Would you argue with a spambot?
That is the intellectual level that climate change deniers operate on, you’re not going to inform them of anything because they aren’t here to listen to anyone.
They are here to insert a paid for message that denies the evidence.
Period…
That is the intellectual level that climate change deniers operate on, you're not going to inform them of anything because they aren't here to listen to anyone. They are here to insert a paid for message that denies the evidence.Perhaps you and others of a like mind would care to explain what led you to believe I am a climate change denier?
Science is the methodical inquiry of Universal values and functions.What pathway do you use to get to truth Writer? Depends on the area of inquiry, doesn't it. Under the gravitational force of the earth at sea level, Is it true that a collecting of H2O molecules at say 20 C forms a substance we call water (liquid)? Is it true that a collection of H2O molecules at -1 C forms a substance we call ice (solid)? Is it true, that a collection of H2O molecules at 101 C forms a substance we call a vapor (gaseous)? Thus can we say that given similar conditions elsewhere, this would also hold true? Can we say that the table of elements describes the composition of known atomic structures and holds true throughout the universe? Can we say that E = Mc^2 holds true throughout the entire universe? We know many truths at either local or universal scales. We don't know them all, yet. But knowledge of mathematics and functions will eventually lead us to a universal common denominator, but which is expressed dependant on local conditions. IMO, the term Potential as "that which may become reality" is a universal truth, it is a common denominator of all related (relative) values and functions, regardless of prevailing conditions everywhere, even in the abstract.
I've never heard anyone in a serious discussion equate science with truth. That's like saying a hammer is a house. I would venture to guess most people who say science is truth are religionists who are trying to argue religion is better than science because science isn't truth but religion is. Silly of course.You didn't seem to have that problem in another thread about truth - http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19241/ Science itself is never defined as truth but the study of science is as close to truth that humanity can reach. Science issues its finding in degree of probability, nothing more, nothing less. NUFF SAID.
I've never heard anyone in a serious discussion equate science with truth. That's like saying a hammer is a house. I would venture to guess most people who say science is truth are religionists who are trying to argue religion is better than science because science isn't truth but religion is. Silly of course.You didn't seem to have that problem in another thread about truth - http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19241/ Science itself is never defined as truth but the study of science is as close to truth that humanity can reach. Science issues its finding in degree of probability, nothing more, nothing less. NUFF SAID. Isn't this degree of probability expressed as "confidence" i.e. "with high confidence"?
That is the intellectual level that climate change deniers operate on, you're not going to inform them of anything because they aren't here to listen to anyone. They are here to insert a paid for message that denies the evidence.Perhaps you and others of a like mind would care to explain what led you to believe I am a climate change denier? http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19424/ Your own words idiot...
That is the intellectual level that climate change deniers operate on, you're not going to inform them of anything because they aren't here to listen to anyone. They are here to insert a paid for message that denies the evidence.Perhaps you and others of a like mind would care to explain what led you to believe I am a climate change denier? http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19424/ Your own words idiot... :lol: Touché
Highlights from the previous page
Science is the methodical inquiry of Universal values and functions.What pathway do you use to get to truth Writer? Depends on the area of inquiry, doesn't it. Under the gravitational force of the earth, Is it true that a collecting of H2O molecules at say 20 C forms a substance we call water (liquid)? Is it true that a collection of H2O molecules at -1 C forms a substance we call ice (solid)? Is it true, that a collection of H2O molecules at 101 C forms a substance we call a vapor (gaseous)? Thus can we say that given similar conditions elsewhere, this would also hold true? Can we say that the table of elements describes the composition of known atomic structures and holds true throughout the universe? Can we say that E = Mc^2 holds true throughout the entire universe? We know many truths at either local or universal scales. We don't know them all, yet. But knowledge of mathematics and functions will eventually lead us to a universal common denominator, but which is expressed dependant on local conditions. IMO, the term Potential as "that which may become reality" is a universal truth, it is a common denominator of all related (relative) values and functions, regardless of prevailing conditions everywhere, even in the abstract.
Science itself is never defined as truth but the study of science is as close to truth that humanity can reach. Science issues its finding in degree of probability, nothing more, nothing less. NUFF SAID.
The Relativity of Wrong By Isaac Asimov The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44 ... The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal. My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong. However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so. ... http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htmlet the discussion continue :cheese: (offering for S.N.)
amazing how that works. 
Your own words idiot...I'm afraid I can't find a post in which I deny climate change. Perhaps you could quote the post that offends you.
