

Do you mind repeating that in words that are easy to understand?

You basically argue from a flawed logical perspective. You begin with the conclusion, and then you have to make the evidence fit the narrative.

 

[AV1611VET]

Luckily that's not going to happen any time soon, since there's always something new to discover.

 

[AV1611VET]

You basically argue from a flawed logical perspective. You begin with the conclusion, and then you have to make the evidence fit the narrative.

What does he want in the way of an answer?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What does he want in the way of an answer?

It's less about wanting an answer and more making you and your ilk realise that you're not really arguing from a logical perspective, either when you argue for creation or ague against evolution. You never do, you especially.