Peanut Gallery

I would avoid using the word 'fact' - it all goes a bit Pete when people start using words like 'fact', 'truth' and 'proof'. I think RAZD is objecting to forming a hypothesis and then looking for evidence since a hypothesis is "a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon" [Wiki].
This requires phenomenon to be first observed.Personally, I think RADZ was picking on a 'slip of the tongue'.
But then I think the whole discussion is based on vague nuances that the written word is not good at communicating.

I agree.
But RADZ is picking up on Bluegenes phrase: "starting with the stated hypothesis.".
RADZ is saying that you should start with evidence and then explain it.However, I am not convinced that how it starts is important.If Newton had dropped his Scrabble game and the letters randomly spelt out:
"every action has an equal and opposite reaction"
which he then went and confirmed by experimentation - I see no reason to criticise the hypothesis or his results.Sure, you could say he wasn't a genius - he was just lucky, but that is not connected to the veracity of his hypothesis.

---

Always remember: Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur

I am failing to see how "an idea that explains observations" is different from "a hypothesis that explains observations".But, IMHO, the whole RADZ/Bluegenes debate seems more like 'arguing the toss' than 'discussion'.If you look at the difficulty that people are having defining 'supernatural', I doubt if an agreement on "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" is anywhere close.I am more on the side of "The word 'supernatural' is a figment of the human imagination". Edited by Panda, : typo

Re-reading the posts (and in particular, the quote) I am thinking that I misunderstood it.
I can still see what I thought was a 'typo', but I am now not so sure that it was.Anyway...it still seems to me that they are dancing around some very minor differences, but have somehow managed to look like they are at polar opposites.

I think it is Mornington Crescent.

Although I was a fan of ISIHAC I never really 'got' Mornington Crescent. And listening to Jeremy Hardy sing was enough to drive a person to drink (and back again)!

So, we observe gravity operating (in a consistant manner) in the past and inductively reason that it will continue to operate (in a consistant manner) in the future.
Sounds reasonable. No, but we can observe that we have only ever seen a superhero in comics and reason that they only exist in comics.
And since comics are the product of human imagination: superheroes are the product of human imagination. Correct. The observation isn't saying anything.
It is the observer that is saying that all swans are white.
That is how how hypotheses are made. Inductive reasoning does follow actual evidence.
We makes observations and inductive reasoning allows us to predict (tentatively) future behaviour/events.
That prediction is called a hypothesis because it is not a fact.
If it was a fact: we would call it a fact. That is called 'falsification'.
'Falsifiability' is considered essential to any worthwhile hypothesis.
Why do you think that hypotheses cannot be shown to be wrong?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

What would that "a lot more to it" be?
How are else are you predicting the future behaviour of gravity if not using its past behaviour? No. My observation was like totally correct.
My observation was correct - my reasoning was sound.
Your link to more information does not retroactively invalidate my observation.Again you seem to think that hypotheses are statements of 'truth' or 'fact'.
I suggest you look up 'falsification' - it will help you understand. I was not being shallow or pedantic.
I'd appreciate it if you put effort into understanding what I'm actually trying to say rather than simply trying to shoehorn faults into my position to disagree with.
Your sentence was a mess:

quote:

---

Just like all the observed swans being white isn't saying that there isn't a black one out there.

---

"All the observed swans being white" is the observation.
"there isn't a black one out there." is the hypothesis.
Observations say nothing about hypotheses - hypotheses talk about observations.
When you learn the correct order of the scientific method it will all become clear. I infer from your repeated use of the word 'actual' (which would normally be superfluous) that you wish to equivocate over the meaning of 'evidence'.
To mitigate this: please describe what you consider to be 'actual evidence' and what you consider to not be 'actual evidence'? Well, your comment regarding your ignorance of falsification is one reason.

You seem more interested in trolling than debating.I'll leave you to it.{abe}
And congratualtions on squeezing so much equivocation into so few words.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I feel forced to point out the blatant maturity behind this post.
How dare you admit your mistake!
I have given your post a score of 5 as a protest against such behaviour.I hope you feel deeply ashamed at your display of strength of character.

Can I ask both yourself and Xongsmith to agree that 'why' and 'how' are interchangeable in common parlance.I think that you both agree that science doesn't answer 'why?' in the 'meaning of life' sense.
But people do often say (e.g.) "I know why my father is ill. He has glandular fever."
(This is correct use in a normal conversation, but inaccurate in a scientific discussion.)When posting in forums it is easy to forget to be completely precise over our words, because in spoken conversations we can take much more for granted and convey extra information using 'physical' means.The fact that Jon is wanting to equivocate over the meaning of 'why' should be enough of a clue for you both to realise that you are having a fruitless arguement (especially when it was just an honest mistake to start with).I hope this doesn't sound patronising, as it is not meant to be.
I would just like your discussion to continue as it was, without taking what is IMHO a 'wrong turn' in the debate.

I view the question "What is the meaning of life?" much the same as I view the question "Does god exist?" - as an ignostic.
You might define your life as "The time between birth and death" but that seems to be too impirical to allow the question "What does it mean?" to have any possible answer.
(Much like Dawkins example of "What colour is jealousy?".)

I have proved that Dawn guesses what people write.
This means that intelligent discourse is pointless and education is unlikely.

Shhh....Let's see how DB replies to it.

If you place it so that it can't be avoided, then DB will reply to it - as if it is not nonsense.DB: Why do you think that Jesus said that?
A: Because he is the son of God. All he says is when goodness backs with The Bible, there cannot be doubt. Soon all messages give salvation under the wings of God and to the left and right. Forgiveness is not when there is. Maybe because the chosen itself.I think he finds evangelical words to be comforting - even if they are in a random order.
Use them and he'll reply in a friendly manner.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.