05-26-2007, 09:59 AM
>>>To you, a fact is anything that appears truthful to a person or persons, regardless of the substance of the claim. Those statements of yours are things that I call "allegations." Not facts.
I don't define a fact like that, at all. What statements of fact did I make? I'm pretty sure I've been arguing they are implicitly opinions, not facts. But I didn't state them.
>>>No, central to my arguments is the premise that allegations about how the universe is run ought to be reasonable. As opposed to irrational.
For this kind of analytic, the scientific method is but one approach.
Logic, mathematics and other ways of making observable and repeatable proofs are also acceptable to me.
How do you define reasonable? Irrational? Does the scientific method always involve logic? Does it always include mathematics (qualitative counts!)? It's all science.
>>Do you NEED it to be shaped like something? Okay...
That's cute, but I'm aware how it works.
>>Find me the science textbook that says that science is the only source of truth. Someone has got to trade sharp words with that ignorant author.
Ok, you got me there. What other ways does a scientist believe there are to arrive at the truth? For that matter, what other ways do you believe there are?
>>>What a great conversation that would be: "Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!!..."
Exactly my point, which is why when someone makes a statement on this forum, they don't necessarily have to identify it as their opinion. As you just stated, almost nothing discussed here is a fact (pretty much all opinion). kj.
I don't define a fact like that, at all. What statements of fact did I make? I'm pretty sure I've been arguing they are implicitly opinions, not facts. But I didn't state them.
>>>No, central to my arguments is the premise that allegations about how the universe is run ought to be reasonable. As opposed to irrational.
For this kind of analytic, the scientific method is but one approach.
Logic, mathematics and other ways of making observable and repeatable proofs are also acceptable to me.
How do you define reasonable? Irrational? Does the scientific method always involve logic? Does it always include mathematics (qualitative counts!)? It's all science.
>>Do you NEED it to be shaped like something? Okay...
That's cute, but I'm aware how it works.
>>Find me the science textbook that says that science is the only source of truth. Someone has got to trade sharp words with that ignorant author.
Ok, you got me there. What other ways does a scientist believe there are to arrive at the truth? For that matter, what other ways do you believe there are?
>>>What a great conversation that would be: "Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!!..."
Exactly my point, which is why when someone makes a statement on this forum, they don't necessarily have to identify it as their opinion. As you just stated, almost nothing discussed here is a fact (pretty much all opinion). kj.