Why Darwinism isn't true.
-
Your Truth and my Truth is different . YES or NO ?
Yes
If u were to tell me take a part of Hyundai in my Maserati engine, is it going to work ? YES or NO ?
If I try to fit my Maserati engine part into your Hyndai, is it going to work ? YES or NO ? Vice Versa
No.
So its obvious we cannot apply each other's definitions into each other's beliefs. I accept yours, and I understand. Thats it. Simple. But u dont want my understanding. U want my compliance.
U want me to fit your Hyundai engine part into my Maserati engine.
-
U wanna continue continue la. I have replied to your points. U wanna cut and paste, I can do it too
Like i said, Theory starts with a postulation. Thats why Gravity as Truth, is explained BY the Theory OF Gravity. I gues u REALLY are too stupid to understand.
Stupid ? Gravity is still a THEORY. U said u do not believe in evolution is because it is a theory. Now gravity is a theory and u simply believed it to be the truth. Double standard again ? U said THEORY OF GRAVITY, RIGHT ? U said then science cannot tell between truth and false right ? Theory of gravity is science domain right ? Then u said science is never about truth. SO how come gravity is truth now ? Aren;t u contradicting yourself ?
O.K. fine.U can accept it as a crate of good apples, but I DONT call it a crate of good apples. See. Simple. Am I there to comply to YOUR definition ? NO.
Then good. I wonder why u ever bring out tis stupid topic in the first place
So he isnt human ?If u say he is not, I may be inclide to accept that , he makes NO mistakes. But the problem is he i still human. Means he still make mistakes. Unless U dont make mistakes? And u are not human ? U tell me.
U see u make rubbish statements again. Let me show u
1) U claim an organisation/people/field makes mistake
2) Then u ask, if they make mistakes, how could they be truth
3) U r assuming they make mistakes for EVERYTHING. If they can do right things, why couldn't they be truth ?
4) Fact is they don't always make mistakes. They can do right things. Thus u cannot conclude they r never about truth
I am human, and so ? U r human too
TO me its an error. Because Maths allowed it to happened. And there are plenty other errors. This is but one of it. Sorry, its not doing its job properly.
The error is u mis-interpreting it. Sorry but tis is the technical term for your mistake. It's called fallacy. It is always true and interprete truth and facts well.Tat is why u r incapable to explaining the meaning of division by zero
Replaceable ? It tastes different. Its two different dish. U are the one telling me i said its irreplaceable. U were just asking me a question, and i was just answering your question. What does that have to do with my engine ?
It may taste different, but u yourself said yes it is acceptable. Your analogy about engine say different brand could not be substituted. Howver there r many things tat could be substituted such as brands of evaporated milk etc. So wat does it show ? Your example of engine is really pointless
U dont have to believe me. I dont have to believe you too.
This can go on. Its just that you are forcing me to accept your definition in my belief
Well, I am just pointing to u basic english. U said truth as "actual existence" and it doesn't make u escape from the earlier question. Unless u wanna say u don't mean wat u say and thus a lier ?
What questions ? I anwered them all. I am being nice calling it a misunderstanding. Unelss u want me to call u stupid again ? Which I will be more then happy to.
Sure no problem. Two can play tis game
1+1 is true. But not the truth.
So is the WHY and HOW truth ?
Then it comes to tis question which u refuse to comment
If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
It is a simple logic. Do u understand logic ? I am afraid not because u claimed 0/0 is logically zero
The How and Why is Truth is up to you. The point is do we both agree that its about the How and Why only? Thats it. U can believe that it is Truth, i dont care. All i am saying is , its about the How and Why thats all.
U don't care lor. So I said u r delusional, thinking answers to simple questions like why apples fall to the ground is not truth, or how rain comes about is not truth to u. I can't stop u from trying to be stupid right ?
Why do i have to follow the dictionary ? Intellectuals , scholars, philosophers dont follow the dictionary, why should I ?
Sorry to say but they generally have the same definition of truth, which is something true. And they can express their truth in words, u can't because u r grammatically challenged
Its about the How and Why , it along the way they discover Truth, BRAVO. Nothing wrong with science being created by human. I got no problem . All i am highlighting is that human makes mistakes. Thats all. And science is by humans.
Then u can refer to the above
-
1) U claimed : 1+1 =2 is not truth. And based on wat ? U say 1 egg + 1 sperm = 1 fertilised egg. And thus u claimed 1+1 not equal to 2.
My Ans: Truth has to work within a certain scope. For 1+1=2, both must be the same context. (1 apple + 1 apple =2 apples, 1 apple + 1 orange = 1 apple + 1 orange, not 2 apples or 2 oranges). If u do not obey its scope, u r not using the equation right and talking cock.
