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

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

  1. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    yes, but that is an ever fleeting goal. nobody has 'full knowledge' of anything.
    no... that's exactly my point nu. you can't anticipate all future evidence. you can only draw conclusions based on current evidence. that's what scientists do. that's what you're doing. so your idea of a concrete truth is in fact just an observation with a lot of evidence backing it up. that's what people call a scientific fact. which is what you're apparently suggesting can't be concrete.
    • +Rep +Rep x 1
    test
  2. GaLaTeA

    GaLaTeA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    31,406
    I'd look at it this way ~ how many questions do we have answers for.

    And just how do you propose making a distinction as to which answer gets the knowledge stamp of approval, because not all are appropriate nor factual?

    Therefore if we want the correct answer, science is needed, which deals with precisely this (producing correct answers that can be empirically proven - or disproven if a new discovery comes to light). Knowledge is merely the ability to detect and understand the answers. Understanding being the logical (cause-effect) interpretation of an answer.
    test
  3. GaLaTeA

    GaLaTeA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    31,406
    I'd look at it this way ~ how many questions do we have answers for.

    And just how do you propose making a distinction as to which answer gets the knowledge stamp of approval, because not all are appropriate nor factual?

    Therefore if we want the correct answer, science is needed, which deals with precisely this (producing correct answers that can be empirically proven - or disproven if a new discovery comes to light). Knowledge is merely the ability to detect and understand the answers. Understanding being the logical (cause-effect) interpretation of an answer.
    • +Rep +Rep x 1
    test
  4. SiegeSupreme

    SiegeSupreme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    3,634
    We still havent discovered every animal yet so how could mortality be a fact? You cant state it as concrete until weve discovered every animal on the planet, and even then it wouldn't necessarily be a fact because of the prospect of evolution. You could say for HUMANS morality is CURRENTLY a fact, but again who's to say we don't develop into immortal beings?

    And there are actually cancer cells that are immortal as far as we know. Since cells are alive, than mortality is not a fact.

    Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    • +Rep +Rep x 1
    test
  5. Geedorah

    Geedorah King

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    11,872
    People do science, people make mistakes.
    test
  6. Geedorah

    Geedorah King

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    11,872
    Universe.
    Matter, anti-matter.
    test
  7. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,670
    i never said science is not needed, i am not anti-science, why don't people understand that?

    that's all i'm saying, human mortality is fact.

    brother reggie asked for a universal concrete truth, that's my one.

    this was the point of my thread.

    thank you.

    okay, but if i were to use your logic to defend the belief that jesus is still alive, i'd be mocked. why?

    i never said a scientific fact isn't concrete, i said the theories aren't concrete knowledge, they're mere theories.

    :numaan:
    test
  8. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    When you say "mere theories" you are demonstrating a horrendous amount of ignorance to the scientific method.
    test
  9. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,613
    The spherical shape of earth is a scientific fact.... Nu are you suggesting maybe one day we will find out its square? If not then theres knowledge of the shape of earth for you. BAM

    thread solved

    /close
    test
  10. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,670
    are you even reading what i am saying? obviously not. jesus.

    i said at the time of people thinking the earth was flat, it was considered a fact, no?

    i'm not saying the earth being a sphere right now is NOT fact, i'm saying the perception before about it wasn't.

    :numaan:
    test
  11. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    i've no idea how you could possibly use my logic to defend that.

    you said science isn't knowledge. so naturally i thought you meant science as a method doesn't lead to knowledge, since its facts and theories are subject to change.

    really well established theories are basically just as concrete as your observation that every living thing dies. no evidence has contradicted them yet, but theoretically you can't rule out the possibility that one day something might.
    test
  12. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,670
    never mind, this is going nowhere.

    i said all humans die, mortality is a fact.

    you said that can't be a fact until we establish that there is no being that is immortal, right?

    :numaan:
    test
  13. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    btw... the earth isn't a sphere. it's a little funky shaped, but it's pretty close to being a sphere. this is another example of a scientific idea being overridden by new observations. but undoubtedly the idea that the earth is a sphere is much closer to the truth than the idea that it was flat. so is it not fair to say that the first thinkers to deduce the earth's round shape gained knowledge about the earth, even though they were technically wrong about its exact shape?
    test
  14. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,670
    that's a fair call, so i don't know why we're arguing considering we're saying the same thing.

    is that not saying that science, and the methods of science are ever-changing?

    you're saying concrete truth is a dynamic entity, i'm saying it should be static.

    otherwise it keeps changing, hence not making it the truth.

    shit thread, i'll take it with a bow.

    :numaan:
    test
  15. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    that's not what you said, though. you said every living thing dies.

    but let's say we adjust it to every human dies.... no, i'm saying that functionally it serves as a fact based on the observation that all the evidence so far indicates that every human died or will die. but that does not establish that this fact will never be contradicted by new evidence... if anything it predicts that it won't based on the overwhelming evidence that supports it.
    test
  16. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,670
    so you're saying all facts are ever-changing?

    then how does that make it a fact? or am i just confuse right now?

    i just think if something is a fact, there is nothing that could change that, that's what fact is.

    :numaan:
    test
  17. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    basically i'm saying that concrete truth is an ideal we strive for but don't necessarily ever reach. thus the scientific approximations of concrete truth are subject to change because they're not concrete, but they're the closest thing we have so it's kind of misleading to just point out that science isn't concrete while leaving out the fact that nothing else that we think is either.
    test
  18. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    i'm saying it could theoretically be invalidated at some point. i'm not saying it will.

    the more general a statement is, the more prone it is to invalidation at some point. so for example, all humans die, that's a pretty general statement. it makes the prediction that every human that is born will die based on the observation that so far that has been true. it's a pretty safe prediction, but a prediction nonetheless. and predictions are by definition capable of being false.

    there are other, more specific facts that aren't really subject to change because they record a single observation and don't make predictions but simply serve as data. for example: so-and-so died, rather than all humans die.
    test
  19. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,670
    fair.

    can't argue with that.

    :numaan:
    test
  20. Geedorah

    Geedorah King

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    11,872
    You will never find anything infinite because we are not infinite.
    test

Share This Page

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