|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 1:42 pm
I forgot who said that but then life is false becuase you cant prove life!
And when proof isnt thier you use the next best thing...FAITH!...........................................F*CK FAITH!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 4:03 pm
Well, nothing can be completely proven. Even scientific experiments can be run thousands of times, but there's always that sliver of possibility that one experiment may not turn out exactly the same, then the entire theory or postula is disproven. Creation, 'intelligent design', evolution, whatever you believe, none of them can be proven. They never will be.
And on the topic of life, you're completely correct. We can't prove life exists. We only know we are alive by our senses, and what if our senses are wrong? People can go blind, deaf, lose their sense of taste and smell, anything can interfere with our senses. But then you can't prove death, either. If death is the absence of life and life cannot be proven, death cannot be proven. You'll never see the end of it.
And please, I know this is a skeptics discussion, but try not to offend people, if you could. For some, faith is all they have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 4:07 pm
...
Oi...let's all stat something that's obvious to anyone who sits and thinks a bit...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 6:22 pm
a prioriti knowledge, anyone? "I think therefore I am," for starters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 6:35 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:55 am
DrasBrisingr Well, nothing can be completely proven. Even scientific experiments can be run thousands of times, but there's always that sliver of possibility that one experiment may not turn out exactly the same, then the entire theory or postula is disproven. Creation, 'intelligent design', evolution, whatever you believe, none of them can be proven. They never will be. While it is true in a sense that nothing can be completely proven, facts are FACTS, proven beyond a reasonable doubt. By facts I mean emperically measured DATA. The data taken in a scientfic experiment, though subject to some degree of instrument error and user-interpretation bias, are facts. A compilation of facts is used to support hypotheses, theories, and laws. However as the information we have available changes and our interpretation of the facts changes, than we change the hypotheses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:28 pm
Starlock DrasBrisingr Well, nothing can be completely proven. Even scientific experiments can be run thousands of times, but there's always that sliver of possibility that one experiment may not turn out exactly the same, then the entire theory or postula is disproven. Creation, 'intelligent design', evolution, whatever you believe, none of them can be proven. They never will be. While it is true in a sense that nothing can be completely proven, facts are FACTS, proven beyond a reasonable doubt. By facts I mean emperically measured DATA. The data taken in a scientfic experiment, though subject to some degree of instrument error and user-interpretation bias, are facts. A compilation of facts is used to support hypotheses, theories, and laws. However as the information we have available changes and our interpretation of the facts changes, than we change the hypotheses. Yeah, these "Facts" are things that humans deem true... does that mean they are true, probably, but not necessarily. Scientists may have the evidence to back their theorems or laws, but they have to ASSUME that the facts they have are in fact true... So not even scientists know if what they have in front of them is the truth or not... It may work, but does that mean it is 100% proven to be true?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:31 am
Necretian Starlock While it is true in a sense that nothing can be completely proven, facts are FACTS, proven beyond a reasonable doubt. By facts I mean emperically measured DATA. The data taken in a scientfic experiment, though subject to some degree of instrument error and user-interpretation bias, are facts. A compilation of facts is used to support hypotheses, theories, and laws. However as the information we have available changes and our interpretation of the facts changes, than we change the hypotheses. Yeah, these "Facts" are things that humans deem true... does that mean they are true, probably, but not necessarily. Scientists may have the evidence to back their theorems or laws, but they have to ASSUME that the facts they have are in fact true... So not even scientists know if what they have in front of them is the truth or not... It may work, but does that mean it is 100% proven to be true? I'm not sure you're quite understanding what I'm saying here, so I'll try to rephrase. I'm using the word 'facts' in a very specific, narrow sense here (which you won't see me do often), meaning specifically, empirical observations, aka DATA. In a broad sense, yes, even our own sensual imput are things 'humans deem true,' however, we have no choice but to rely on our sensory input as the source of facts; that's the only assumption made in terms of factual data. To give an example, we assume that when we see our hand in front of our face and count five fingers, that it is a fact our hand has five fingers, not sixty-two. Now, once you HAVE your observed data (aka facts) how you INTERPRET them is based on sets of logically supported assumptions. And any good scientist won't ever tell you anything is proven 100% to be true. What they do say, is that based on factual observations, we can bet that the sun is going to rise again tomorrow, that you're eventually going to die, and that if you smoke cigarettes you're going to have health complications. There's a misconception that science is about setting things in stone and getting 100% truth; science is more about making useful and accurate predictions as well as observing repeated patterns in the world around us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:04 pm
If you look at things in that manner, everything is faith. Nice argument. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:15 pm
This is something to throw into the mechanism, similar to a monkey wrench.
Relativity breaks down on the subatomic level.