When I asked u wat to state the question which u wana ask for the above equation, u refuse to provide it. Why u refuse to provide a simple question for your ridiculous example ?
2) U claimed: U did not say Gravity is not truth
My Ans:
a) U say gravity is a theory.
15 Jan 1108pm, U specifically said gravity is a theory
How long did it take them just to explain the theory of gravity.
and obviously, "theory of gravity"="theory of gravity", not "theory of the watever sh!t u can add in gravity" And obviously it is easily understood as "theory of gravity" which
b) U claimed theory can be false thus it is not truth.
16 Jan 216am,
They are theories and theories can be right and can be proven wrong like newtonian laws that only works on earth. U dont call it the FACT of Gravity..U never hear Scientists call theory.. the truth right ?
c) So in other words, u said gravity is not truth to u.
There r other ways to say tis. Gravity is a theory, U said theory r not truth. Gravity in in the domain of science. Since science to u is never about truth, then gravity is not truth.
3) U claimed: truth has no scope and can works for all circumstances
My ans: When I ask u whether gravity can pull aspiration and etc, u admit tat truth has a scope. All truth has a limit on where it works.
4) U claimed: U said "its NOT about the How and Why.. but the SEARCH for TRUTH. Are we both finally in agreement that its about the How and Why then. And not about the Truth ?"
My ans: If u read wat I wrote, i said the WHY and HOW r truth. U said how and why, are NOT truth. Gravity is a scientific issue. It is the answer WHY things fall to the ground. Then is gravity truth to u ? I asked u the following, why refuse to answer ?
5) on this statement didnt u pretty much say Science Is Truth. And then u say science can be wrong, so isnt wrong, not true, hence not true = not truth. Because u derive True = Truth from the dictionary.
My ans: Science can be wrong, but it is mostly right. Since it is right, it is about the truth. However in your narrow definition, if science is ever wrong, it will never ever be right or truth ever again. Theologist r wrong as well. How come u still treat it as truth then ? Which profession is never wrong before ?
6) U claimed: 0/0 logically should be zero. U claimed tat u can substitute values into undefined equation and treat it like a variable. U claimed tat 1=2 in the article shows there is a problem with maths.U claim the graph never touches 0 so it is not zero. U claim I had define the value of 0/0 when I said it could be any value from 0 to infinity
My Ans: 0/0 has no logical meaning. Divide by zero is meaningless. U cannot differentiate between variable and undefined values. U paste a portion of the article showing tat only idiots will conclude 1=2 and u did tat. U fail to read my explanation tat the 0 in the graph has values from - infinity to + infinity. U provide an example of mathematics fallacy which really just means a misrepresentation of maths
7) U claimed: The dictionary definition of truth is wrong. And tis is because science has been wrong before
My Ans: Your only definition of truth is from the dictionary. The dictionary said tat science is a body of truth. But u refuse to accept tat explanation. Science has been wrong but it doesn't means it can never be right or truth. U also said u wrote wrongly before on true and false. So u can never write the right things again ?
8) U claimed: Wat is true may not be the truth
My ans: If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
It is a simple logic. Do u understand logic ? Why refuse to comment on the above ?
9) U claimed: There r many other definitions of science
My ans: All mainstream organisations treat science as truth or knowledge of facts.And no matter who u quote, it is meaningless because u r not the person.
10) U claimed: Tat since science is wrong before, then it cannot be a "body of truth"
My ans: Science may be wrong before but when it detects a wrong, it instantly correct itself and reflect the truth. So it is still a body of truth. Similar to "student body" (the use of body is the same as science and its body of truth), its members will cease to be students one day. However the definition of "student body" is still intact because those who r no longer students just leave the student body and thus it is still grammatically correct.
If a small part of science is proven wrong, it just meant tat small part is wrong. However u r prejudiced and practise stereotype and thus claim the whole organisation is wrong because a small part is wrong. In tat case, politicians, policemen, philosophers , theologistsand in fact the whole world's organisation had commit a wrong before and thus should be wrong to u too.
If a scientific hypothesis is proven wrong, does it means all the established laws and theories from einstein etc r wrong ?
11) U claimed: It is my version of truth, not yours
My ans: When asked u to define truth, the only thing u came out is "actual existence". However u add in "must work under all situation", "perfect", "all truth cannot be viewed collectively for better understanding" etc. U just keep adding things u like into it. Wat does it show ? No integrity, lier, fickle minded and absurbness.
Even the philosophers etc can narrow their definition but u can't because u r grammaticaly incapable.
-
Your Truth and my Truth is different . YES or NO ?
Yes (and so ?)
Is your "truth"and "science" vastly different from the views of the common english speaking people ?
