Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Most people in science understand the tentativity of all scientific findings and would be unlikely to label it as absolute truth. Most would probably label accepted theories and principles of science as the best understanding we have at the current time.Do you have any examples of scientists making claims of absolute truth?--Percy

There are a huge number of scientists and scientific writing out there. I'm sure there are examples of scientific writing referring to LUCA or UCA as a fact, but the scientific consensus is that it is a hypothesis. The consensus is expressed here in Last universal common ancestor - Wikipedia: The word "fact" does not appear in the article. Tentativity is a key principle within science. Here's an article by Dawkins that appeared in the New York Times where he fails to call LUCA a fact: Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things - The New York TimesNaturally the more evidence supporting a hypothesis or theory the less tentative we feel about it, but there is never any such thing as absolute certainty in science. Given that this thread is up to nearly a thousand messages I'm sure this has already been explained here many times.--Percy

A scientific fact, such as a scientist measuring temperature during an experiment and finding it to be 31.6°C, is information, not absolute truth. That temperature is one of the facts of his experiment, but it is tentative, as are all things in science. Maybe the actual temperature was 31.5°C or 31.7°C, or maybe his temperature measurement equipment was faulty or miscalibrated.If you look up "fact" in a dictionary you'll find it has multiple definitions. One of the definitions includes "certitude, truth". That's not the definition science uses. A fact is a piece of information (often the second definition in the dictionary), not an absolute truth. This reflects a determined effort to not understand the nature of science. Tentativity is at the core of scientific efforts. I suspect that what you find objectionable is that science has a very high confidence level in some areas, evolution in particular.--Percy

Different people have different ways of expressing themselves. We're all saying the same thing here in different ways. Tangle is comfortable calling something in science "proven" because he's interpreting "proven" to mean "supported by a mountain of evidence", not "timeless truth." He still accepts the principle of tentativity.Me, I avoid the word "prove" and any related form. But that's just me. I prefer to say that nothing in science is ever proven because that's how I remain consistent with the principle of tentativity. Tangle has a different approach to embracing tentativity, but we're both saying the same thing.You can, if you choose, bog down the discussion by insisting that different ways of expressing things actually represent different understandings. I hope you don't do that.--Percy

If by fact you mean 100% certainty, then no. Tentativity means there can never be 100% certainty. If you'd like to discuss the nature or philosophy of science you should probably open a new thread. In this thread we're just trying to lay down some basic scientific principles in order to assist discussion and improve people's ability to understand what science is actually saying.You've somehow picked up the misimpression that science has made claims of "absolute truth." This is undoubtedly false, and we're just trying to explain that to you.--Percy

Tentativity is a fundamental principle of the philosophy of science. That's why we're questioning your claim that there are scientists out there making claims of "absolute truth". Can you produce any examples? It was just an example I used to help make things more clear, not a topic of discussion. If this example doesn't work for you then I'll try to find another.But in case it helps, the principle of tentativity means that the measurement of the flowing water to be 37.1°C is tentative. Yes, you can put error bars around it, but even the error bars have probabilities. For instance, you might give the temperature as 37.1±5°C with 99.9% confidence, or you might give the temperature as 37.1±10°C with 99.999% confidence. That the confidence level never reaches 100% is tentativity.Of course you have to take pressure into account, too.But the main issue was where you're finding scientists making claims of absolute truth.--Percy

I don't think we know anything with 100% confidence.--Percy

Your difference with Theodoric goes back to when you said this back in Message 980: But I think everyone here, not just Theodoric, has problems with this. It *is* true that nothing in science can be proven. You can pile the evidence miles high, but certainty can never be achieved. It's a philosophical principle within science.And no one here accepts anything "just because some scientist has said it." Just look at how we laid into professor Jeffrey H. Schwartz of the University of Pittsburgh about his claim that humans are more closely related to orangutans than chimps. It starts at Message 38, and my response where I basically call him a loon is at Message 44. And then there was professor emeritus John A. Davison of the University of Vermont: John A. DavisonCredentials don't matter here, only the quality of the evidence and arguments. In my opinion Theodoric shouldn't be speculating or inquiring about your qualifications. His curiosity is understandable, but they have nothing to do with the topic.--Percy

No, I'm afraid not. Your single observation has a high likelihood of being correct, but not 100%. If others make the same observation then that increases the likelihood, but still not to 100%. Even if millions of others make the same observation, all that accomplishes is tacking more 9's after the decimal point. It still doesn't reach 100%.But returning to your comment that was originally questioned, where are you finding scientists declaring something to be absolutely true? The more determinedly you avoid supporting claims you make the more people are going to decide you're only worth ridicule and derision.--Percy

Wow! Well, if you're ever in the mood you might look up the scientific definition of tentativity sometime.Meanwhile, can you finally support your claim that there are scientists out there making claims of absolute truth.--Percy

You're again repeating the mistake of not recognizing that different people will explain the same thing in different ways. AZPaul3's point is that your observation that the die landed on one side rather than a corner is also open to uncertainty.I don't think anyone here is angry or annoyed or ranting. I think we're all just a little bewildered at your determined ignorance.--Percy

Some, including myself, have made negative assessments of your approach to this discussion, and you're responding in ways that only reinforce these assessments. You seem to be trying to avoid a constructive discussion while instead expending your efforts on transforming this discussion into the worst kind, one where insults reign.The discussion of the tentative nature of science and even of observation itself began with your claim of scientists declaring absolute truth. Can you provide any examples of scientists doing this?--Percy

You're engaging in name calling at that which you don't understand. Tentativity is a key principle within science. It's why we doubt your claim of scientists asserting absolute truth.Yes, there is uncertainty about how the die landed, or even whether you actually threw the die, or that we measured the temperature. I'm reminded of a minor scientific fraud that was uncovered maybe a decade ago when a medical researcher was found to have used the same photos in different papers, rotating them to make it difficult to detect. The repurposed photos were claimed to be of the results of experiments he never performed.There is no certainty anywhere within this universe.But fear not. While there is not certainty there *is* reliability. A given experiment might not have a 100% probability of yielding the expected outcome, but 99.999999999% is more than enough to reliably produce that outcome.The odds of a die coming to rest on a corner are vanishingly small, but not zero. That's tentativity at work.--Percy

I explained why temperature measurements are tentative and am awaiting a response.The Millikan Oil Drop Experiment provides a good example of the tentative nature of measurements. Millikan observed the speed of motion of charged oil droplets between charged electric plates. He observed that particle motion was in multiples of a base amount that was the charge of the electron. His measurements were, of course, tentative, and as other scientists repeated and refined his experiment the measured charge of the electron changed, gradually increasing over time to its current value, which itself is still tentative.--Percy

Even the principle of tentativity is tentative. It is supported by a mountain of evidence, but our certainty about the principle can never reach 100%.--Percy