Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[Lacius]

Theory and fact aren't mutually dependent either. Paradigm shifts happen. They don't happen because of those who settle on theory as "being good enough" or "how we should look at something".



My theory about gravity is that it is magnetism happening on a grander scale than that we are at a point of being able to verify. Maybe in a hundred years the theory of gravity will "fall". It's relative.

A scientific theory and a colloquial fact are, in fact, "mutually dependent."

A scientific fact is a colloquial observation.

A colloquial theory is a scientific hypothesis.

 

[Darth Meteos]

Are you a bitter skeptic, or are you trying to finesse me of my intellectual efforts? You don't have to like the example, but the point was that paradigm shifts happen. If you don't want to contribute, then you can wait 100 years.

You think that you are poking holes in my theory by poking holes in whatever you the think the theory is. The point is, that if a paradigm shift were to happen in this example, then your questions would look ignorant after the fact, not leading up to it.

i love the dunning-kruger effect

 

[chrisrlink]

sorry to burst your bubble trumpkins but the election cannot be overturned on many grounds too baked into the constitution (John Qunicy Adams even won through bribing the more corrupt EC back then in 1824)

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...tion-was-a-fraud-the-constitution-doesnt-say/

 

[smf]

Are you a bitter skeptic,

I think he's trying to point out that a scientific theory needs more than just some random throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks.

sorry to burst your bubble trumpkins but the election cannot be overturned on many grounds too baked into the constitution (John Qunicy Adams even won through bribing the more corrupt EC back then in 1824)

The way I see it, if you're happy that a fat orange man can lie his way into the white house then all is fair.

I don't think the election was rigged, but if Biden managed to rig the election against someone as rich and powerful as Trump then he seems like the type of person you would want as president.

Democracy is flawed, more people wanted Hilary. You don't get to pick and choose what flaws to keep based on how well they work for you (Trump was against the electoral college when he thought it would prevent him being president but then supported it when it allowed him to become president).

 

[tabzer]

i love the dunning-kruger effect

Not only is it besides the point, it shows that you would have probably been no different than those who heckle inventors and scientists of the past. It's ironic, seeing as that you are a history teacher but presumably knowing about the past doesn't seem to help you.

I think he's trying to point out that a scientific theory needs more than just some random throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks.

It's a strawman to bypass the point that I was making.

A scientific theory and a colloquial fact are, in fact, "mutually dependent."

A scientific fact is a colloquial observation.

A colloquial theory is a scientific hypothesis.

I don't disagree. Colloquial facts are relative to the age that they are accepted as facts, by definition.

 

[smf]

It's a strawman to bypass the point that I was making.

Your point being that you don't understand what scientific theories are and how they differ from random thoughts.

At least that is the point you've made.

 

[tabzer]

Your point being that you don't understand what scientific theories are and how they differ from random thoughts.

At least that is the point you've made.

The point I made was that paradigm shifts have happened and can happen again. The example about magnetism replacing gravity wasn't intended to be taken as a serious proposal. How difficult is it to imagine "what if" scenarios?

 

[Lacius]

I don't disagree. Colloquial facts are relative to the age that they are accepted as facts, by definition.

Yes, now you're getting it. If our understanding about a topic changes, then what we understand to be a colloquial fact about that topic may also change. If our evidence about a scientific topic changes, then the scientific theory may also change. That's an advantage of the scientific method, not a defect.

This means you agree that scientific theories like germ theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, Big Bang theory, plate tectonics theory, climate change theory, etc., like all scientific theories, are facts.

 

[Darth Meteos]

Not only is it besides the point, it shows that you would have probably been no different than those who heckle inventors and scientists of the past. It's ironic, seeing as that you are a history teacher but presumably knowing about the past doesn't seem to help you.

The point is that you have all but no competency, but your confidence is high. I am saying that you are making a fool of yourself without knowing it.

Scientists of the past did not speculate wildly, their every publication was dogged with people trying to shoot them down. Scientific theories survive trials by fire to earn the right to be called that at all. You do not understand the concepts you are trying to invoke in the slightest, and it is embarrassing.

 

[smf]

The point I made was that paradigm shifts have happened and can happen again. The example about magnetism replacing gravity wasn't intended to be taken as a serious proposal. How difficult is it to imagine "what if" scenarios?

You can't use the fact that people have been wrong before as some kind of evidence that your unproven theories could be proven in the future.

You're the one building strawmen.

 

[tabzer]

This means you agree that scientific theories like germ theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, Big Bang theory, plate tectonics theory, climate change theory, etc., like all scientific theories, are facts.

Facts "for now". At least until a greater understanding can change how we view it. Also, while evolution is fact, in my mind at least, I don't think we, as people, are direct descendants of the evolutionary chain. I think other things happened, too.

The point is that you have all but no competency, but your confidence is high.

Competency in what? Convincing you to indulge, in a moment, that we are not at a collective endgame of understanding of everything?