If u were to tell me take a part of Hyundai in my Maserati engine, is it going to work ? YES or NO ?
If I try to fit my Maserati engine part into your Hyndai, is it going to work ? YES or NO ? Vice Versa
No.
If you were to use HL milk and replace with Daisy milk for your coffee, is it going to work ? If u were to use kway teow and replace with mee pok, can most people accept the change ?
YES, but wont be the same. Taste different thats all.
YES , I have no problem accepting, I dont know about other people, but it will definitely not be the same dish.
So your analogy is pretty stupid. There is no link between words and car engines. I can see the whole world applying the same word meaning from the dictionary with no problem
So its obvious we cannot apply each other's definitions into each other's beliefs. I accept yours, and I understand. Thats it. Simple. But u dont want my understanding. U want my compliance.
U want me to fit your Hyundai engine part into my Maserati engine.
I do not want your compliance. I just want u to admit tat your understanding of science and tat it is never about truth is wrong. To me tat is basically one of the most rubbish statement ever
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
U wanna continue continue la. I have replied to your points. U wanna cut and paste, I can do it too
Stupid ? Gravity is still a THEORY. U said u do not believe in evolution is because it is a theory. Now gravity is a theory and u simply believed it to be the truth. Double standard again ? U said THEORY OF GRAVITY, RIGHT ? U said then science cannot tell between truth and false right ? Theory of gravity is science domain right ? Then u said science is never about truth. SO how come gravity is truth now ? Aren;t u contradicting yourself ?
Then good. I wonder why u ever bring out tis stupid topic in the first place
U see u make rubbish statements again. Let me show u
1) U claim an organisation/people/field makes mistake
2) Then u ask, if they make mistakes, how could they be truth
3) U r assuming they make mistakes for EVERYTHING. If they can do right things, why couldn't they be truth ?
4) Fact is they don't always make mistakes. They can do right things. Thus u cannot conclude they r never about truth
I am human, and so ? U r human too
The error is u mis-interpreting it. Sorry but tis is the technical term for your mistake. It's called fallacy. It is always true and interprete truth and facts well.Tat is why u r incapable to explaining the meaning of division by zero
It may taste different, but u yourself said yes it is acceptable. Your analogy about engine say different brand could not be substituted. Howver there r many things tat could be substituted such as brands of evaporated milk etc. So wat does it show ? Your example of engine is really pointless
Well, I am just pointing to u basic english. U said truth as "actual existence" and it doesn't make u escape from the earlier question. Unless u wanna say u don't mean wat u say and thus a lier ?
Sure no problem. Two can play tis game
Then it comes to tis question which u refuse to comment
If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
It is a simple logic. Do u understand logic ? I am afraid not because u claimed 0/0 is logically zero
U don't care lor. So I said u r delusional, thinking answers to simple questions like why apples fall to the ground is not truth, or how rain comes about is not truth to u. I can't stop u from trying to be stupid right ?
Sorry to say but they generally have the same definition of truth, which is something true. And they can express their truth in words, u can't because u r grammatically challenged
Then u can refer to the above
What cut and paste. Because u ask the same
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
1) U claimed : 1+1 =2 is not truth. And based on wat ? U say 1 egg + 1 sperm = 1 fertilised egg. And thus u claimed 1+1 not equal to 2.
My Ans: Truth has to work within a certain scope. For 1+1=2, both must be the same context. (1 apple + 1 apple =2 apples, 1 apple + 1 orange = 1 apple + 1 orange, not 2 apples or 2 oranges). If u do not obey its scope, u r not using the equation right and talking cock.
When I asked u wat to state the question which u wana ask for the above equation, u refuse to provide it. Why u refuse to provide a simple question for your ridiculous example ?
2) U claimed: U did not say Gravity is not truth
My Ans:
a) U say gravity is a theory.
15 Jan 1108pm, U specifically said gravity is a theory
How long did it take them just to explain the theory of gravity.
and obviously, "theory of gravity"="theory of gravity", not "theory of the watever sh!t u can add in gravity" And obviously it is easily understood as "theory of gravity" which
b) U claimed theory can be false thus it is not truth.
16 Jan 216am,
They are theories and theories can be right and can be proven wrong like newtonian laws that only works on earth. U dont call it the FACT of Gravity..U never hear Scientists call theory.. the truth right ?
c) So in other words, u said gravity is not truth to u.
There r other ways to say tis. Gravity is a theory, U said theory r not truth. Gravity in in the domain of science. Since science to u is never about truth, then gravity is not truth.
3) U claimed: truth has no scope and can works for all circumstances
My ans: When I ask u whether gravity can pull aspiration and etc, u admit tat truth has a scope. All truth has a limit on where it works.
