CaptainChewbacca wrote:
A fact is indisputable and verifiable. A conclusion is 'prooved' by being supported with facts, and by not being contradicted by facts.
If later facts disprove a conclusion, that doesn't change that it had been prooven, only that it is no longer valid. It doesn't make it an assumption, since we now have facts that disprove it.
OK, that I could understand.
But than I don't understand the difference between an evidence, what I understand as an indication whith a certain amount of probative force, and which could be wrong, and a proof, which has 100% probative force and therefore is stringency and don't let room for errors.
I thought for example, that a mathematical calculation, which is made error-free is a proof. There is no room for doubts or new facts. Another question would be, if the sum reflect reality.
Or if I would say, that I have seen Star Trek episode XYZ, that would be a fact, if it would be true. But for this I could only have evidences. For example witnesses or that I know the contents. If I would present that evidences, you would conclude, that my statement was true and that in fact I have seen the Star Trek episode XYZ.
The witness could lie and I could have get the context through reading the script. Your conclusion would be wrong. Therefore my evidence couldn't have been a proof as I understand it.
And if I would say that in Star Trek episode XYZ was something said, it would be a fact too, if it would be true. You could take your own record of this episode and see for yourself. You could look at all records you want and could see it. If it would be impossible, that I could forgery all records of this episode in the world, you would have a proof. There is no room for new facts.
In some cases, there may be room for new facts in theory. For example I could be a Q and have forgered all records of this episode with a click of my fingers. Speaking strictly, for this possibility it would not be a proof but that would be extremly unlikely that you practically could ignore this possibility and can declare the evidence a proof.
But that a witness lies - even under an oath - or that I have get the context of a episode through reading its script is absolutely possible.
Darth Wong wrote:
He tipped his hand with that "paradigm shift" bullshit. He's an anti-science moron.
Science improves its theories. The "paradigm shift" is nothing more than resentful bullshit promoted by Thomas Kuhn because he couldn't silence criticism of his ideas (even though that criticism rather ironically disproved his own case about the monolithic nature of science).
I haven't ever heard of a Thomas Kuhn and I don't know what he says.
But it is bullshit to claim, that I'm an anti-science moron.
Science does nothing. It is a concept. This concept has a given purpose: to gain knowledge and explain the world.
Scientist try to improves their theories.
For this they use among other things mathematic which is no science but a tool. A mathematical calculation, which is made error-free is a proof. There is no room for doubts or new facts. Another question would be, if the sum reflect reality.
Every scientist should be open-minded and constantly questions its own findings and that of its colleagues. He and its colleagues are only human and they can made mistakes.
If a scientist deliberately made a mistake or forge tests or try to prevent that new findings, which contradict his own findings and could be a danger to his reputation, get known, he is in this instant no scientist. He try to thwart the purpose of science.
That doesn't degrade science as a concept.
But your own behaviour disqualify you as scientist.
You are only someone, who has learned a lot and use your knowledge about procedures, which scientist uses too. In other words, you know a lot and can calculate a lot. But that doesn't made you a scientist.
You don't search trueness.
If you would, you would answer my questions and would deal with my arguments on a scientifical level.
But the only thing you do is ranting like moron, who has no arguments.
Batman wrote:
Just in case Avocado tries to play the 'English is not my first language. Waah!' card again let me reassure you this debate would have turned out the same had it been held in german. The guy is either painfully ignorant of or willfully denying the basic tenets of logic, physics, the scientific method, and debating.
Why you of all people?
A debate has a purpose, like science.
The purpose of this debate should be to explain the mentioned incidents.
But it seems, your goal is only, to attack me. And you don't do it with arguments but by ranting.
Could you try to contribute to the goal to explain the mentioned incidents.
If not, I don't have a reason to speak with you at all.
