I appreciate your willingness to criticize. I utterly depend on criticism to correct me when I am wrong, and I know I will never learn the truth unless criticism reveals facts to me I did not know.
However, I cannot agree that only things that can be proven are true. Science is a method that doesn't work that way, and is the most powerful mechanism to reveal only what cannot be true. That most powerful means of providing empirical evidence can never prove anything to be true.
All it does is prove that something isn't true, and that excludes that theory from the possiblities that remain potentially true. Newton's theory of gravity perfectly illustrates this. It provided a mathematical framework for calculating orbits that works so well we still use it today to steer our spacecraft even though we know the theory itself is factually incorrect (because it's close enough to steer by and far easier to calculate) and that Einstein's theories have disproved it.
There is no proof that you are right, and never can be. It is criticism that is the actual mechanism of science. Peer review. Proof the theory criticized cannot be true. Because being wrong about facts can kill me, I want nothing more than to be proved wrong when I am wrong, so that my stupidity won't kill me.
So, your intentions are noble, and nothing is more welcome to me than proof I am wrong. Science! However, take a look at what your comment actually says. It doesn't assert even one actual fact. It doesn't prove shit. It's just a position statement, a diatribe against criticism itself.
It's bullshit. Prove me wrong, or STFU.
That being said, please, please, please prove me wrong. I want nothing more than the future to be wonderful for my sons whom I love more than life itself, and to be comforted in my dotage that they will be fine.
So, thanks very much for your good intentions, but actually achieve them instead of just feeling good about your intentions.
"You can't prove me wrong" is the hallmark of an unfalsifiable hypothesis (naked appeal to ignorance).
Yes, and logic reveals what must necessarily be true (apodictic truth).
What's left between what must be true and what cannot be true is QUALIA (INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM OPINION).
Only until it's refined by something being proved wrong. Newton had logic on his side and his theory of gravity was obviously true for centuries - until it was proved wrong by Einstein.
I believe it was only "proven" incomplete and or lacking precision.
A "working model" like Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica is neither technically "true" or technically "false".
A (scientific) "working model" is judged solely on EFFICACY (its propensity to produce accurate predictions).
It may be a "fiction" but it doesn't matter, as long as it's a "useful and reliable fiction".
Science is no "arbiter of truth" as much as it's a "crucible of EFFICACY".
Efficacy has no relation to factual accuracy, withal.
The theory that Newton proposed to explain why the math worked was factually incorrect, and Einstein's work revealed this. That doesn't mean Einstein's math was more efficacious.
Science doesn't prove efficacy. It disproves theories that cannot be true. That's all it does.
Newton's law has since been superseded by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity,
but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications.
Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme accuracy, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at small distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the Sun). LINK
Newton wasn't "factually incorrect".
Newton was simply "lacking requisite precision".
What method "proves efficacy"?
Certainly in some cases, but how exactly do you think it does this "disproving"?
It can reveal flaws in a hypothesis, but it does far more than just that.
Newton's Law was not merely superseded in mathematical precision by Einstein. It was utterly disproved. The math explaining orbital mechanics based on Newton's Law is far simpler, and is more efficacious - but less accurate than relativistic maths - because the math is close enough for government work, despite the theory that explained gravity being factually incorrect.
This is exactly the example of science not being used to create efficacy I intended, but that science can only disprove factually incorrect theories. Even though the theory is proved wrong, the math remains useful. It's not right, but it's close enough.
That isn't science. It's engineering.
This seems contradictory.
Please give a specific example of this "factually incorrect" detail.
As far as I can tell, Newton merely produced an equation that is somewhat less precise than Einstein's.
Science lays the essential groundwork for engineering.
Science has never established "incontrovertible truth".
Science only ever tells us what is the most likely result, and how reliable and durable that result is (hopefully at least 3 Sigma).
Don't appreciate anything he has to say. He's a complete and utter wanker. I left him a special comment above, just to remind him what he's really about. he is a hypocrite of the highest order, and claims that a list of "tweets" is the all encompassing evidence he needs to prove his own "conspiracy theories".
It's difficult for me to understand how some folks think. Perhaps it's because they really don't, but just string together the bits they're told in an order that looks like thoughts.
Thanks!
Poisoning-the-well is a surprisingly effective technique.