4) U claimed: U said "its NOT about the How and Why.. but the SEARCH for TRUTH. Are we both finally in agreement that its about the How and Why then. And not about the Truth ?"
My ans: If u read wat I wrote, i said the WHY and HOW r truth. U said how and why, are NOT truth. Gravity is a scientific issue. It is the answer WHY things fall to the ground. Then is gravity truth to u ? I asked u the following, why refuse to answer ?
5) on this statement didnt u pretty much say Science Is Truth. And then u say science can be wrong, so isnt wrong, not true, hence not true = not truth. Because u derive True = Truth from the dictionary.
My ans: Science can be wrong, but it is mostly right. Since it is right, it is about the truth. However in your narrow definition, if science is ever wrong, it will never ever be right or truth ever again. Theologist r wrong as well. How come u still treat it as truth then ? Which profession is never wrong before ?
6) U claimed: 0/0 logically should be zero. U claimed tat u can substitute values into undefined equation and treat it like a variable. U claimed tat 1=2 in the article shows there is a problem with maths.U claim the graph never touches 0 so it is not zero. U claim I had define the value of 0/0 when I said it could be any value from 0 to infinity
My Ans: 0/0 has no logical meaning. Divide by zero is meaningless. U cannot differentiate between variable and undefined values. U paste a portion of the article showing tat only idiots will conclude 1=2 and u did tat. U fail to read my explanation tat the 0 in the graph has values from - infinity to + infinity. U provide an example of mathematics fallacy which really just means a misrepresentation of maths
7) U claimed: The dictionary definition of truth is wrong. And tis is because science has been wrong before
My Ans: Your only definition of truth is from the dictionary. The dictionary said tat science is a body of truth. But u refuse to accept tat explanation. Science has been wrong but it doesn't means it can never be right or truth. U also said u wrote wrongly before on true and false. So u can never write the right things again ?
8) U claimed: Wat is true may not be the truth
My ans: If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
It is a simple logic. Do u understand logic ? Why refuse to comment on the above ?
9) U claimed: There r many other definitions of science
My ans: All mainstream organisations treat science as truth or knowledge of facts.And no matter who u quote, it is meaningless because u r not the person.
10) U claimed: Tat since science is wrong before, then it cannot be a "body of truth"
My ans: Science may be wrong before but when it detects a wrong, it instantly correct itself and reflect the truth. So it is still a body of truth. Similar to "student body" (the use of body is the same as science and its body of truth), its members will cease to be students one day. However the definition of "student body" is still intact because those who r no longer students just leave the student body and thus it is still grammatically correct.
If a small part of science is proven wrong, it just meant tat small part is wrong. However u r prejudiced and practise stereotype and thus claim the whole organisation is wrong because a small part is wrong. In tat case, politicians, policemen, philosophers , theologistsand in fact the whole world's organisation had commit a wrong before and thus should be wrong to u too.
If a scientific hypothesis is proven wrong, does it means all the established laws and theories from einstein etc r wrong ?
11) U claimed: It is my version of truth, not yours
My ans: When asked u to define truth, the only thing u came out is "actual existence". However u add in "must work under all situation", "perfect", "all truth cannot be viewed collectively for better understanding" etc. U just keep adding things u like into it. Wat does it show ? No integrity, lier, fickle minded and absurbness.
Even the philosophers etc can narrow their definition but u can't because u r grammaticaly incapable.
1) U claimed : 1+1 =2 is not truth. And based on wat ? U say 1 egg + 1 sperm = 1 fertilised egg. And thus u claimed 1+1 not equal to 2.
My Ans: Truth has to work within a certain scope. For 1+1=2, both must be the same context. (1 apple + 1 apple =2 apples, 1 apple + 1 orange = 1 apple + 1 orange, not 2 apples or 2 oranges). If u do not obey its scope, u r not using the equation right and talking cock. When I asked u wat to state the question which u wana ask for the above equation, u refuse to provide it.
(I guess we both agree. No problem there) That was the whole point I was telling in the beginning. 1 + 1 = 2 is true... but not really the TRUTH! (17 Jan 9.58pm)
Because it depends on circumstances. Thats my whole point. Hope u have finally understand in my context by now.
See, its not very hard right. We are actually both on the same page. We are already on agreement on this issue.
2) U claimed: U did not say Gravity is not truth
My Ans:
a) U say gravity is a theory.
15 Jan 1108pm, U specifically said gravity is a theory
How long did it take them just to explain the theory of gravity.
and obviously, "theory of gravity"="theory of gravity", not "theory of the watever sh!t u can add in gravity" And obviously it is easily understood as "theory of gravity" which
b) U claimed theory can be false thus it is not truth.