I am saying that you are making a fool of yourself without knowing it.

This is a low-to-non stakes situation where I have more to gain than to lose. I have no problem playing the fool if nobody else feels game to do so, for the sake of extrapolating information that would, otherwise, not be available.

Scientists of the past did not speculate wildly, their every publication was dogged with people trying to shoot them down. Scientific theories survive trials by fire to earn the right to be called that at all. You do not understand the concepts you are trying to invoke in the slightest, and it is embarrassing

First, I'm not speculating wildly. Second, my "theory" is not a formal submission into the scientific community. Third, you aren't a representative. I made a point. I provided a hypothetical situation where we could entertain a scenario where the point would be understood. Your reaction is to blast the hypothetical so that you could, what? Bypass the understanding?

You can't use the fact that people have been wrong before as some kind of evidence that your unproven theories could be proven in the future.

I'm not. I already assessed what I thought was true, and that was that paradigm shifts have happened and can happen again. Deviations from that point are a distraction (via strawman).

 

[Lacius]

Facts "for now". At least until a greater understanding can change how we view it. Also, while evolution is fact, in my mind at least, I don't think we, as people, are direct descendants of the evolutionary chain. I think other things happened, too.

The theories of evolution and common descent are proven scientific facts. If you don't want to believe in evolution because it contradicts your religious beliefs, okay. I'm not here to have that debate with you. But, let's not pretend it's anything other than anti-scientific and anti-fact. It would very much be like refusing to believe in heliocentric theory because your religious beliefs include that the Earth is the center of the universe.

 

[smf]

I'm not. I already assessed what I thought was true, and that was that paradigm shifts have happened and can happen again.

Well done for realizing something obvious that everyone else already knew & certainly couldn't argue about.

But what was your reason for telling us that paradigm shifts can happen?

 

[tabzer]

The theories of evolution and common descent are proven scientific facts. If you don't want to believe in evolution because it contradicts your religious beliefs, okay. I'm not here to have that debate with you. But, let's not pretend it's anything other than anti-scientific and anti-fact. It would very much be like refusing to believe in heliocentric theory because your religious beliefs include that the Earth is the center of the universe.

Heliocentric "theory" was only a theory after Galileo. Before that, it was a "colloquial fact" that the Earth was the center of the galaxy, or whatever the relative term; solar system, spheres, thing.

If the "theories of evolution and common descent" are "proven scientific facts" then I believe someone missed something, or the verdict was forced. Theory is theory, and fact is fact. Why would the "theory of evolution" remain a theory if it is a proven fact? This is a fault in the language used, not my understanding of it.

Well done for realizing something obvious that everyone else already knew.

How does that help your argument?

That was my argument. If you agree, then click like and please subscribe. Seriously, though, it would be great if you acknowledge what you DO agree with before shitting on shit.

 

[smf]

That was my argument. If you agree, then click like and please subscribe. Seriously, though, it would be great if you acknowledge what you DO agree with before shitting on shit.

I agree that you're building strawmen.

 

[tabzer]

I agree that you're building strawmen.

Try reading before responding.

 

[smf]

Try reading before responding.

I did, you made some half assed post about your theory of gravity and then built up a strawman about paradigm shifts to defend it.

Maybe you should try reading what you post before responding?

 

[Lacius]

Heliocentric "theory" was only a theory after Galileo. Before that, it was a "colloquial fact" that the Earth was the center of the galaxy, or whatever the relative term; solar system, spheres, thing.

If the "theories of evolution and common descent" are "proven scientific facts" then I believe someone missed something, or the verdict was forced. Theory is theory, and fact is fact. Why would the "theory of evolution" remain a theory if it is a proven fact? This is a fault in the language used, not my understanding of it.

You apparently ignored everything I said in my previous posts. Scientific theories are colloquial facts. Whether something is a scientific theory or a scientific fact has nothing to do with its truthfulness or how much it as been demonstrated to be true; it's about how simple or complex the claim is.

It does not matter how much more proven evolution or heliocentrism are. They are forever scientific theories, and they are colloquial facts. Broadly speaking, a scientific theory is the graduation point of a scientific hypothesis.

Heliocentric theory is as much as scientific theory as the theory of evolution, and the theory of evolution is as much a fact as heliocentric theory is.

Try reading before responding.

No, you.

 

[tabzer]

I did, you made some half assed post about your theory of gravity and then built up a strawman about paradigm shifts to defend it.

Maybe you should try reading what you post before responding?

Eh. Paradigm shifts was the lead. Fudged theory was provided as a supporting scenario to imagine in role-play.

 

[smf]

Eh. Paradigm shifts was the lead. Fudged theory was provided as a supporting scenario to imagine in role-play.

Just because you build your strawmans first, doesn't mean it's not a strawman.

Your theory of gravity does not support anything, it's an example of you not understanding how to make a valid point

I'm not convinced that your strawman was the lead point either.