Re: truth

John Stockwell wrote:
On Mar 24, 2:47 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Devils Advocaat wrote:
On 24 Mar, 13:37, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Devils Advocaat wrote:
On 24 Mar, 12:28, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
"[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4l_xl.19584$i9.3424@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rich Mathers wrote:
On Mar 23, 11:38 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
Has science discovered absolute truth?

No.

If science has NOT discovered absolute truth then you must
consider any and all posibilties if truth is your goal.

You don't understand the concept of provisional truth.
Though no truth is absolute, some truth is close enough for
all practical purposes. We can, for example, reject the
idea that the moon is made of mayonnaise with sufficient
assurance that we don't really have to consider it.

Does science have absolute truth?

That would include the supernatural

Conceptually, sure. In reality, there's a low enough prior
probability to everything you have ever claimed that it can
safely be ignored.

Do you understand any thing you read here about science and
its limitations.

If science /knows/ it has limitations, then why does it limit
itself further by discounting, even ignoring, other types of
evidences?

Because there is no clear or repeatable evidence associated with
the "other types" you seem to prefer. Pretty good reason to
ignore it.

There is /NO/ reason to ignore any information when you are in a
search for truth. And that is what science wants, right?

But what about information that doesn't fit the facts?

Are you saying such information should be given equal status to
information that does fit the facts?

If you are then you don't understand the world around you very
well.

How do you know that you have the correct facts? Or even the
correct interpretation of the facts. You may have the right
interpretation of the wrong facts, or the wrong interpretation of
the right facts. You could even have the wrong facts AND a wrong
interpretation.

To say otherwise is to claim absolute truth. And you know what that
means if you make such a claim right? It means that it is you that
does not understand the world around you very well.

In science a fact is an objective and verifiable observation, tell
me how can facts, in that context, be wrong?

It is not necessarily wrong.

Incomplete, inaccurate, even misunderstood is a more accurate
description. You are measuring effects from these three dimensions.
We know there are more. There may even be some we have not
discovered yet that could change everything.

If we discover anything it is by scientific investigation, and not
by religious pontification.






No one denies that interpretations can be in error, this is why
scientists are prepared to modify or discard existing hypotheses or
theories when new observations, or facts, come to light.

But this is an aspect of science that you always tend to ridicule.

And as you have been told before, science doesn't deal in absolutes,
science deals only with those things that can be observed, and its
hypotheses and theories are only ever provisional, and theories are
only as good as the evidence which supports them.

If science does not deal in absolutes then it should be fully
represented as such. The evidences you measure and test; the
hypotheses and theories weather provisional or otherwise are based
on a single perspective from these three dimensions. And this is how
they should be represented. But what do we have instead? We have a
segment of the population that believes the theory of evolution as
if it were absolute truth because there has been a steady stream of
lies in the media and in schools.


Science deals in observations, experiments, theories, and
hypotheses generated by those theories. We don't pretend
that science is "absolute". Indeed, I challenge you to find any
science textbook that says anything different.

There is a "steady stream of lies" about evolution, and it is
coming from people like yourself. Nobody but creationists tell
people there are "evolution is presented as if it were absolute
truth". Indeed, the reason that scientists don't think much of
creationists, is that the discipline of science has a high standard
of ethics regarding the accurate reporting of results.




Even you defend evolution _as if it were absolute truth_. And when i
point out that evolution is not an absolute truth, what do you do?
You flip the coin and say that science does /not/ deal in absolutes.
Why do you defend something so strongly that you KNOW is NOT an
absolute truth?

It is creationists who make these claims. Not scientists.



This entire evolution/creation thing is the most dishonest batch of
bull*** that i have ever come across in my lifetime. The bottom
line is neither organized religion nor mainstream science has
absolute truth. Sadly the average public has no idea this fight is
raging like this. They go happily along their life actually thinking
that they can be a Christian and believe in the theory of evolution
at the same time. Which is a lie. Jesus taught God created man,
evolution teaches man evolved from apes. The two ideas are
diametrically opposed to each other.


Indeed, the "creation versus evolution" thing is a " dishonest
batch of bull***" and you are the one full of it. You might want
to get used to knowing that humans and apes, and
everything else that is alive or has ever lived appears to
share common ancestry, because that is what the evidence
says.

Science is not an arbitrary game of opinion, but a system of
investigation that is grounded in competence and honesty,
two attributes that you woudn't know if they bit you on the
***.

All you can do is engage in intellectual vandalism, and call
it religion.

·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^

-John

What you are seeing is /common design/

Man even minics God when he designs.

When man designs a car, for efficency sake, one part may be used on many
models and for many years

The common "parts" you see in DNA are parts of the common design



.

Loading