science is not knowledge. knowledge is concrete, science is ever-changing ...

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by Nu'maaN, Aug 13, 2013.

  1. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,674
    ... agree?

    back in the days, scientists had their own theories which are now debunked by the latest scienctific discoveries.

    with that said, would you agree that science is not a concrete truth, but a bunch of ever-changing theories?

    :numaan:
    test
  2. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    No.

    Science is both of those things, and more. There is theory science and factual science. Both have lead to me using this computer, for instance. Was used in theory to conceive of chips that hold data, and developing the means to do it.

    Science is exploration but also discovery. Theory and fact.
    • -Rep -Rep x 1
    test
  3. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    what would you consider an example of concrete truth, nu?
    test
  4. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,674
    lol, you can't just respond with a NO.

    why no? so you're saying the theory of gravity always existed? no, at one stage it wasn't fact. right?

    it could be said that science is the most reliable route or journey towards fact, but science is ever-changing.

    there's many.

    one would be that every living thing dies, has an expiry date?

    this is not a dig at science, i'm not doing that, i'm saying that it is an ever-changing phenomena.

    which is a good thing in many ways, as opposed to many religious beliefs which remain stagnant.

    but because science is always changing, we can't conclude that science is knowledge itself, i can't anyway.

    :numaan:
    test
  5. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,618
    yeah id have to disagree Nu... there are tons of facts in science. Yeah scientists used to think the earth was flat and that if you sailed to far out into the ocean youd fall off the edge.... well nobody tested it, or went to the edge, so that theory wasnt based on anything except fear of the unknown.... nowadays scientific theories are derived from a lot of things that are facts, the theories are just usually taking facts and going past what we know about them.

    heres an idea
    the more knowledge we do gain, the less theoretical theories get? i mean the more facts we have the more educated our guess will be? or do you think scientific mystery grows exponentially equal or moreso than our knowledge as we progress?
    test
  6. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    how would you confirm this?
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2013
    test
  7. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    really my only problem with what you're saying is that you seem to think knowledge is something static that doesn't change.
    • +Rep +Rep x 1
    test
  8. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,674
    but that is the ONLY thing i am saying.

    knowledge should be concrete, the truth, never changing.

    if the truth keeps changing, then the initial state of that truth wasn't true, agreed?

    so you're saying mortality is just a façade?

    easy to confirm, can you find something that is infinite? ever lasting?

    :numaan:
    test
  9. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,674
    how can a theory be derived from something that is fact?

    wouldn't that make it a fact? and devoid the theory concept all together?

    i think science has advanced and will keep advancing exponentially.

    i'm not saying the more we know, the more we don't know.

    :numaan:
    test
  10. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    but that's just not what knowledge means. you're conflating the idea of absolute truth with knowledge. the two are not the same thing.

    for example... would you also say that learning about history is not knowledge? that is another discipline where ideas can be overridden by new discoveries.


    so you're saying that the fact that right now we lack any evidence which would contradict your theory means that your theory is absolutely true?
    test
  11. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,618
    no
    what im trying to say is the difference between the theory of the earth being flat, and say einsteins theory of relativity is that nobody tested or experimented to see if the earth was flat. They just were too scared to sail that far and look, and it looked flat to the eye.....Einsteins theory uses scientific facts and he expands upon them making theories from what is already known and adding his own creative touch....
    test
  12. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Nu'maaN, I don't think you understand the "ever changing" aspect of science.

    Imagine you have a box. The box is red on the outside. We confirm this by looking at it. Simple, right? Then you open the box to discover that on the inside, it's black. Yet at no point did the truth of the matter change because the box is still red on the outside. Our knowledge of the box did change, we now no more. Then, we learn further when you look in the box and find a pound of shit. So, the box is red on the outside, black on the inside, and full of shit. Then, you scoop up the shit and eat it. It tastes like shit. You don't like it. But just because you don't like the taste of shit, at no point did the box change from being red on the outside.

    The "theory of gravity" has existed for some time, but not always. Sure. But for a long time, humans have always had an idea of gravity. Things fall down. Then we learned that all things fall down at the same speed, despite it's size. And then we learn that gravity is why the moon rotates around the Earth (unless you read the Quran) and why the Earth rotates around the sun (unless you read the Quran.) At no point did our fundemental knowledge of "things fall down" ever change. It only became that much more finely tuned.

    You also seem to be having trouble with basic concepts and definition of words. Which is expected from an inbred whose sister is also a third cousin. In fact, you appear to be so ignorant of words, that you're really not qualified to speak on these things. You honestly have no clue what things like "science" and "theory" actually mean. So let me help you out:


    sci·ence

    [sahy-uhns]
    noun
    1.
    a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
    2.
    systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
    3.
    any of the branches of natural or physical science.
    4.
    systematized knowledge in general.
    5.
    knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

    knowl·edge
    [nol-ij] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study orinvestigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
    2.
    familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
    3.
    acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
    4.
    the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth;clear and certain mental apprehension.
    5.
    awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge ofher good fortune.

    truth
    [trooth]
    1.
    the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
    2.
    conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
    3.
    a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like:mathematical truths.
    4.
    the state or character of being true.
    5.
    actuality or actual existence.

    the·o·ry
    [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
    noun, plural the·o·ries.
    1.
    a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein'stheory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
    2.
    a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
    3.
    Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like,belonging to one subject: number theory.
    4.
    the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
    5.
    a particular conception or view of something to be done or ofthe method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

    id·i·ot
    [id-ee-uht]
    noun
    1.
    Informal. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
    2.
    Psychology . (no longer in technical use; considered offensive) aperson of the lowest order in a former and discardedclassification of mental retardation, having a mental age of lessthan three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.
    3.
    Nu'maaN.
    test
  13. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,674
    but if you have knowledge on something, and that thing keeps changing, you don't really have full knowledge on it.

    that is the point i'm trying to make, not trying to get into the semantics.

    no, not "right now", but since forever, everything that has lived has passed away, if it hasn't, it will.

    look at humans for example, you're trying to claim that humans are immortal?

    i'm saying that you will NEVER find any evidence to claim immortality.

    :numaan:
    test
  14. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,674
    who came up with the theory that the earth is flat?

    so what you're saying is that scientists have ALWAYS been right in everything they do and claim?

    :numaan:
    test
  15. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,618
    not at all

    holy shit

    im saying nowadays scientific theories are better educated guesses than they were in the past.
    test
  16. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    but you don't think it's possible to learn about something while not gaining 'full knowledge' of it (i.e. not knowing it all)?

    how exactly would you go about establishing that we will never discover any life form that doesn't die?
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2013
    test
  17. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    just so we're clear..

    this:

    means the same thing as this:

    only reworded to fit your specific theory.

    the evidence that we have 'right now' indicates that every life form we've discovered on earth either has died or will die. that's what you've established so far.

    now you need establish that no life form will ever be discovered which contradicts your statement.
    test
  18. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,674
    no, i never said that.

    i said the thing you gained knowledge about won't be considered concrete truth, until gaining full knowledge.

    now you're asking for things that you know yourself is impossible.

    it's been how many million years on this planet, give me one human being who is still alive.

    why do i need something that contradicts my statement? why don't you prove to me that my statement is false?

    sometimes i feel like you're arguing with me just for the sake of it, i don't know what we're getting out of this.

    :numaan:
    test
  19. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    There are species of tortoises and species of trees that are functionally immortal. Which is to say, they don't die from aging.

    Nu'maaN, seriously. Stop being an ignoramus and read my post.
    test
  20. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    test

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)