The true context of science. It is just a model, get over it.

[dad]

Now we get three logical fallacies for the price of one; all in a very brief response.
Along with the shifting of the burden of proof and the argument from ignorance fallacies, the red herring fallacy is thrown in for good measure as your post is totally irrelevant in supporting your fishbowl.

Pretty good for one sentence eh? There is a word for it though...truth.

 

[SelfSim]

Pretty good for one sentence eh? There is a word for it though...truth.

There is no truth in science .. you are in the wrong forum!

The existence of some truth in the universe is an untestable posit .. it has to be assumed.
In other words it is a pure belief, where a belief is something held as being true for any reason.

 

[dad]

There is no truth in science .. you are in the wrong forum!

The truth was refence to my points, not science. However real science does involve a lot of things that are true. Origin so called sciences are simply false religion.

 

[SelfSim]

... Origin so called sciences are simply false religion.

Nope .. wrong again.
Religions assume untestable truths (as beliefs) and then leave it at that.
The scientific process does no such thing. It tests everything.
Speculation, followed by testable hypotheses, followed by testing, is the scientific process.

Everything in science's cosmology models is subject to testing at some stage ...

 

[sjastro]

The truth was refence to my points, not science. However real science does involve a lot of things that are true. Origin so called sciences are simply false religion.

The “truth” in your case is the existence of fishbowls, tooth fairies, unicorns or anything limited to one’s imagination.
As Selfsim has pointed out truth is not a criteria in Science as nothing in Science is considered to be true as old theories are retested with improved technologies.

As an example the Newtonian theory of the Moon’s orbit being in free fall was considered “true” for over 250 years until Apollo astronauts put mirrors on the moon to accurately measure the Earth Moon distance using lasers.
It was found the Moon is not in free fall but is moving away from the Earth albeit at very small rate.

This is how Science operates.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Nope .. wrong again.
Religions assume untestable truths (as beliefs) and then leaves it at that.
The scientific process does no such thing. It tests everything.
Speculation, followed by testable hypotheses, followed by testing, is the scientific process.

Everything in science's cosmology models is subject to testing at some stage ...

(haven't read or followed the thread; just saw this post)

It doesn't matter what religions do, does it ? So what if they 'assume' anything ?

The science community is fraught with deception, just like governments, corporations, religions, financial institutions (banks, stock market, hedge funds, etc basically all) ,
so
to say it tests everything is also deceptive - even when they 'test', when they want different results, they change the results.

The scientific process is grossly unreliable and untrustworthy. There are thousands if not millions of examples since 1902 that you MIGHT find online. (first you would have to want to search for the truth, then it would have to be available online, then you would have to accept it.)

 

[pitabread]

The scientific process is grossly unreliable and untrustworthy.

And yet here you are, posting all this anti-science nonsense on a 21st century computer network that is a direct result of scientific advancement over the centuries.

Ironic isn't it?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

And yet here you are, posting all this anti-science nonsense on a 21st century computer network that is a direct result of scientific advancement over the centuries.

Ironic isn't it?

I don't trust the computer network, nor scientific advancement (nor technology),
nor any of fallen man's controls/ pernicious society.

 

[pitabread]

I don't trust the computer network, nor scientific advancement (nor technology),
nor any of fallen man's controls/ pernicious society.

And yet... here you are raving about it on the Internet. Too precious!

 

[dad]

Nope .. wrong again.
Religions assume untestable truths (as beliefs) and then leave it at that.

Science cannot test what nature was like in the far past or future, neither can it test what time is like in the distant universe. So they have untestable beliefs. If they were honest they would leave it at that. Instead, they work night and day to taint evidences with their beliefs. Bad religion.

The scientific process does no such thing. It tests everything.
Speculation, followed by testable hypotheses, followed by testing, is the scientific process.

Correction, it tests what it can.

Everything in science's cosmology models is subject to testing at some stage ...

False. It is totally belief based godless nonsense.

 

[dad]

The “truth” in your case is the existence of fishbowls, tooth fairies, unicorns or anything limited to one’s imagination.

No. The truth is man has only explored so much and had actual limits. At least my truth isn't just in my head!! Ha.