Your own (apparent) eagerness to "rush-to-disqualify" those who seem to disagree with you is a good example of this.
I certainly seek to resolve points of disagreement, through engaging with folks with differing opinions, as you well know from experience. I reckon that reveals I consider them qualified to have opinions, and that I value their personal opinions enough to undertake discussion I hope will result in consilience.
There are few folks I don't think are qualified to speak their opinions, and those are just trolls, whom I might even agree with. I don't understand how I disqualify folks who disagree with me. I fairly often change my opinion because someone disagreed with me and proved they were right to my great benefit.
I mistook some of @lordbutterfly's statements as trollery, but later realized he did simply disagree. My earlier dismissal of his commentary was due to the fact I thought he was unwilling to consider the evidence. That's just trolling. However, when he pointed out he did consider the evidence but disagreed with me, I changed my tone.
Poisoning the well works very well. It's not an argument though. As you state, it's a tactic that degrades discussion rather than improves it IMHO.
@lordbutterfly
Here is some actual "science" for you, ****How about the methodology of the eyes?**** That means, you look at the actual evidence with your actual eyes. Eyes, yes. Unless your trying to tell us seeing isn't believing anymore.
**"Trust the Television, Trust the Television", that's what your saying LOL **
I doubt you even understand the meaning of the word study. It means study, so who's study are you talking about? Which study? Which science?
Trust the television doctors and stock market companies. That your answer to everything and that's a conspiracy theory, give me a break dude, nobody believes that shit anymore.
Your a conspiracy theory my friend. Either your in on it or absolutely tamed stupid.... maybe both.
@newworldfreedom 🤠
P.s. In staid of fighting, we can also just talk over these people and share the real relevant facts.
Did you know that 90% of all cancers are probably curable with natural medicine? @lordbutterfly
Source: https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/run-from-the-cure/
User rating is off the chart and all real studies back it up. It's so common nowadays, you probably have a friend that has tried the Rick Simpson Method successfully, And if not, definitively a friend of a friend. It world wide, every country, every city. Natural Medicine Markets are growing heavily in all countries, 10%-15% in some
Have a look, RSO is just 1 natural medicine from thousands without the proper healing diet.
Now if "they" don't even care about 100% of all people, do you really think they care about 0,01%? Answer us that? 🤠
No they are not.
Pedling that bullshit is a sure way to kill yourself or your loved one.
Canabis will relieve your pain but thats it, or in the case of my friend that smokes it all the time, make him forget his car keys on an island making him take the ferry back just to see that the car keys arent actually on that island but he left the car keys in his car door back on mainland.
Or in another case make him drive off the road into some families back yard.
Smoking shit that makes you dizzy and euphoric doesnt make you cancer free.
Haha. Good one.
Posted using Dapplr
@lordbutterfly What a name......
**
"In addition, numerous cell culture and animal studies showed antitumor effects of cannabinoids in various cancer types."**
Source of the study >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6387667/
Your talking absolute bollox mate. 🤠
You literally have nothing. Not a single thing to support your conspiracy religion.
We all mentioned solid facts with references. You just talk shit.
Source
More solid evidence that most cancer are easily treated with the infamous Rick Simpson method >> https://www.itv.com/thismorning/articles/cannabis-oil-cured-my-cancer-now-i-want-it-legalised
I can't take you seriously Lord butterfly. 🤠
Let me ask you this... Do you believe everything someone says online or only those things you want to be true?
To answer your question: No of course not, I check the actual facts when presented with check-able evidence.
I've answered your question, now answer mine, why don't you ever check the evidence and insist on believing the television set?
And here is a PROVEN non toxic Corona treatment >>
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7167497/
If your on heavy medication I understand you unable to understand what's going on but this is 2020 facts are check able. Even by your own logic by "believing" and checking only "the who" your wrong, so far I've shared check able facts from many different sources:
NCBI: National Center for Biotechnology Information
ITV: Popular British television channel.
Hundreds of real doctors like Dr Richard Cheng and Dr Andrew Weber
Don't just Google something for 30 seconds, read the first 3 results and just believe the television set, really get into it, take a weekend or year if you need to.
And I've also given you some heavily proven cancer and corona treatments.
Is this in the blockchain guys? Anyone? 🤣