16 Jan 216am,
They are theories and theories can be right and can be proven wrong like newtonian laws that only works on earth. U dont call it the FACT of Gravity..U never hear Scientists call theory.. the truth right ?
c) So in other words, u said gravity is not truth to u
Didn't u say "if it is a theory, it cannot be the truth " ? So how come tis is true now ?
(How long did it take them just to explain the theory of gravity. 15 Jan 11.08pm)
(Hence its TRUE that gravity exist. Like i said again n again... it is Science's explaination of WHY Gravity works. The Truth is Gravity Exists. 16 Jan 11.55am)
(Even before man has walked the earth, gravity has existed(Truth). Man has taken advantage of the phenomenon of gravity, but that time it wasnt called gravity yes ? Science called it gravity. 17 Jan 5.52pm)
(Oh.. and i never said Gravity is not the truth. I explicitly said Gravity is the truth. 17 Jan 11.49pm)
(Gravity exists and is the truth before man even discover it , whether science can even quantify it or not YES ? NO ? 18 Jan 9.46pm)
(The existence of gravity is a truth, it is in actual existence too. 19 Jan 12.36pm)
(Like i said, GRAVITY EXISTED, SCIENCE DESCRIBES THE PHENOMENAN AS GRAVITY. 19 Jan 11.44pm)
(The gravity example is the most simple, Gravity exists, its a truth, u dont NEED science to state it, Science came up with the name Gravity . 23 Jan 12.11pm)
(Because the Truth, like Gravity, is in Actual Reality. 23 Jan 12:58pm)
(I did not question the existence of gravity. Again, you put things in my mouth. 24 Jan 2.51pm)
(Now, simply, refer to my examples regarding Gravity and Rain and all the stuff and see if u can GRASP the meaning of my truth. 24 Jan 7.28pm)
(Even when science didnt discover it, the truth is already there. Hence the Gravity example. Actual Existence. True statement = Acceleration . 24 Jan 7.28pm)
(MISTAKE, i NEVER SAID GRAVITY IS NOT TRUTH. Again, that makes ur statement null and void. Gravity IS a TRUTH. Are u guys dumb ? Pls.. READ. Here , here ,here , here , here , here , here , here , here . 26 Jan 10,40pm)
(If it IS theory , it is NOT truth. Because Gravity is Truth, it has existed long before man defined it as Gravity. Theory is only True so far and on this planet. Simple. 30 Jan 11.21am)
(Again, regarding the Theory of Gravity, whats wrong with them taking a long time to explain the theory of gravity ? Gravity is a truth already. It just took them ages to postulate a theory to explain it. 31 Jan 12.26am)
(As u can clearly see, the word Theory is in reference to the subject Gravity. As u notice the word “of” . 2 Feb 1.02am)
- I dont know about you, but I clearly stated from the beginning Since 15 Jan to current Gravity is Truth). But if you think I did not , then I guess even hard evidence is pointless and no point talking to you on this matter anymore. Because u are being willfully ignorant of the fact.
-Its obvious, Theory the How and Why , explains the subject matter and that is Gravity.
3) U claimed: truth has no scope and can works for all circumstances
My ans: When I ask u whether gravity can pull aspiration and etc, u admit tat truth has a scope. All truth has a limit on where it works.
Your Truth and my Truth is different . YES or NO ?
Yes
Are we dealing with your definition of the truth ? Or mine ?
U DID NO ANSWER MY QUESTION TOO REGARDING CRATE OF GOOD APPLES )(I can equally say u are talking rubbish, when its clear u know what i mean)(ACTUAL REALITY
4) U claimed: U said "its NOT about the How and Why.. but the SEARCH for TRUTH. Are we both finally in agreement that its about the How and Why then. And not about the Truth ?"
My ans: If u read wat I wrote, i said the WHY and HOW r truth. U said how and why, are NOT truth. Gravity is a scientific issue. It is the answer WHY things fall to the ground. Then is gravity truth to u ?
