Scientific facts do not exist

David Jeffrey Spetch said:
You make up more lies in the form of vacant un backed claims Instead of sharing one valid example of scientific fact, evading the foundation of this issue while desperately scrambling to try and make irrelevant drivel the issue only reveals an intellectual coward. Remember the title of this thread "Scientific facts do not exist". Here you are desperately scrambling to try and make your irrelevant rhetoric the issue to try and hide that you are unable to contest the fact that there is no such thing as scientific fact. Thanks for sharing you the liar is.

A confirmation is the end result of a scientific process hence recognition of the fact is the end result, not the process that it took to recognize the fact since your brain appears to be way too small to realize something so obvious all by yourself.

My pleasure sonny bunch.
Click to expand...

irrational. Which is it, dude?
 
There has always been Religious and Political zealots ignore scientific fact- and want you to ignore scientific facts- BECAUSE WHY?

The answer is very simple! It does not play into the zealot's narrative- That's why!!!!!!!

And now this zealot idiot is here today trying to tell everybody that there is no such thing as scientific fact!

Here is a scientific fact- YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID!

tenor.gif
 
AssHatZombie said:
please help me separate facts from truth.
Click to expand...

Facts are not truth, and have nothing to do with truth.

A fact is nothing more than an assumed predicate. They are used to shorten conversations much like we might use a pronoun instead of a proper noun all the time.
The moment the predicate is disputed, the fact ceases to exist. It becomes an argument.

A fact does not have anything to do with the truth. It can apply equally well to fiction. In Lord of the Rings, for example, it is often considered a fact that Hobbits have hairy feet. it is, after all, so stated by the author.
A fact that the Earth is round is just an accepted predicate, nothing more. It saves us from having to try to show the Earth is round in everyday conversation.
A fact that the Earth is flat is also an accepted predicate, for those that do not believe the observations showing the Earth is round. Among them, the Earth is simply flat. Conversations between them can be conducted without having to bring up the dispute over and over.

Once a believer of the observations showing the Earth is round enters the group of those that believe the Earth is flat, BOTH facts are destroyed. They BOTH become an argument.

Remember, all observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. No observation is a proof for that reason. They are evidence only. All data, which is the result from observations are subject to the same problems.

Phenomenology is that branch of philosophy concerned with defining what the word 'real' actually means.

Take a simple observation: the daily sunrise.
* to one, it is a God rising into the sky to light and warm His Domain.
* to another, it is a vehicle a God is riding in.
* to another, it is a ball of fire.
* to another, it is circling a stationary Earth.
* to another, it is stationary, and only appears to move because the Earth is spinning.
* to another, neither is stationary. The Earth and the Sun orbit each other, and both are orbiting around a galactic center, and the galaxy itself is moving at some unknown speed relative to something else.

Same observation, SIX different interpretations. All observations require interpretation of what is stimulating our senses, even if instruments are involved to enhance our senses. Those interpretations are made according the model of the Universe and how it works that each of us carry. That model is made up of our past experiences. It is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint.

So which is 'real'? What is 'truth'? It is simply which model you accept, which in turn is conditioned about which model of the Universe you accept already before the observation.

In other words, 'real' and 'truth' are quite literally what YOU choose to make it!

If some observation or some reasoning comes along that you can't fit into your personal model of the Universe, you have to be able to fit it in somehow. On that day, for you, the Universe literally changes. So does what is 'real', and so does the 'truth'.
 
Into the Night said:
Facts are not truth, and have nothing to do with truth.

A fact is nothing more than an assumed predicate. They are used to shorten conversations much like we might use a pronoun instead of a proper noun all the time.
The moment the predicate is disputed, the fact ceases to exist. It becomes an argument.

A fact does not have anything to do with the truth. It can apply equally well to fiction. In Lord of the Rings, for example, it is often considered a fact that Hobbits have hairy feet. it is, after all, so stated by the author.
A fact that the Earth is round is just an accepted predicate, nothing more. It saves us from having to try to show the Earth is round in everyday conversation.
A fact that the Earth is flat is also an accepted predicate, for those that do not believe the observations showing the Earth is round. Among them, the Earth is simply flat. Conversations between them can be conducted without having to bring up the dispute over and over.