As Selfsim has pointed out truth is not a criteria in Science as nothing in Science is considered to be true as old theories are retested with improved technologies.

Not only is is NOT a criteria it is not allowed, nor recognized!

As an example the Newtonian theory of the Moon’s orbit being in free fall was considered “true” for over 250 years until Apollo astronauts put mirrors on the moon to accurately measure the Earth Moon distance using lasers.
It was found the Moon is not in free fall but is moving away from the Earth albeit at very small rate.

This is how Science operates.

Irrelevant. The orbit of fishbowl items is not in question. You conflate actual knowledge with filthy religious origin religion.

 

[SelfSim]

Science cannot test what nature was like in the far past or future,

Science's objective test results lead us to draw conclusions about what conditions were like the early universe based on those results.
These conclusions are thus a logical consequence of already tested things.

.. neither can it test what time is like in the distant universe. So they have untestable beliefs.

False.
'What time is like in the distant universe' is no less testable than what time is like in the local universe .. because: 'Time in physics is unambiguously operationally defined as "what a clock reads".[6][15][16]'.
Simple!

... Instead, they work night and day to taint evidences with their beliefs.

... and that is an unsupported outright lie, as well as an ad-hom attack on all scientists!
Shame on you.
This is your disgraceful behaviour on display for everyone to see!

Correction, it tests what it can.

.. Correction .. Scientists following the well-documented and widely taught scientific process, conduct objective tests.
Science is a human process followed by humans (abundantly evidenced).. and not some kind of autonomous 'thing', (aka: your "it" ... referenced from your own words above).

False. It is totally belief based ...

Unsupported rubbish!

 

[dad]

Science's objective test results lead us to draw conclusions about what conditions were like the early universe based on those results.
These conclusions are thus a logical consequence of already tested things.

Nothing is logical about insane belief based models. Nothing about them is tested. It it all circular reasoning and belief.

False.
'What time is like in the distant universe' is no less testable than what time is like in the local universe .. because: 'Time in physics is unambiguously operationally defined as "what a clock reads".[6][15][16]'.
Simple!

Well if true that is proof they are out of their minds. I suspect the actual claim about time and what it is will be 'we do not know!'.

I kid you not.

.. Correction .. Scientists following the well-documented and widely taught scientific process, conduct objective tests.

Tests you cannot tell us about with regards to what time is like in the far universe...or what nature was like on earth in the fa past.

Science is a human process followed by humans (abundantly evidenced).. and not some kind of autonomous 'thing', (aka: your "it" ... referenced from your own words above).

Ha. Now you are offended at having your religion called 'it'!

 

[sjastro]

No. The truth is man has only explored so much and had actual limits. At least my truth isn't just in my head!! Ha.

Not only is is NOT a criteria it is not allowed, nor recognized!
Irrelevant. The orbit of fishbowl items is not in question. You conflate actual knowledge with filthy religious origin religion.

You can be excused for failing to understand the logical fallacies behind your fishbowl or the incoherent nature of your posts as it reflects your intellectual capacity but there is no excuse for blatant lying or wilful ignorance.

Science is not based on truths because theories can never be proven unlike theorems in mathematics.

 

[SelfSim]

Wrapping together some comments made about truth, religion, assumptions and science, I make the following response:

When someone chooses a belief, (eg: reality exists independently of minds), that's fine. But then if they say "my belief is the truth, and I don't need to supply any evidence because I already know it's true," (such as is persistently demonstrated by 'dad' in this thread), then that's circular reasoning. More deeply though, there's also a fallacy of the 'hidden assumption', ie: (using the example) it is only that they believe that reality exists independently of minds is true, that allows them to then assert it is true. It does not hold up to any standard of objective evidence, as has been clearly demonstrated in my prior conversation about reality being dependent on a mind with 'dad', this thread.

The absence of objective evidence pertaining to some goal say like, 'surviving a high cliff jump’, is what makes it a belief, and the presence of a subjective goal being satisfied by the believer, is also what makes it a belief. If we say we just have two different assumptions here, one that assumes belief leads to truth, and one that assumes science leads to truth, and all the rest is circular reasoning based on those different assumptions, we have missed the crucial difference between them ... the presence or absence of an objective test.

