03 Mar '12 22:36>
Originally posted by RJHindsno...you're just a dick
Am I one of those pigeons that keeps knocking over your chess pieces? 😏
Originally posted by sonhouseDefinitions can be inconsistent with other definitions. In this case your definition of milk is inconsistent with the accepted definition of "nuclear fuel". However, if you redefine "nuclear fuel" as the stuff that comes from cows to feed their offspring then your definition would be consistent.
I define milk as a nuclear fuel.......
Originally posted by jaywill“...Hypothesises, if made up of definitions, must be not a part of Science ...”
Are you sure ?
Science is different from definitions. Hypothesises, if made up of definitions, must be not a part of Science. Don't you think so ?
Isn't it kind of sloppy inaccurate thinking to assume that [b]definitions are themselves Science ?
Doesn't that sound like something the uninformed would assume, ie. definitions are knowledge ??? Something must be wrong. What do you say now ?[/b]
Originally posted by BartsTo say that a scientific statement is false or wrong, or a scientific theory is false / wrong, does no harm to Science as a discipline. Science can be wrong about many things and often is. The methods of science are also under continual review. For example, the methodology of social science has an interesting history of innovation and novel approaches. Scientists can and do disagree about what is or is not to be accepted as proper scientific method - especially in terms of particular objects for study. I suppose a safe example is that the use of Relativity to understand the Big Bang breaks down in the initial fraction of a second, when Quantum Physics has to be invoked instead. Some unscientific statements about the Big Bang hang on this issue.
Where does this thread come from ?
Over on the spirituality forum jaywill wanted to make some point about science being wrong, because Pluto was once classified as a planet and isn't any more. This led to a discussion where it was pointed out that this is not an example of scientific thought evolving, but simply the definition of a planet being changed. For ...[text shortened]... trying to strip that discussion of all context, so someone gives him a quote that he can use.
Originally posted by vistesdThe theory of Evolution does not fit what is observed in science and must be
The standard epistemological definition of knowledge is “justified, true belief”. In order for this definition to be “part of knowledge”, it would itself have to be “a justified, true belief”. I see no reason why knowledge acquired by scientific methods ought to be considered differently. And although the example is based on defining knowledge itse ...[text shortened]... mmodate this new information and we get very excited about it. We like discovering new things.”
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are half right and half wrong. Darwin't theory of natural selection has been entirely supported and improved by subsequent scientific findings, not least the mechanism of the gene which he did not have available. On the other hand it does not accommodate the literal Biblical account of the creation, which is understood and accepted by most Christians as no longer reliable in its strict, literal reading. So as said, half right and half wrong.
The theory of Evolution does not fit what is observed in science and must be
updated to accommodate this new information from DNA as well as the old
information from the Holy Bible. However, most scientist continue to cling to
Darwin's theories in total even though he cautioned against it, himself. There
is no observable evidence of a cat evolving into ...[text shortened]... l by an awesomely
intelligent designer. I don't believe he was as stupid as you numbnuts. 😏