Once a believer of the observations showing the Earth is round enters the group of those that believe the Earth is flat, BOTH facts are destroyed. They BOTH become an argument.

Remember, all observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. No observation is a proof for that reason. They are evidence only. All data, which is the result from observations are subject to the same problems.

Phenomenology is that branch of philosophy concerned with defining what the word 'real' actually means.

Take a simple observation: the daily sunrise.
* to one, it is a God rising into the sky to light and warm His Domain.
* to another, it is a vehicle a God is riding in.
* to another, it is a ball of fire.
* to another, it is circling a stationary Earth.
* to another, it is stationary, and only appears to move because the Earth is spinning.
* to another, neither is stationary. The Earth and the Sun orbit each other, and both are orbiting around a galactic center, and the galaxy itself is moving at some unknown speed relative to something else.

Same observation, SIX different interpretations. All observations require interpretation of what is stimulating our senses, even if instruments are involved to enhance our senses. Those interpretations are made according the model of the Universe and how it works that each of us carry. That model is made up of our past experiences. It is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint.

So which is 'real'? What is 'truth'? It is simply which model you accept, which in turn is conditioned about which model of the Universe you accept already before the observation.

In other words, 'real' and 'truth' are quite literally what YOU choose to make it!

If some observation or some reasoning comes along that you can't fit into your personal model of the Universe, you have to be able to fit it in somehow. On that day, for you, the Universe literally changes. So does what is 'real', and so does the 'truth'.
Click to expand...

nah. they're related.
 
I could sit here in my easy chair and quote scientific facts all day!

Here is one I think you'll like....

Never fry bacon in the nude! As proven by scientific fact! LOL!

tenor.gif
 
Into the Night said:
There is no such thing as 'scientific' knowledge. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not knowledge.

Science is not knowledge. No theory changes, once created. It may be falsified, but the theory itself never changes.

There is no such thing as a 'scientific' fact. A fact either is, or isn't. There is nothing 'scientific' about any fact.

Observation is not part of science. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.

Repeating an observation is not a proof. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.

An observation is not a proof. It does not prove a theory, nor does it even prove the observation itself.

Where?

YALIF. Not a proof, not an observation, just another lame insult fallacy.
Click to expand...

Gosh...I'd go bullet point on you but it's just easier to say you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Have you even ever studied science? Ya know formally that is. Not the Mormon School of Faith Based science.
 
Never, and I say never, trust a fart after eating 2-for-a-dollar tacos from Jack-In-The-Box- while sitting in a hot tub!

As proven by scientific research!


W7TdX6l.gif


tenor.gif
 
Last edited:
I just wonder what travails and needless toils I will face by conflating truth and facts.

will I ever have that moment where I deeply regret not internalizing this discussion sufficiently? will I suffer long in great darkness?
 
AssHatZombie said:
I just wonder what travails and needless toils I will face by conflating truth and facts.

will I ever have that moment where I deeply regret not internalizing this discussion sufficiently? will I suffer long in great darkness?
Click to expand...

I try to JUST GO WITH this philosophy...

.....Nothing is ever as bad as it seems- and nothing is ever as good as it seems! [Vince Lombardy]
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Gosh...I'd go bullet point on you but it's just easier to say you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
Argument of the Stone fallacy.
Mott the Hoople said:
Have you even ever studied science?
Click to expand...
Science isn't a 'study' or a 'research'. It is just a set of falsifiable theories.
Mott the Hoople said:
Not the Mormon School of Faith Based science.
Click to expand...
Never heard of such a thing. I do not believe any program at BYU is named such either.

I can only assume you are trying to insult Mormons for some reason. Nothing to do with science. Strawman fallacy. Redirection fallacy. YALIF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top