Scientific facts do not exist

[Into the Night]

That may qualify as a scientific fact since it's an empirical observation that is independently verifiable.

No such thing as a 'scientific' fact. Science is theories, not facts. Observations are not part of science. They are not part of any theory of science.

 

[Into the Night]

and it's true! win win

Observations are not facts.

 

[Into the Night]

do false facts exist?

Define 'false fact'.

 

[Scut Farkus]

Define 'false fact'.

a fact that's not true.

 

[Scut Farkus]

this is how you destroy the a.I. and stop the demons from coming through.

 

[Into the Night]

a fact that's not true.

A fact is an assumed predicate. There is no such thing as a false fact. The predicate is simply assumed to be True.

The moment that predicate is challenged, the fact ceases to exist. It becomes an argument.

 

[Into the Night]

this is how you destroy the a.I. and stop the demons from coming through.

A.I. has lots of daemons.

 

[Scut Farkus]

A fact is an assumed predicate. There is no such thing as a false fact. The predicate is simply assumed to be True.

The moment that predicate is challenged, the fact ceases to exist. It becomes an argument.

im pretty sure false fact is a thing. duh.

 

[Scut Farkus]

A.I. has lots of daemons.

coder humor, nerd alert. implements runnable!

 

[Scut Farkus]

I get my false facts from the fake news. works for me! now im smaht.

 

[Scut Farkus]

if all facts are true, then truth is part of factuality, making them somewhat related, at least, ergo proctor sum latte.

 

[Into the Night]

im pretty sure false fact is a thing. duh.

Nope. No such thing.

 

[Into the Night]

I get my false facts from the fake news. works for me! now im smaht.

They are not facts.

 

[Into the Night]

if all facts are true, then truth is part of factuality, making them somewhat related, at least, ergo proctor sum latte.

False equivalence fallacy. A fact is not truth. A fact is an assumed predicate. It is assumed the predicate is True. NOTHING says the predicate is actually True.

 

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

please help me separate facts from truth.

Lies have been fabricated as truth for hundreds of years and proof of this is religion and that the foundation of every religion (the ridiculous story of how we / everything came to be in existence) is factually proven to be based upon lies. It stands to reason that the religious created the word truth because they couldn't pass off their lies as fact. Let's say for example, some bumbling idiot screams in the mountains and see's it causes an avalanche. So they use this information to have people gather around a wall and hum until the wall weakened from the sound over time. Then you got some filthy religious low life scum bag instead of sharing the fact that they noticed an avalanche because of screaming, claim the lie that it is their truth that something, now factually proven not exist beyond any shadow of doubt, gave them the information to assist the selfish and the greedy in taking advantage of those from a time of weakness for power and control over the many.

 

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

Well I feel the desire for a coffee

 

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

Not a fact. A proof. Proof by Identity. Computer models are not science and never were.

I never said computer models do not exist.

Science is not a 'process'. A formula is not 'successful', or not. It simply is. Computer models have nothing to do with science and never did. Several make lousy random number generators though.

Not a fact. A proof.

YALIF.

You never said computer models do not exist because it is not mere belief they exist, it's a non contestable fact and proof of that it's a fact is that they factually exist.

I get the feeling you never learned to even tie your shoes ... and someone must take you by the hand for you to use a washroom to this day... How many times per day do you walk into the same brick wall while trying to claim there is no wall there ...

Again without scientific process, there would be no successful formula thus no computers at all. And obviously if formulas weren't successful instead of computers all you'd have is a heap of scrap.

 

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

It happens to be true.

There isn't any. You seem to think there is.

I never said otherwise. Contextomy fallacy.

Paradox. First you argue there are scientific facts, then you argue there are not. Which is it, dude?

When did I ever once claim there was scientific fact liar?

What a deliberately ignorant fool who stated.

No such thing as a 'scientific fact'. Science is theories, not facts.

and so I responded:

Oh so you can read the title of this thread "Scientific facts do not exist"

Mott The Hoople claimed (as anyone can see by scrolling back) "illogical examples of a circular reasoning logical fallacy I've ever seen" and so I asked him to back such rubbish by simply sharing one example of scientific fact. Like I previously stated I suspect you get it even subliminally and now you verified that you get that there is no such thing as scientific fact. Took you long enough slow poke.

bravo, piece of cake and my pleasure.

What a deliberately ignorant fool with the mentality equivalence of a 2 year old who makes up lies of what I say then tries to base an argument off of their lies of trying to put words in my mouth. This is because thy have no validity, which is obviously why they lie. Likely so deliberately ignorant out of jealousy for someone who actually has a brain unlike pathetic scientists who go around lying claiming that there ever was scientific fact.

Here this is very clear and yes it might look familiar

It is either a fact or a science of which science is a process that determines recognition of fact. Once verified or falsified as fact, it's no longer a science.

"The harnessing of electricity was a science until harnessing electricity became a successful formula thus a fact we harnessed electricity thus no longer a science but a fact. From there what to do with the electricity developed successful formulas which became fact such as the light bulb, radio, television was no longer a science because it became fact. Each new design for each new tv, radio or light bulb for example became fact through a successful formula. You want to create a new television, the science is making a successful formula and once the formula is successful, it is no longer a science but a fact that from that point that the tv exists."

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada
Last edited by David Jeffrey Spetch

 

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

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!

OK then let's see you share one valid example of scientific fact .... Oh and stupid can be fixed through recognition of fact which is likely why you lie so much to try and keep those around you dummied up with flthy, sick and disgusting religious lies.

 

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

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'.

You sound like a leftist basket case, for example ignore the fact that the only thing that makes a male a male is that he is born with a penis, make up the lie that it is what you believe or how you feel that determines one's sex then act as if you lying in any way shape or form contests the fact that the only thing that makes any male a male is that he is born with a penis and that others climb aboard with such rubbish proves conspiracy to divide society with sick and filthy lies.