(How long did it take them just to explain the theory of gravity. 15 Jan 11.08pm)
(Hence its TRUE that gravity exist. Like i said again n again... it is Science's explaination of WHY Gravity works. The Truth is Gravity Exists. 16 Jan 11.55am)
(Even before man has walked the earth, gravity has existed(Truth). Man has taken advantage of the phenomenon of gravity, but that time it wasnt called gravity yes ? Science called it gravity. 17 Jan 5.52pm)
(Oh.. and i never said Gravity is not the truth. I explicitly said Gravity is the truth. 17 Jan 11.49pm)
(Gravity exists and is the truth before man even discover it , whether science can even quantify it or not YES ? NO ? 18 Jan 9.46pm)
(The existence of gravity is a truth, it is in actual existence too. 19 Jan 12.36pm)
(Like i said, GRAVITY EXISTED, SCIENCE DESCRIBES THE PHENOMENAN AS GRAVITY. 19 Jan 11.44pm)
(The gravity example is the most simple, Gravity exists, its a truth, u dont NEED science to state it, Science came up with the name Gravity . 23 Jan 12.11pm)
(Because the Truth, like Gravity, is in Actual Reality. 23 Jan 12:58pm)
(I did not question the existence of gravity. Again, you put things in my mouth. 24 Jan 2.51pm)
(Now, simply, refer to my examples regarding Gravity and Rain and all the stuff and see if u can GRASP the meaning of my truth. 24 Jan 7.28pm)
(Even when science didnt discover it, the truth is already there. Hence the Gravity example. Actual Existence. True statement = Acceleration . 24 Jan 7.28pm)
(MISTAKE, i NEVER SAID GRAVITY IS NOT TRUTH. Again, that makes ur statement null and void. Gravity IS a TRUTH. Are u guys dumb ? Pls.. READ. Here , here ,here , here , here , here , here , here , here . 26 Jan 10,40pm)
(If it IS theory , it is NOT truth. Because Gravity is Truth, it has existed long before man defined it as Gravity. Theory is only True so far and on this planet. Simple. 30 Jan 11.21am)
(Again, regarding the Theory of Gravity, whats wrong with them taking a long time to explain the theory of gravity ? Gravity is a truth already. It just took them ages to postulate a theory to explain it. 31 Jan 12.26am)
(As u can clearly see, the word Theory is in reference to the subject Gravity. As u notice the word “of” . 2 Feb 1.02am)
U tell me did i say Gravity is Truth.
5) on this statement didnt u pretty much say Science Is Truth. And then u say science can be wrong, so isnt wrong, not true, hence not true = not truth. Because u derive True = Truth from the dictionary.
My ans: Science can be wrong, but it is mostly right. Since it is right, it is about the truth. However in your narrow definition, if science is ever wrong, it will never ever be right or truth ever again. Theologist r wrong as well. How come u still treat it as truth then ? Which profession is never wrong before ?
U ARE UNDER YOUR IMPRESSION. ITS YOUR WORDS. EVEN WHEN I SAID THATS NOW WHAT I MEAN, U ASSUME EVEN WITH EXPLAINATIONS. YOUR INTERPRETATION. ARE U ME ? YES OR NO ?
6) U claimed: 0/0 logically should be zero. U claimed tat u can substitute values into undefined equation and treat it like a variable. U claimed tat 1=2 in the article shows there is a problem with maths.U claim the graph never touches 0 so it is not zero. U claim I had define the value of 0/0 when I said it could be any value from 0 to infinity
My Ans: 0/0 has no logical meaning. Divide by zero is meaningless. U cannot differentiate between variable and undefined values. U paste a portion of the article showing tat only idiots will conclude 1=2 and u did tat. U fail to read my explanation tat the 0 in the graph has values from - infinity to + infinity. U provide an example of mathematics fallacy which really just means a misrepresentation of maths
Does the graph ever reaches 0 ? YES or NO
No
U said (I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter. 23rd Jan 1.03pm )
I SAID:
&
(0 which is NOTHING divides by 0 NOTHING logically = Nothing. But MATHS cant say its 0. Why ? 23 Jan 11.58pm)
&
(Asumming 0/0 technically u allow it to exist, 0x1 = 0 , 0x2 =0 . The following must be true. 0x1 = 0x2 = 0 Right ? If the following is true, Dividing by 0 gives 0/0 x 1 = 0/0 x 2 . So simplify, you have 1 = 2 . The fallacy is the implicit assumption that dividing by 0 is a legitimate operation. 24 Jan 7.28pm)
Isnt it obvious that it is NOT a legitimate operation ?
THEN EXPLAIN TO ME WHY U PUT ZERO TO INFINITY ? UNLESS U ADMIT U MADE A MISTAKE. U ARE HUMAN. ITS O.K TO MAKE MISTAKES. THATS MY WHOLE POINT. I MAKE MISTAKE, U MAKE MISTAKE, SCIENCE MAKE MISTAKE, MATHS MAKE MISTAKE, ABSOLUTE REALITY DOESNT, BECAUSE IT IS WHAT IT IS.
7) U claimed: The dictionary definition of truth is wrong. And tis is because science has been wrong before
My Ans: Your only definition of truth is from the dictionary. The dictionary said tat science is a body of truth. But u refuse to accept tat explanation. Science has been wrong but it doesn't means it can never be right or truth. U also said u wrote wrongly before on true and false. So u can never write the right things again ?
