I haven’t actually, that’s you who’s been a condescending prick from the beginning. I’ve tried as hard as possible to be civil regardless, but I can’t stand your science fundamentalism. It makes real scientists look wishy-washy when they properly cite their uncertainty.
Which university is that? I’m sure I can find an article they’ve released on scientific certainty.
Hydrogen and Oxygen reacting together to form water is not going to be discarded.
And evolution is a absolute fact in that is occurs. We know it occurs with absolute certainty. What remains to be modified is the mechanism by which it occurs.
Gravity is a fact. It exists with absolute certainty, and that fact will never be discarded. The exact mechanism by which it works is what may be modified or discarded.
You have repeatedly failed to understand this distinction.
The facts are that we have overwhelming evidence to support the existence of gravity, evolution, and the reaction of hydrogen and water.
It is extremely unlikely that we will find evidence to contradict any of those statements. It is very safe to make those assumptions when doing work that builds upon them. The probability of finding evidence to contradict any of those statements is vanishingly small, infinitesimal, for all intents and purposes we can treat them as “facts” in our daily lives.
But, scientifically, that probability is not, and cannot ever be, 0%. If it’s not, in theory, falsifiable, it’s not science.
You have repeatedly failed to understand that distinction.
Whatever you say dude, brain rot has set in. Do you know more about this than Richard Feynman?
Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.
We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and no learning. People search for certainty. But there is no certainty.
I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.
Albert Einstein?
As far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Carl Sagan?
Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend … to have attained it. But the history of science—by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans—teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us.
We will always be mired in error. The most each generation can hope for is to reduce the error bars a little, and to add to the body of data to which error bars apply. The error bar is a pervasive, visible self-assessment of the reliability of our knowledge.
I’m going to go with the actually experienced scientists. They know more about this than you.
They are talking about theories, not established phenomena like gravity. How can you not be certain that gravity exists?
And they actually don’t, because I have an extra 50+ years of science advancement over them to go on. Einstein denied quantum mechanics existed, but it is now very well established for example.
They are talking about theories, not established phenomena like gravity
That’s an awful sloppy use of language on their part then, which would be very out of character. Where I come from, “anything” means “anything”.
How can you not be certain that gravity exists?
By a basic understanding of scientific epistemology. All knowledge comes through the senses and is interpreted by the brain. Absolute certainty even of observed phenomena forgets that these are observed phenomena. Sure I’m extremely certain that gravity exists, but not 100%. I’m not 100% certain that I exist.
And they actually don’t, because I have an extra 50+ years of science advancement over them to go on.
Fucking lol
Einstein denied quantum mechanics existed, but it is now very well established for example.
He didn’t, he acknowledged its use at the atomic scale but didn’t believe it was a complete theory.
But pretending he did for a moment: you’re saying that one of the top experts in his field expressed absolute certainty about the field he was an expert in, and yet later he was shown to be wrong? And you think that supports your argument?
Do you think you’re more of an expert in this topic than Einstein was in physics? Yet you proudly declare the hubris of his certainty? Arrogance. I used to think like you, when I was a teenager. People like you are going to make more arrogant little teenagers just like you, and it makes me sick.
I haven’t actually, that’s you who’s been a condescending prick from the beginning. I’ve tried as hard as possible to be civil regardless, but I can’t stand your science fundamentalism. It makes real scientists look wishy-washy when they properly cite their uncertainty.
Which university is that? I’m sure I can find an article they’ve released on scientific certainty.
Nope, you’ve been a prick.
And I’m not doxxing myself to you.
You still haven’t given me any of your credentials? Cause right now I still think you’re just a bratty teenager.
And all scientists rely on established facts for their research. Science is full of facts, you need to stop denying that.
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow
Hydrogen and Oxygen reacting together to form water is not going to be discarded.
And evolution is a absolute fact in that is occurs. We know it occurs with absolute certainty. What remains to be modified is the mechanism by which it occurs.
Gravity is a fact. It exists with absolute certainty, and that fact will never be discarded. The exact mechanism by which it works is what may be modified or discarded.
You have repeatedly failed to understand this distinction.
The facts are that we have overwhelming evidence to support the existence of gravity, evolution, and the reaction of hydrogen and water.
It is extremely unlikely that we will find evidence to contradict any of those statements. It is very safe to make those assumptions when doing work that builds upon them. The probability of finding evidence to contradict any of those statements is vanishingly small, infinitesimal, for all intents and purposes we can treat them as “facts” in our daily lives.
But, scientifically, that probability is not, and cannot ever be, 0%. If it’s not, in theory, falsifiable, it’s not science.
You have repeatedly failed to understand that distinction.
The existence of gravity is 100% known fact, there is no way to falsify it. The science is in how gravity works, and that is far from 100% known.
Gravity is a theory and known fact.
Stop trying to lecture an actually experienced scientist on this, I do know more about this than you.
Whatever you say dude, brain rot has set in. Do you know more about this than Richard Feynman?
Albert Einstein?
Carl Sagan?
I’m going to go with the actually experienced scientists. They know more about this than you.
They are talking about theories, not established phenomena like gravity. How can you not be certain that gravity exists?
And they actually don’t, because I have an extra 50+ years of science advancement over them to go on. Einstein denied quantum mechanics existed, but it is now very well established for example.
That’s an awful sloppy use of language on their part then, which would be very out of character. Where I come from, “anything” means “anything”.
By a basic understanding of scientific epistemology. All knowledge comes through the senses and is interpreted by the brain. Absolute certainty even of observed phenomena forgets that these are observed phenomena. Sure I’m extremely certain that gravity exists, but not 100%. I’m not 100% certain that I exist.
Fucking lol
He didn’t, he acknowledged its use at the atomic scale but didn’t believe it was a complete theory.
But pretending he did for a moment: you’re saying that one of the top experts in his field expressed absolute certainty about the field he was an expert in, and yet later he was shown to be wrong? And you think that supports your argument?
Do you think you’re more of an expert in this topic than Einstein was in physics? Yet you proudly declare the hubris of his certainty? Arrogance. I used to think like you, when I was a teenager. People like you are going to make more arrogant little teenagers just like you, and it makes me sick.