Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That means it is not possible that in the future we will find another theory that is better than ToE. Claim equivalent to denying its falsifiability.Theories are human constructs. There aren't any theories out there that we are unaware of, even though I am certain there are many natural phenomona we do not understand entirely.
That means it is not possible that in the future we will find another theory that is better than ToE. Claim equivalent to denying its falsifiability.
The laugh is on you, as you make empty assertions then. If you don't want to prove what you assert, then why you assert it?
That is not what I said, although evolution is very unlikely to be overturned completetely at this point. What I meant is that theories are human constructs to explain natural phenomena. There aren't any undiscovered theories, since they do not exist until a person(s) come up with them. Theories are not waiting around to be discovered, in other words. There are surely phenomena waiting to be explained, but it is not really correct to say there are theories to be "discovered."[/quoteh
To completely overturn the toE would involve blowing up pretty much all theory in all of the sciences.
Let me put it this way; The sun is at the centre of our solar system and the planets revolve around it. This is a fact and it will not change. However what will change is the accuracy of measurements.The laugh is on you, as you make empty assertions then. If you don't want to prove what you assert, then why you assert it?
OK. Second pass. Like a C++ compiler.That is not what I said, although evolution is very unlikely to be overturned completetely at this point. What I meant is that theories are human constructs to explain natural phenomena. There aren't any undiscovered theories, since they do not exist until a person(s) come up with them. Theories are not waiting around to be discovered, in other words. There are surely phenomena waiting to be explained, but it is not really correct to say there are theories to be "discovered."
Not if I'm dreaming all of it and there is no objective reality.Let me put it this way; The sun is at the centre of our solar system and the planets revolve around it. This is a fact and it will not change.
And perhaps I know what ToE is and what it defines. I was questioning the apparent infallibility applied by some of the members here.Perhaps you are thinking that ToE defines how life started? If so then you are mistaken because that is the realm of Abiogenesis.
I was not asking proof of ToE, there is enough evidence to justify it. I was asking about proof for assertion it is infallible.Asking one to prove ToE in a few sentences is like asking to show Dirac's equation and prove it in one sentence.
Not if I'm dreaming all of it and there is no objective reality.
Also even if there was objective reality, the Sun is not in the centre of our solar system. The mass centre of our solar system is in the Sun (sometimes).
And perhaps I know what ToE is and what it defines. I was questioning the apparent infallibility applied by some of the members here.
I was not asking proof of ToE, there is enough evidence to justify it. I was asking about proof for assertion it is infallible.
Next time a policeman stops you for speeding, talk him out of fining you by talking about your average speed for the day.I wonder if those average out to centering on the sun?
Please identify who on this forum thinks the ToE is infallible.
So ToE is not falsifiable?
in theory it is, in fact it isnt because it is true
Prove it.
haha
Next time a policeman stops you for speeding, talk him out of fining you by talking about your average speed for the day.
I wonder if it will work...
One is you.
Here you say it isn't falsifiable, because it is true.
And I asked you to prove your claim that it is true.
And that is your proof. If you can't prove something don't claim it. You could say that it is falsifiable, but we have no data that falsifies it. I would agree with you. Instead you said it is true. I'm sorry I cannot agree with that unless you backup your claim.
--- mzungu also claimed "ToE is basically a constant as far as theories go." Also claim it cannot be falsified.
So that makes 2 of you.
Hecliocentric just refers to the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, not that the sun is the exact center. I thought it would be interesting to know if the orbits do average out to a geometric center; you thought it would be interesting to try to find something to make fun of.Next time a policeman stops you for speeding, talk him out of fining you by talking about your average speed for the day.
I wonder if it will work.
wrongOne is you.
Falsifiable means able to be proven false.Here you say it isn't falsifiable, because it is true.
I will keep it in mind that you said this, and use it for every claim you make from now on, Fair?If you can't prove something don't claim it
And that is your proof.
Well, it was my choice to either make fun of it, or claim red herring. Now, as you persist I have to do the latter. Go see for yourself the original claim made. There is nothing about "average" or "heliocentric". It states plain and clear the sun is in the center of the solar system.Hecliocentric just refers to the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, not that the sun is the exact center. I thought it would be interesting to know if the orbits do average out to a geometric center; you thought it would be interesting to try to find something to make fun of.
Difference in people, I guess.
Indeed. I disagree with the "wrong", but the resit is OK.wrong
Falsifiable means able to be proven false.
infallible means incapable of error.
Till now. "Practice" instead of "fact" and "happens to be true" instead of "it is true" is telling quite different story. Yes, in practice it happens to be true. Can I assume it must necessarily be true? No. People don't usually go with huge speeds, so in practice Newton mechanics is also true, the error would be well bellow the error of the measurement we could make.In theory, one could prove the ToE to be incorrect; i said, in practice you cant, because it happens to be true.
Not at all. I'll ask anyone to prove something if it was claimed "true". Don't take it as personal bias or something.That of course is an opinion, and your asking me to prove it was kind of silly,
I would go to a doctor. I'm free of talking "gods" in my head.Now, suppose "god" told you that the ToE is true.
Yes. Why not.I will keep it in mind that you said this, and use it for every claim you make from now on, Fair?
Then it would be quite huge miscommunication fault from your side if you don't think so.Try to prove I think the ToE is infallible, for a start; you will find it tough, as it isnt true.
Just as I suspected. Nobody has convinced me of 'macro' evolution (yes it is so wrong they have to give it a special name)
Well, it was my choice to either make fun of it, or claim red herring. Now, as you persist I have to do the latter. Go see for yourself the original claim made. There is nothing about "average" or "heliocentric". It states plain and clear the sun is in the center of the solar system.
It reminds me about a test question they discussed in "Atheist Experience". The question was "which two planets are closest to Earth?". Can you guess what is wrong with the question?
And yes, I'm different than you. Don't take it personally.
Indeed. I disagree with the "wrong", but the resit is OK.
So, you claim that: "in theory it is[falsifiable], in fact it isnt [falsifiable] because it is true".
So, first in red comes a claim it is able to be proven false, but that is only theoretical.
Second is a claim that the fact are it isn't able to be proven false.
So, you have a theory that is either capable or incapable of error.
An finally it is claimed "it is true" as a reason why isn't able to be proven false. So, that's basically a claim it is incapable of error and therefore infallible.
The facts are that your claim in red disagrees with your claims in black. But still the part in black is claimed factual, so I chose to work with it.
Till now. "Practice" instead of "fact" and "happens to be true" instead of "it is true" is telling quite different story. Yes, in practice it happens to be true. Can I assume it must necessarily be true? No. People don't usually go with huge speeds, so in practice Newton mechanics is also true, the error would be well bellow the error of the measurement we could make.
Not at all. I'll ask anyone to prove something if it was claimed "true". Don't take it as personal bias or something.
I would go to a doctor. I'm free of talking "gods" in my head.
Yes. Why not.
Then it would be quite huge miscommunication fault from your side if you don't think so.
I already did it, look the analysis of your claim in black and red. Now if you meant what you said later, about practice and "happens"(i.e. assumes tests done), then it definitely is miscommunication.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?