Evolution is disproved by body parts that don't function when not whole (such as the eye... there could be no approximations to the eye, it is either all present and works, or it isn't and doesn't).
Everything, in one way or another, is faith. Through observation we can form the opinion of truth, but as an american philosopher named John Stuart Mill said "The usefullness of an opinion is itself a matter of opinion."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:03 am
Some of what you said I don't have the scientific background to refute, but this claim I most certainly DO: Khalida Nyoka Evolution is disproved by body parts that don't function when not whole (such as the eye... there could be no approximations to the eye, it is either all present and works, or it isn't and doesn't). (smacks forehead) Please. Go get yourself learned in evolution. Evolution is *not* disproven by this whatsoever. Charles Darwin Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. Furthermore, there isn't even any one perfect eye to begin with. There is no perfect trait. The usefulness of traits is entirely relative to the environment and circumstances of the organism bearing it. Sorry, I just... scientific ignorance irritates me. Anyway, as for your assertion that everything, in one way or another, is faith, could you elaborate on that statement?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:45 pm
Okay, here is what I think:
We have been taught by others the numbers, the alphabet, and "the basics." The number order could have been 4, 6, ,9, 2, 7, 8... so on. But we were taught that it goes 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... we've been taught to follow an universal form of language to understand each other.
Now, here you're thinking on vestigial structures; structures that some species use, but that others do not use.
On Geometry, we have POSTULATES and THEOREMS.
Postulates are rules that ARE ALWAYS RIGHT, such as a square having 360 degrees inside.
Theorems are rules that can be proven, and that some may be proven wrong.
Now, Science has used a lot of evidence, and depending on all the evidence that they've accumulated, they propose a hypothesis, turning into a theory.
Psychokinetics hasn't been proven correct yet because there isn't enough proof yet.
Just look at technology. They've once said that we couldn't fly to the moon, but look at us now. We've got a satellite on the middle of space right now millions of miles away right now.
Why couldn't people predict that we could do it? Because nobody tried anything for that.
It's almost the same way; very few have tried psychokinetics because it's a trait (I know it's not the right term for this) that takes a lot of time to develop. But once one gets the thing going, and is willing to teach others, psychokinesis may be common.
If you're still reading this, I thank you biggrin
Also, Psychokinesis is also known as the "mind over matter" trait. Mind over matter... hmm. what would happen if a criminal had psychic powers? Normal justice would not work against them. So, those very few that know it are those who would like to keep it secret, maybe because they know that it's a powerful weapon used by both good and evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:01 am
I tend to view "proof" as a term denoting congenial consensual acceptance of a strong probability. In other words, when something can usually be proven under the same controlled circumstances, most people accept it as fact. I decline as "proof" any argument that uses currently accepted proofs to discount any need to examine another theory. I am also frequently irritated by many scientists' refusal to allow for controlling variables that they feel aren't necessary, especially when investigating claims about which they are skeptical.
For example, say there's a man who says he can move boulders with his mind. Therefore, scientists put him in a sterile lab with several rocks of graduated sizes, hook him up to electrodes, and say let 'er rip. When the man protests that he needs to be in a natural environment and choose a stone with which he feels empathy, the scientists call bullshit, shut down the experiment, and publish a statement indicating that the guy is a fake.
No, I'm not using a real example, but the example does have striking similarities with actual experiments. I have even read interviews with (and attended lectures from) very frustrated scientists who conduct experiments with amazing results, only to find that no one will publish their study because the results are "impossible".
In other words, the term "proof" can mean a lot of things, and in the hands of the bloody-minded and immovable, it's a rather foul word. Simply put, anyone who *demands* proof probably won't accept anything short of a hand-written notarized note from Stephen Hawking, WITH the accompanying studies (plural) attached in triplicate, and even then they might question the provenance of the writing or even the mental stability of those involved before accepting it. Anyone who *asks* what proof has been found may in fact acknowledge a probability without having to be bludgeoned to death with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:13 am
Why over-complicate things?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:07 am
Yvaine I am also frequently irritated by many scientists' refusal to allow for controlling variables that they feel aren't necessary, especially when investigating claims about which they are skeptical. I'm not sure which is worse... what you just mentioned our the general outright refusal and stigma there is about even attempting to study things which smell even a whiff of pseudoscientfic or paranormal. A GOOD scientist doesn't dismiss investigating something on such a knee-jerk reaction. Nor does a good scientist do what you mentioned in your example. Another issue then is that of methodology. This was braught up in one of the podcasts I follow... it was discussing the recent publication of Deborah Blum's "Ghosthunters: William James and the Search for Scientific Proof of Life After Death" and how often scientists just put up a methodological brick wall. We can't test these things using our conventional methodology so then we just give up instead of developing NEW methodologies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