Science is the methodical inquiry of Universal values and functions.What pathway do you use to get to truth Writer? Science, I just explained it to you. Knowing you will not view it, I'll still make an attempt to give you some alternative views of the Universe and how it functions, regardless of your spiritual perspectives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtAFiI39_I Ok thanks. So then you agree using faith is unreliable in finding what is true and what is false?? Spiritual faith is a purely subjective experience. Searching for truth in spirituality can never be confirmed or falsified. OTOH, mathematics do not allow for subjective interpretations. It is purely objective in its very nature and so far we have been able to mathematically represent almost all things larger than Planck scale. If the fundamental nature is Mathematical then it can be objectively explained by mathematics, which can be tested for correctness and tested through mathematical predictions. This is how the Higgs boson was discovered. It was mathematically predicted, and when the mathematics were applied in Cern, we proved the existence of the Higgs boson. This is getting pretty close to a fundamental truth, though we still have a ways to go. But I am certain that if the true origins of the Universe can be found it is through mathematics, not by any subjective spiritual hallucination. The answer to the OP question is that Science is the search for truth by mathematical means, not by philosophical musings, although those exercises in logic may give rise to scientific inquiry. It always begins with the question; "could this be true". It is then up to science to prove the theoretical assumption true or false. Aristotle is a perfect example. A brilliant mind, who was proven wrong in his assumption that heavier objects fall faster than lighter object, which was believed to be true for 2000 years, until Galileo came along and proved him wrong and at the same time established the Law of Falling bodies with a mathematical equation, which still holds today.
That is the intellectual level that climate change deniers operate on, you're not going to inform them of anything because they aren't here to listen to anyone. They are here to insert a paid for message that denies the evidence.Perhaps you and others of a like mind would care to explain what led you to believe I am a climate change denier? http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19424/ Your own words idiot... Doug please refrain from abusive speech. The same points can be made without such words. Thanks.
That is the intellectual level that climate change deniers operate on, you're not going to inform them of anything because they aren't here to listen to anyone. They are here to insert a paid for message that denies the evidence.Perhaps you and others of a like mind would care to explain what led you to believe I am a climate change denier? http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19424/ Your own words idiot... DougC, please check out sections 3 e and f of the forum rules. Name calling is not allowed on the forum nor does it contribute to any discussion.
Your own words idiot...I'm afraid I can't find a post in which I deny climate change. Perhaps you could quote the post that offends you. It begins with misrepresenting the science. It is compounded my ignoring the science shared with you. It's reinforced by your refusal to absorb any valid information shared with you and engage in constructive focused discussion on the issues you raise. :blank:
A large part of the problem in discussiong “science” is that the word is unspecific. It is misused, misdefined, abused and overused. People use it to mean whatever they want it to mean.
It is almost as misused as the word “love”, another garbage can word, which is used indiscriminately to express any positive feeling.
I think it would help any discussion here if posters would say how they define “science.” The word "science"is so unspecific it could be replaced in most discussions with the equally unspecific word “knowledge.”
I have found it helpful to use “the scientific method” rather than “science” in most discussions. At the very least, the “scientific method”’ unlike “science”, is unlikely to be equated with religion or psychic ability as the way to understand how the universe works.
“Scientific method: a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.”
A large part of the problem in discussiong "science" is that the word is unspecific. It is misused, misdefined, abused and overused. People use it to mean whatever they want it to mean. It is almost as misused as the word "love", another garbage can word, which is used indiscriminately to express any positive feeling. I think it would help any discussion here if posters would say how they define "science." The word "science"is so unspecific it could be replaced in most discussions with the equally unspecific word "knowledge." I have found it helpful to use "the scientific method" rather than "science" in most discussions. At the very least, the "scientific method"' unlike "science", is unlikely to be equated with religion or psychic ability as the way to understand how the universe works. "Scientific method: a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested." http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-methodWhich is what it all comes down to, for something to be part of the scientific method it must be testable and fit within the body of knowledge already accumulated. Clearly this has eventually given us a very powerful ability to describe how nature works at a fundamental level or we wouldn't be communicating the way we are right now. It required the ability to predict how electrons would transit in different ways through the substrate of semi-conductors to enable the creation of transistors possible. And that is just one tiny corner of the body of knowledge encompassed by the scientific method that consistently shows it functions in the real world due to constant testing. So in religious or philosophical terms science isn't truth. What science is, is the best description humans have so far developed to describe how reality as we experience it actually behaves. While in religious or philosophy "truth" is widely agreed upon concepts that do not require testing, just widespread agreement.