TO ME. THAT STATEMENT IS ALREADY WRONG. IF IT SAYS SOME BODY OF TRUTHS or MOSTLY BODY OF TRUTHS, I CAN ACCEPT. REMEMBER, THIS IS TRUTH, UNDER YOUR DEFINITION.
8) U claimed: Wat is true may not be the truth
My ans: If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
It is a simple logic. Do u understand logic ?
RECONCILE YOUR OWN BODY OF TRUTHS FIRST.
9) U claimed: There r many other definitions of science
My ans: All mainstream organisations treat science as truth or knowledge of facts. And u just misquote Richard Feynman
Are you Richard Feynman ? YES or NO
No. Let me ask u back
Are you Richard Feynman ? YES or NO
U r the one who quotes him first
No
I guess we are both in agreement again.
Thats why I believe my statement to be true, but not the truth, because only Richard Feynman is the ultimate judge to whether our statements are the truth to his definition or not.
10) U claimed: Tat since science is wrong before, then it cannot be a "body of truth"
My ans: Science may be wrong before but when it detects a wrong, it instantly correct itself and reflect the truth. So it is still a body of truth. Similar to "student body" (the use of body is the same as science and its body of truth), its members will cease to be students one day. However the definition of "student body" is still intact because those who r no longer students just leave the student body and thus it is still grammatically correct.
If a small part of science is proven wrong, it just meant tat small part is wrong. However u r prejudiced and practise stereotype and thus claim the whole organisation is wrong because a small part is wrong. In tat case, politicians, policemen, philosophers , theologistsand in fact the whole world's organisation had commit a wrong before and thus should be wrong to u too.
If a scientific hypothesis is proven wrong, does it means all the established laws and theories from einstein etc r wrong ?
MY ANALOGY . CRATE OF APPLES.
DID I SAY EVERYTHING IS WRONG ? ALL I SAID IS THEY CAN BE WRONG LATER WITH NEW INFORMATION COMING UP. THATS WHY, I CANNOT ACCEPT BODY OF TRUTHS, BECAUSE SCIENCE IS CREATED BY HUMANS.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Your Truth and my Truth is different . YES or NO ?
Yes (and so ?)
Is your "truth"and "science" vastly different from the views of the common english speaking people ?
No.
If you were to use HL milk and replace with Daisy milk for your coffee, is it going to work ? If u were to use kway teow and replace with mee pok, can most people accept the change ?
YES, but wont be the same. Taste different thats all.
YES , I have no problem accepting, I dont know about other people, but it will definitely not be the same dish.
So your analogy is pretty stupid. There is no link between words and car engines. I can see the whole world applying the same word meaning from the dictionary with no problem
So its obvious we cannot apply each other's definitions into each other's beliefs. I accept yours, and I understand. Thats it. Simple. But u dont want my understanding. U want my compliance.
U want me to fit your Hyundai engine part into my Maserati engine.
I do not want your compliance. I just want u to admit tat your understanding of science and tat it is never about truth is wrong. To me tat is basically one of the most rubbish statement ever
I cut and paste because u ask the same questions without understanding my pov.
So once again, YOUR analogy is the best , but mine is not and is not applicable ? *bravo.. BRAOVO*
I do not want your compliance. I just want u to admit tat your understanding of science and tat it is never about truth is wrong. To me tat is basically one of the most rubbish statement ever
Its obvious that my belief in the meaning of True and Truth is different. I seperate what is True .. and THE TRUTH. All i said was Science is not truth. Thats all. It can be true, but not necessarily the Truth. I am more then willing to understanding your point of view. I said i can see why u think the way u do. I have no problem with that. So how come u never admit your fault and misunderstandings ? Seems to me like u think u are Mr Perfect, faultless and god-like and all-knowing. Because u are not, its really hard for me to discard my own beliefs and adopt yours. If u admit ur mistakes and misunderstanding, I am more then willing to be inclined to lean towards your understanding.
I can't stop u from trying to be stupid right ?
And i cant stop u from being stupid either. I guess we are both in agreement on this statement.
-
U believe Science = Body of Truths
U equate True = Truth
U believe crate of good apples can consist of rotten apples and u still deem it a crate of good apples, while i cannot accept it as a crate of good apples when there are rotten apples inside, hence a crate of mostly good apples is the most i can compromise on.
I get it. What else u want me to say ?
I believe Science = How and Why. To unravel the mysteries of the universe. Whether they find the truth or are truths or not doesnt matter to me because the Truth is already out there.
I differentiate between what is true and what is THE TRUTH. Thats all.