The bottom line is, we choose a process that gives meaning to what we call 'truth', and we live with the consequences of that choice of process, but the consequences can include objective facts, and that is what separates the various processes that give the "truth" concept its meaning. You don't have to make 'surviving a high cliff jump’ your goal, but you do have to accept the fact that if it is your goal, you will find out if you achieved that goal or not, and so will everyone you leave behind. You, nor they, can deny the role your mind played in distinguishing the meaning of ‘truth’ here, because of its direct influence on selecting a process which has an objective consequence for demonstrating the meaning of ’truth’.

That's also as close as it gets to what scientists mean if/when the word 'truth' ever appears in a scientific context.

 

[dad]

You can be excused for failing to understand the logical fallacies behind your fishbowl or the incoherent nature of your posts as it reflects your intellectual capacity but there is no excuse for blatant lying or wilful ignorance.

Science is not based on truths because theories can never be proven unlike theorems in mathematics.

Sorry, your idea of what you think is logical has no weight here. Wasn't that you that claimed gravity is some sort of item in man's mind or some such? There is no math that tells us what time is like in the far universe. Why pretend?

 

[SelfSim]

Wasn't that you that claimed gravity is some sort of item in man's mind or some such?

Now you're confusing posters and then imposing your own claims on them?!?
Are you kidding?

What sort of sloppy, squirmy, sleezy, dishonest tactic is that?

Even if you are confusing sjastro with myself, I never said any such thing either.

I warned also you about this as being an ad-hom attack on myself, now you need to be warned about doing it to any other members ..
Stop doing it right now! I don't care if it was raised as a question .. your intent is perfectly clear.

 

[dad]

Wrapping together some comments made about truth, religion, assumptions and science, I make the following response:

When someone chooses a belief, (eg: reality exists independently of minds), that's fine. But then if they say "my belief is the truth, and I don't need to supply any evidence because I already know it's true," (such as is persistently demonstrated by 'dad' in this thread), then that's circular reasoning.

I have pointed out that you only have beliefs that cannot be supported. I do not need to do anything more than show that the basis of origin models is belief.

More deeply though, there's also a fallacy of the 'hidden assumption', ie: (using the example) it is only that they believe that reality exists independently of minds is true, that allows them to then assert it is true. It does not hold up to any standard of objective evidence, as has been clearly demonstrated in my prior conversation about reality being dependent on a mind with 'dad', this thread.

You were shown that gravity is outside the mere mind of mind, and an actual force.

The absence of objective evidence pertaining to some goal say like, 'surviving a high cliff jump’, is what makes it a belief, and the presence of a subjective goal being satisfied by the believer, is also what makes it a belief. If we say we just have two different assumptions here, one that assumes belief leads to truth, and one that assumes science leads to truth, and all the rest is circular reasoning based on those different assumptions, we have missed the crucial difference between them ... the presence or absence of an objective test.

In science there is an absence of objective truth on all origins issues. There is not truth in origin sciences.

The bottom line is, we choose a process that gives meaning to what we call 'truth', and we live with the consequences of that choice of process, but the consequences can include objective facts, and that is what separates the various processes that give the "truth" concept its meaning.

There are no consequences to what time is like in the far universe in science. There are only circular beliefs.

You don't have to make 'surviving a high cliff jump’ your goal, but you do have to accept the fact that if it is your goal, you will find out if you achieved that goal or not, and so will everyone you leave behind. You, nor they, can deny the role your mind played in distinguishing the meaning of ‘truth’ here, because of its direct influence on selecting a process which has an objective consequence for demonstrating the meaning of ’truth’.

Correct, if someone jumps off a high cliff, even if he thinks gravity is a product of the mind, there will be consequences.

That's also as close as it gets to what scientists mean if/when the word 'truth' ever appears in a scientific context.

If they use the word it is in error. They cannot ever find the truth.

 

[dad]

Even if you are confusing sjastro with myself, I never said any such thing either.

Ok, so you are not the guy that claims that things are a product of the mind.

Guess you two seem similar to me.