Under the gravitational force of the earth, 1. Is it true that a collecting of H2O molecules at say 20 C forms a substance we call water (liquid)? 2. Is it true that a collection of H2O molecules at -1 C forms a substance we call ice (solid)? 3. Is it true, that a collection of H2O molecules at 101 C forms a substance we call a vapor (gaseous)? IMO, the term Potential as "that which may become reality" is a universal truth, it is a common denominator of all related (relative) values and functions, regardless of prevailing conditions everywhere, even in the abstract.Your statements are not true but represent a common simplification of reality which can lead to serious prediction errors if more in-depth knowledge is disregarded. You probably know that air at 20 C and even below freezing often has a measurable humidity because of the presence of water vapor, demonstrating that water vapor exists outside of the range you state. Now you could wiggle out of the contradiction by saying your statements didn't exclude other possibilities but it underline the issue of predictability and the "truth" of a statement. Can you really say something is "true" if you then have to define a set of conditions that limit its truth. It certainly doesn't seem to come close to a universal expression of reality that is applicable under all circumstances. Ice can turn directly to vapor at sub-freezing temperatures in a process called sublimation. If H2O molecules are mixed with other molecules the boiling point and freezing point change according to the concentration of solutes. Seawater freezes at a lower temperature than fresh water because of dissolve materials. This provides the very practical benefit of being able to freeze ice cream with a mixture of ice and salt. An application that would be impossible if statement 2 was universally true on this planet. You can't get a decent cup of tea on an airliner because the boiling point of water drops by about 0.5 C for ever 500 feet of altitude. At 30,000 feet you're looking at about 70 C. The "truths" you quote are thus insufficient to make reasonable predictions about real-world situations. They are more like falsely perceived truths that can delude people into making inaccurate predictions. The same goes for gravity. It depends on altitude with the critical consequence that time (which is influenced by gravity) changes with altitude. The GPS system must take this into consideration otherwise navigational accuracy would degrade by kilometers per day.
A large part of the problem in discussiong "science" is that the word is unspecific. It is misused, misdefined, abused and overused. People use it to mean whatever they want it to mean. It is almost as misused as the word "love", another garbage can word, which is used indiscriminately to express any positive feeling. I think it would help any discussion here if posters would say how they define "science." The word "science"is so unspecific it could be replaced in most discussions with the equally unspecific word "knowledge." I have found it helpful to use "the scientific method" rather than "science" in most discussions. At the very least, the "scientific method"' unlike "science", is unlikely to be equated with religion or psychic ability as the way to understand how the universe works. "Scientific method: a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested." http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-methodWhich is what it all comes down to, for something to be part of the scientific method it must be testable and fit within the body of knowledge already accumulated. Clearly this has eventually given us a very powerful ability to describe how nature works at a fundamental level or we wouldn't be communicating the way we are right now. It required the ability to predict how electrons would transit in different ways through the substrate of semi-conductors to enable the creation of transistors possible. And that is just one tiny corner of the body of knowledge encompassed by the scientific method that consistently shows it functions in the real world due to constant testing. So in religious or philosophical terms science isn't truth. What science is, is the best description humans have so far developed to describe how reality as we experience it actually behaves. While in religious or philosophy "truth" is widely agreed upon concepts that do not require testing, just widespread agreement. Yes, and it is just as valid as the widespread agreement for millennia that the sun revolves around the earth.
Under the gravitational force of the earth, 1. Is it true that a collecting of H2O molecules at say 20 C forms a substance we call water (liquid)? 2. Is it true that a collection of H2O molecules at -1 C forms a substance we call ice (solid)? 3. Is it true, that a collection of H2O molecules at 101 C forms a substance we call a vapor (gaseous)? IMO, the term Potential as "that which may become reality" is a universal truth, it is a common denominator of all related (relative) values and functions, regardless of prevailing conditions everywhere, even in the abstract.Your statements are not true but represent a common simplification of reality which can lead to serious prediction errors if more in-depth knowledge is disregarded. You probably know that air at 20 C and even below freezing often has a measurable humidity because of the presence of water vapor, demonstrating that water vapor exists outside of the range you state. Now you could wiggle out of the contradiction by saying your statements didn't exclude other possibilities but it underline the issue of predictability and the "truth" of a statement. Can you really say something is "true" if you then have to define a set of conditions that limit its truth. It certainly doesn't seem to come close to a universal expression of reality that is applicable under all circumstances. Ice can turn directly to vapor at sub-freezing temperatures in a process called sublimation. If H2O molecules are mixed with other molecules the boiling point and freezing point change according to the concentration of solutes. Seawater freezes at a lower temperature than fresh water because of dissolve materials. This provides the very practical benefit of being able to freeze ice cream with a mixture of ice and salt. An application that would be impossible if statement 2 was universally true on this planet. You can't get a decent cup of tea on an airliner because the boiling point of water drops by about 0.5 C for ever 500 feet of altitude. At 30,000 feet you're looking at about 70 C. The "truths" you quote are thus insufficient to make reasonable predictions about real-world situations. They are more like falsely perceived truths that can delude people into making inaccurate predictions. The same goes for gravity. It depends on altitude with the critical consequence that time (which is influenced by gravity) changes with altitude. The GPS system must take this into consideration otherwise navigational accuracy would degrade by kilometers per day. You just proved these fundamental truths by falsification. It a scientific method. p.s. you forgot to mention Thermodynamics, another truth.
JohnH said, Your statements are not true but represent a common simplification of reality which can lead to serious prediction errors if more in-depth knowledge is disregarded.The statements were true, as posed. You just did not answer any of these questions as posed. Truths can also be misrepresented as you just did.