If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

If I had to be absolutely sure before saying something, I'd never be able to say anything. You said that you automatically assume your hypothesis to be true until proven false. I said that scientists try to prove their hypotheses false. Do you really not see the distinction? The question is: Give an example of absolute truth besides the law of non-contradiction.Since you don't seem to have any, maybe we need to go back to square one. I said in Message 64:

quote:

---

You seem to be using the term "objective truth" in the sense of "absolute truth".

---

Do you understand the difference between objective and absolute?

Exactly. We are always partially wrong about everything. Our knowledge of everything is flawed. We are never absolutely right. As I have said more than once, if I mean absolutely, I will say "absolutely". Any time I do not say "absolutely" I'm automatically leaving room for error. Certianly not. You automatically assume your hypothesis to be true. Scientists automatically assume their hypothesis to be false. As I have said, the law of non-contradiction is true by its own definition. If I define a giraffe as "a six-legged reptile" then the definition is "true" even if it has no relation to reality. In logic we need to look at the conclusion to see if the premises are valid. We need to test your premise that the law of non-contradiction is essential to science - so give us some other examples of absolute truth to work with.

No, but if the conclusion is false it calls the premises into question.

No it isn't. if I meant absolutely never I would have said, "absolutely never." Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

Your supposition that I mean Absolute when you think I mean Absolute is unsupportable.I mean what I mean. I tell you what I mean and you still insist that I mean something else.

Should I doubt that I know what I mean? Ultimately, yes. But the first step is to doubt that you understand what I'm saying. The second step is to doubt that you understand what I mean. Then why do you keep insisting that eveything I say is in absolutes?

I don't expect you to be absolutely sure of what I mean. I expect you to have a clue.By the way, nobody else in the thread seems to have difficulty understanding what I mean. Nonsense. I'm not absolutely sure there's no absolute truth. Why do you keep reading the word "absolutely" into everything I write?You could make your point a lot better by giving some non-trivial examples of absolute truth. Why do you resolutely refuse to do that? No it isn't. I do doubt everything - but not necessarily absolutely everything. I do think you're wrong but I'm not absolutely sure.You could prove you are right very simply by giving some non-trivial examples of absolute truth. Your failure to do so suggests that you can't do so, which strengthens my case.

No, I said what I meant. There may be some things that I don't doubt but I doubt it.

No. "Everything" can be figurative; "every thing" less so. See how silly absolutism is?

Sure it is. How do you distinguish between a nitrogen moelcule that's touching the plate and a water molecule that's touching the plate and a carrot molecule that's touching th plate? I'm the one who says it isn't absolute unless you say it is. I'm the one who's saying that the parent's definition of "everything" is ridiculous. The child recognizes that "everything" is not the same as "absolutely everything". I have given you a logical reason: The law of non-contradiction is trivial because it's true by definition. It's the equivalent of saying, "Orange is the colour of an orange." So give us a non-trivial example.

On the contrary, since orbitals extend to infinity, every molecule and atom in the universe not only "touches" but overlaps.

quote:

---

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars;
You have a right to be here. link

---

You've missed the point. I'm asking how you can distinguish between a nitrogen atom in the air and a nitrogen atom in the carrot. Unless you can, you can't say that one is "on" the plate and the other isn't. Nonsense. When a parent talks about the food "on" the plate, he/she doesn't mean only the single layer of food molecules that are literally touching the plate. In the same way, you can't restrict the column of air to one layer of molecules. As I have said, I don't question the possibility of absolute truth. It is possible that absolute truths exist, though you don't seem to have any examples either. I doubt the truth of anything that has not yet been proven to be absolute. When (and if) you ever give us an example of absolute truth, that will be an example of something I don't doubt. "JRTjr01" is defined as "a member of the EvC forum" whose screen name is JRTjr01". There is no "truth" in that definition. A definition is just a gizmo to attach a word to a concept. It has no inherent truth value. If I send you to the store to buy "an orange fruit" you might bring me a pumpkin or an under-ripe tomato or an orange bell pepper. "Orange is the colour of an orange" doesn't convey any useful information. It requires the additional definition of "an orange".Similarly, defining "true" as "not false" conveys no useful information. It requires a definition of "false" - which you would no doubt give as "not true".

There were elements before there were stars. "Some elements come from stars" is as trivially true as "some dogs are brown".

That's what I'm tryng to get at. If somebody claims that Bigfoot exists I want to know if they mean an ape-like species or a guy with size 29 shoes. Somebody who does think absolute truth exists needs to define it and/or give examples so we know what they mean by it. "Brown dogs are brown" is an absolute truth, I suppose, but it isn't exactly profound. If the only absolute truths are trivial ones, I have no problem with that. Where do you think the stars came from?Edited by ringo, : pelling.