Peanut Gallery

Hi Modulus, Indeed, we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old.We do NOT know with certainty how much older it actually is. We are likely to be wrong about how much older than 4 billion years it is, based on the evidence, test methods and information we currently have, and the fact that new information can change this.We almost know how old the earth is (according to the evidence, test methods and information that we currently have). OR this is resolved by not creating a false impression of certain knowledge in the first place, by saying that we have a high degree of confidence that the current data, testing methodology and information available indicate that the earth is 4.54 billion years old 1%.⁽¹⁾ If you feel you must redefine knowledge to mean "almost knowledge" to fit your lax usage, then you are the one twisting the words, not me. Especially when what you really mean is having high confidence.Enjoy.⁽¹⁾ - Age of Earth - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (4.54 10^{^9} years 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

---

The +/-1% indicates the variation possible from the dating methods, so even if this is the final answer we still almost know the age of the earth, but we certainly can unquestioningly have high confidence in this value.

Hi, RAZD. So to use the term "knowledge" is to abuse it.What certain "knowledge" do we have, and how did we acquire it?

Hi Omnivorous, I hope you are well. To misuse the term is to abuse it. As I said in Message 1666 "... we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old."We acquire it by being careful about the limits of what we do know with certainty, and by being careful with the terminology to qualify what we know, so that false impressions are not created. Clarity of language is very important in this regard.For example, taking the age of the earth from the wiki article:Age of Earth - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (4.54 10^{^9} years 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

---

What we know about the age of the earth is qualified by how we know it and the limits of that knowledge.If we subtract the 1% we get a minimum age of the earth of 4.39 10^{^9} years⁽¹⁾, based on the evidence, testing methodology and information currently available, and we can honestly say: I can have 100% certainty in that statement as qualified, I cannot have 100% certainty in an unqualified statement that we know the earth is 4.54 billion years old.If the actual age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old, this last (orange) statement is false, but my (pink) statement above is still true.Enjoy⁽¹⁾ - This is similar to the minimum ages I generated in the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread.

"100% confidence" in a qualified statement is, by definition, a contradiction in terms. "100% certainty", by definition, means unqualified certainty in a proposition.It's like saying "I'm absolutely almost sure."

quote:

---

As I said in Message 1666 "... we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old."

---

And you DON'T know that with 100% certainty. You haven't dealt with, for instance, Descartes demon or the similar "brain-in-the-box" scenarios. In other words, you dismiss unfalsifiable, yet (apparently) possible scenarios to claim to have knowledge. And unless you do so, you cannot even "know" that the tests have even been performed, let alone their outcomes.So, is it acceptable to dismiss unfalsifiable and implausible scenarios that - for all we know - could be true ? Or do we need to give them serious consideration ? This is one of the central considerations of this discussion, and it appears that you are taking both sides.

But not with 100% certainty. The conclusion is still tentative. Therefore, by your stated standards we do not know it. Indeed - we don't know anything about the world by your stated standards. Its not redefining it, it is defining it. And it isn't 'almost knowledge' it is actual knowledge, tentatively concluded given the imperfection of our measuring equipment and our minds.If you want to suggest it is impossible to know anything since we can never be 100% certain, that's fine. But don't balk when others argue that all knowledge is tentative, but is still knowledge. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

It understand. I follow. I follow. Im with you. I think RAZD is waiting for the Theory to be supported just as the chimp theory is supported. With evidence. Yes, me and you are in the same boat, I get that. RAZD is the one thinking logically, not you or me. You mispoke. What you mean to say is this:There, I corrected it for you As far as I can tell, RAZD is waiting for you to present your theory:-Bold mine- The question here bluegenes, is not wheather anyone on this thread can find any emperical evidence for SN beings including RAZD (which he in fact never claimed he could).The question is can you find any to disprove that SN beings in fact do not exist?Are you aware of even your own comments? See above. I follow. Yes, of course I agree with you, but what does this have to do with your claim? I follow, as well as all other rational thinking people, mainly RAZD, who is simply waiting anxiously for you to do this.When are you going to attempt to do this? You havn't and therfore lost the debate. Why it is still going on is strickly for entertainment value. As far as victory goes, RAZD had supported his poistion in maintaining that you cannot support yours. If you could, the debate would have been over your very first post. As far as I know, you and I so far, have failed to offer any empirical evidence of the existance or non existance of SN beings.The difference being, im not asking RAZD for a great debate where I will in fact:You are the one on the stand. Not me, and certainly not RAZD. You are misrepresenting his position because you know you lost and putting the burden off of you and on to him which he does not deserve.RAZD is simply waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting...eternity infinity...Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

But you're just trying to shift the burden of proof, again.I've explained this to you in this post. Feel free to answer it.

