|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is a Theory? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
"I clearly have no idea of science?" You know not what you think.
Since you got me here... I'll clue you in on something. truth, Truth TRUTH - and so on... is truth and anything short of that is not truth! An almost truth is still and untruth and an untruth is still a lie. Ya'll sound so much cooler on-line. By the way... I am so much cooler off line!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
That "now" of yours was written when?
The only answer to the question that can remain correct to; What itme is it? must be conveyed in the past tense for the present is always becomming the past; my answer: "then" However, "then" must be given liberal understanding, yet defeats "now" except in a general format such as; 21st century (using USA's dating techniques and only remans accurate for a time)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
Actually, I'm trying to keep it simple.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] This is taken from the first line of his post. The problem is it is taken insultingly, by my use of "lie." It was a way of expressing the diminished capisity of the so called "gray area" being so well developed by modern understanding that is attempting to corrupt truth. Just because science has yet to reach truth does not mean (by me) that it does not aspire to. Edited by prophet, : Yes, it is posted incorrectly and so removed... to be posted properly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
Incorrect. It has a very strict understanding: Some time other than now. If we're dealing with the past, previous to now. If we're dealing with the future, after now.
The past and future are relative to the distance in time allowed. If "now" is considered this century, this year, even this day, you are right. If now is considered "now" in which even the time to type it, puts it in the past - you are wrong... for I wrote the previous now - then. However, I do understand from "where" you are comming. Cute... Spaceballs, (I've never really cared for woody.) I remember a simular display of the difficulties concerning reading words... by Festus Hagen. It can easily be found on UTube by a search of Festus Hagen when; Festus Parts the Waters. Go to 2:26 and start there.
The "once it is established" is invalidated as it continues to change with time when the operative is "now" for that "now" becomes "then." Of course, consider many variances of the "now"s use as an adverb, a noun, a adjective or a conjunction its meaning can be validated variously. All this exercise displays is; we are selecting our own prejudices as our foundation and that since your base is an ever moveable "now" and mine, a fixed position "now" we will probably not arrive at the same conclusion... then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
Just as discussion of the nature of science and the role of theory within science was off-topic in the Noah's Ark thread, topics from Noah's Ark are off-topic here. I suggest you repost the part of your post about Noah's Ark over in the other thread.
I moved it there. However, part of the reason for that post was to express the scientific method of obtaining results in a scientific manner. The integrity of scienctific investigations to maintian its accuracy during an investigation should not be compromised with the pedestrian methods I have witnessed. The truth of which I discuss allows science to achieve resolve without the need of the supernatural, supreme reality or ultimate meaning as pertaining to God. However, Ultimate meaning can be confined to the purpose at hand, for example: discovering the feesability of the Ark. Could it have housed and fed the animals within the confines of the natural world and in accordance to its boundaries of time and space as given in the Bible? - excluding God's hand except under certain circumstances ie; The animals were "tamed" and they arrived at the Ark due to God's actions... any others? Just as diverse institutions use their own language, example: lawyers So to, does it seem science uses its own definitions at its will. This in no way validate them, but rather detracts from their own veracity. It is not good to impart obstructions in language to impair others. Either my dictionary is in error, or your dictionary is in error. In either case it is not our error only that of the foundation. See "Festus parts the waters," on Utube. From Wikipedia: the·o·ryFunction:noun 1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2: abstract thought : speculation 3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art 4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action 5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena 6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject synonyms see hypothesis ---------------------------------------------- I take it this is not the definitions you prefer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
thankx for the tip. because time here is spent without heat it is not as easy as it used to be, or will be once winter is over. The context of "lie" I used was to express the falling short of truth. Maybe, I probably should have offered that understanding as well, but their assumption was in error. A lie need not be intentional. Have a good evening I must retire...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
Sorry, rick moranis... I thought it was woody allen. Yes I need glasses!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
Yes, you are right; it was from merriam webster dictionary and was provided by the wikipedia link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
Yet another theory: Truth only exists in the human mind .
Of course that is false!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
I did it so the correction would stand out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
When this is offered, it is with only a human mind as a boundary. The foundation is based on a perspective and limited too much to include animals. Not to mention; it attempts to dismiss God. Do I need to copy the entire post then click the reply button and insert my information?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
I have seen even a glance provide more information and truth than an entire page of writing. Written and vocal words contain too many boundaries as it is, and should not be confined so harshly. When you constrict definitions to certain and strict boundaries you may also dismiss, exclude and overlook other additional meanings outside the guidelines of that written word, that could shed better understanding. And it is that which can affect accuracy. In hind sight; perhaps, it would have been better had I used the word hypothesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
Human limitations influence everything we do, it is inescapable.
I agree with what you wrote, but not with how you applied it. The words; "human mind as a boundary" is the problem when one considers that animals have minds, some even bigger than ours. Are you talking about the theory of evolution? This thread isn't about evolution. It's a discussion about the nature of scientific theory. No, I'm not speaking of evolution. But the understanding that lower life forms could have their own knowledge of truth. Just because we MAY not be able to extract that understanding does not mean it does not exist. The statement by ambercab was:
Yet another theory: Truth only exists in the human mind By its own admission; it claims there can be no other owner, which would mean that of a lower life form, or of a higher life form.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
Now if scientists advertised each theory as the unchanging truth, Truth, TRUTH, or even TRVTH, then I can see why you would question any changes. But science doesn't do that. It is religious believers who fail to make the distinction between scientific theory and some form of truth, Truth, TRUTH, or even TRVTH. I remember, I did in fact, allow a distinction between theory and truth. Actually, my interpetation was to project theory as a path for science to obtain proof in the persuit of truth... not as truth itself.This "truth" does not imply it must be expanded until it reaches the "greater truth" - God. See the Eglish Alaphbet Capitol "Q"... it is an English Alaphabet Capitol Q =fact=truth yet... no God implied. If my wording has lead one astray - maybe, I was in a coma and missed a comma?
Don't blame science for doing what it is supposed to do. the aspect of science trying to wade amoung the "lies": (as meaning that which falls short of truth) to sort out the lies and eliminate them, that what remains can be tested, proven, reproduced with exacting accuracy, and submitted for examination to achieve the status of truth should not be considered insulting. How many different ways did Edison discover not to make a light bulb?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
and seeks only to have an explanation that is as accurate as possible.
The above use of "accuracy" would be considered as ambigious? Maybe I'm being too harsh... I'll lighten up some.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024