Now you agree with me? Science determines fact, but what is
determined may not be fact, so ultimately science is not about
facts.
U know wat u r talking about ? Science determines facts. I have
asked for 2 times already and I will ask again. DO u believe in
water cycle ? Do u believe in electricity ? If u do, u already
acknowledge them as facts. Science is about facts.
I never said what the things it said are not true. I only know,
with proper scientific method, they are the closest thing we have
to the truth. During the era of Newton, his ideas are the closest
thing they have to the truth. When Einstein came out with
relativity, we are brought one step closer.
A lot of things have some truth also, but you're demanding absolute
truth so this has no place in your argument. I can also say the
gospel has some truth in it, but people like you refuse to even
accept this some-truth and demand total evidence.
If u talk about absolute truth, science comes closer compared
with other system. It still boils down to the same fact tat Gospel
hold some truth ? Like ? If u talk about hume induction, it doesn't
give more grounds in believing in a 2000 year old book
either.
Why not? Things that happened five minutes ago are facts. 9-11
is a fact. GST in Singapore is a fact.
Maybe the things u perceived is not the one in actual scenario.
Maybe u r living in a matrix like environment where robots actually
rule the world. Maybe u r just a looney and imagine this whole
world out while u r locked in IMH. Tis argument is the same as your
hume problem to induction. It will be thinking too much to the
point of stopping all progresses in our knowledge
What is so great about a dictionary, what's more a layman
dictionary defining a rather technical term. A dictionary is
ultimately carbon on paper. The meaning of words is situated in the
discourse
Your definition may be "unique" and only u have tis interpretation. To be
fair, the wordings used must be understood by all parties as they r
intended. To achieve this the dictionary comes into the picture.
Who knows, maybe u define a pig as a cow or pink as the normal
colour of the sky. Then wat is
the point of continuing if u can come out with meaning to any words
u like ? To be fair, the dictionary will be used to define
the meaning of the words.
A dictionary is ultimately carbon on paper ? The whole bible is
also just carbon on paper
I wonder whether you understood my reply. Now I'm beginning to
suspect whether you know what is deduction. Evidence itself does
not constitute a proof. It has to be expressed as a deduction. You
know the famous 'butler did it' argument? This is deduction
Then wat is your point ? So science is not about deduction, it
is about wat then ?
Read Hume's problem of induction. It is not as clear cut as you
think it is - just believe in a natural order?
Mentioning about Hume is totally irrelevant. I just have to ask
u if u believe in the water cycle ? Do u believe tat the computer
in front of u will explode before u ? If u don't then u have
already use your experience and determine the answer. U already
believed in a nature world order. U don't believe snow is cold ?
The answer is simple, since it is always true in the past, we
accept them to be true in future in order for us to progress.
Dictionary meanings are often devoid of the context. Anyway the
definition you gave wasn't specific, which I feel is the problem.
For example, it said "argument", but of what kind? I need to remind
you inductive argument is not valid in Math (dun confuse with
mathematical induction pls
The point u r going through is u just wanna confuse people.
All i want to ask u is do u believe in simple scientific
facts such as the water cycle. I have ask tis many
many times and I want an answer for it. If u do, then u
already have not practise wat u preach and believe in science
holding the truth. If u don't, then i am wondering why r u typing
words in front of a computer which will probably eat u up or
something since it may change.