A theory that attributes something to its only known source certainly is supported by the evidence, and is very strong. Suggesting that magicians might occasionally produce rabbits ex nihilo from hats does not weaken the theory that all rabbits are born from other rabbits unless evidence can be provided to support the suggestion. Asking someone to prove that every single rabbit in the world today wasn't produced out of a hat would just be demonstrating your ignorance of how science works. (See also Adequate's flying pig link above).It's no good attempting to criticize my theory unless you can make a good evidence based case for a source of supernatural beings other than human invention. Absolutely wrong. I am theorizing, and I can demonstrate that humans can and do invent supernatural beings, and that that's their only currently known source. You are claiming to know something as a fact, and you cannot demonstrate the existence of a single SB that has an actual existence outside our minds. As for RAZD, he doesn't understand inductive theories, and anyone who does understand them can tell that from his posts on the GD thread. I meant exactly what I said. And in addition, if you want to criticize something presented as an inductive theory, you need to learn what those are before you do it.

Given your stance on "knowledge" the phrase 'scientific knowledge' becomes an oxymoron. And you still seem utterly bewildered as to why statements such as "very improbable" are necessary in the absence of certainty. So consider this:I consider it "very improbable" that my soon-to-be dropped pen will do anything other than fall to the ground in the manner predicted by science. What do you say RAZ? On the basis that objectively evidenced conclusions are more likely to be correct than evidentially baseless propositions. Do you dispute this? Yes all evidence based conclusions are tentative. Which is exactly why all scientific knowledge is tentative. But we can only have any scientific knowledge at all by rejecting (albeit tentatively) untestable propositions.For example you can only draw any scientific conclusion at all regarding the predicted motion of a dropped pen by first rejecting the untested proposition that all of the evidence on which our scientific conclusions are based is the result of false memories implanted when the universe was created fully formed 1 second ago.Hence I would say it is "very improbable" that my dropped pen will do anything other than fall to the ground as science predicts. What would you say RAZ? Then ALL scientific conclusions are mere subjective opinions by the terms of your own argument. ALL scientific conclusions regarding the past depend on rejecting things like the 1 second universe proposition and all scientific conclusions regarding the future depend on the inductively derived conclusion that the laws of nature will continue into the future as they have demonstrated themselves to be up to now. Neither of these things have been tested in the way that you perennially insist upon. The difference between a 6 and a 5 is the difference between being able to draw scientific conclusions and being paralysed into uncertainty by an inability to reject the multiplicity of evidentially baseless alternatives. If before I let go of my soon-to-be dropped pen you accept the tested results of gravity then you are necessarily rejecting the untested notion that the universe was created 1 second ago with different physical laws (esp with regard to falling pens) than the ones you think are in place. You are also rejecting the untested notion that the laws of gravity are about to change.On what basis do you reject these evidentially baseless alternatives before the pen is dropped?Why do I ask?Because I suspect that I reject your evidentially baseless notions regarding god(s) on the same basis.....

No crashfrog Is the statement true? The qualifications define the conditions and limits of the knowledgeEnjoy.

Hi PaulK But I haven't dismissed them. The evidence could be an illusion and the statement is still true, that "we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old."Enjoy.

Hi Modulus, Again, is my statement true or false? So you almost know ... Curiously, I'm not the one that needs to redefine the word so that I can pretend that I know more than I know. You know, like redefining science to include astrology ...Enjoy.

Let's look at your statement again: How can it be true if all you have is false reports of evidence and if the test methods would show a different date if they were applied (or worse, HAVE been applied and shown different date) ? You are implicitly assuming access to an external reality where the evidence exists and where the tests have been carried out with the results you claim. And therefore you are implicitly dismissing those non-falsifiable possibilities where that is not the case.

It is tentatively true. True enough for my book to be called knowledge. But there is not 100% certainty about the truthhood of the statement, so by your standards you cannot say that you know that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old. I'm not redefining it, I'm using a more complete understanding of what knowledge is based on centuries of discussion, controversy and debate - rather than relying on an online dictionary as the canonical definition which you are using to dismiss said debate.If you want knowledge to be about 100% certainty you have to deal with the fact that this means we cannot have knowledge.