I equate True = True
Truth = Truth
Thats why I believe what is true , may not be the truth.
U believe 0/0 = Anything = 0 to infinity = Undefined
I believe 0/0 =Illegitimate operation = Undefined
U believe that X on one side can be anything , and X on the other side can be another thing too under the same equation. U want to follow your own verion of algebra , its up to you.
I believe that X on one side must be the same as the other X on the other side under the same equation hence X=X
Thats all. U can believe in what u want , I can believe in what i want. We have differences thats all. I am fully capable of understanding your POV.
-
1) U claimed : 1+1 =2 is not truth. And based on wat ? U say 1 egg + 1 sperm = 1 fertilised egg. And thus u claimed 1+1 not equal to 2.
My Ans: Truth has to work within a certain scope. For 1+1=2, both must be the same context. (1 apple + 1 apple =2 apples, 1 apple + 1 orange = 1 apple + 1 orange, not 2 apples or 2 oranges). If u do not obey its scope, u r not using the equation right and talking cock.
When I asked u wat to state the question which u wana ask for the above equation, u refuse to provide it. Why u refuse to provide a simple question for your ridiculous example ?
2) U claimed: U did not say Gravity is not truth
My Ans:
a) U say gravity is a theory.
15 Jan 1108pm, U specifically said gravity is a theory
How long did it take them just to explain the theory of gravity.
and obviously, "theory of gravity"="theory of gravity", not "theory of the watever sh!t u can add in gravity" And obviously it is easily understood as "theory of gravity" which
b) U claimed theory can be false thus it is not truth.
16 Jan 216am,
They are theories and theories can be right and can be proven wrong like newtonian laws that only works on earth. U dont call it the FACT of Gravity..U never hear Scientists call theory.. the truth right ?
c) So in other words, u said gravity is not truth to u.
There r other ways to say tis. Gravity is a theory, U said theory r not truth. Gravity in in the domain of science. Since science to u is never about truth, then gravity is not truth.
3) U claimed: truth has no scope and can works for all circumstances
My ans: When I ask u whether gravity can pull aspiration and etc, u admit tat truth has a scope. All truth has a limit on where it works.
4) U claimed: U said "its NOT about the How and Why.. but the SEARCH for TRUTH. Are we both finally in agreement that its about the How and Why then. And not about the Truth ?"
My ans: If u read wat I wrote, i said the WHY and HOW r truth. U said how and why, are NOT truth. Gravity is a scientific issue. It is the answer WHY things fall to the ground. Then is gravity truth to u ? I asked u the following, why refuse to answer ?
5) on this statement didnt u pretty much say Science Is Truth. And then u say science can be wrong, so isnt wrong, not true, hence not true = not truth. Because u derive True = Truth from the dictionary.
My ans: Science can be wrong, but it is mostly right. Since it is right, it is about the truth. However in your narrow definition, if science is ever wrong, it will never ever be right or truth ever again. Theologist r wrong as well. How come u still treat it as truth then ? Which profession is never wrong before ?
6) U claimed: 0/0 logically should be zero. U claimed tat u can substitute values into undefined equation and treat it like a variable. U claimed tat 1=2 in the article shows there is a problem with maths.U claim the graph never touches 0 so it is not zero. U claim I had define the value of 0/0 when I said it could be any value from 0 to infinity
My Ans: 0/0 has no logical meaning. Divide by zero is meaningless. U cannot differentiate between variable and undefined values. U paste a portion of the article showing tat only idiots will conclude 1=2 and u did tat. U fail to read my explanation tat the 0 in the graph has values from - infinity to + infinity. U provide an example of mathematics fallacy which really just means a misrepresentation of maths
7) U claimed: The dictionary definition of truth is wrong. And tis is because science has been wrong before
My Ans: Your only definition of truth is from the dictionary. The dictionary said tat science is a body of truth. But u refuse to accept tat explanation. Science has been wrong but it doesn't means it can never be right or truth. U also said u wrote wrongly before on true and false. So u can never write the right things again ?
8) U claimed: Wat is true may not be the truth
My ans: If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
It is a simple logic. Do u understand logic ? Why refuse to comment on the above ?
9) U claimed: There r many other definitions of science
My ans: All mainstream organisations treat science as truth or knowledge of facts.And no matter who u quote, it is meaningless because u r not the person.
10) U claimed: Tat since science is wrong before, then it cannot be a "body of truth"
My ans: Science may be wrong before but when it detects a wrong, it instantly correct itself and reflect the truth. So it is still a body of truth. Similar to "student body" (the use of body is the same as science and its body of truth), its members will cease to be students one day. However the definition of "student body" is still intact because those who r no longer students just leave the student body and thus it is still grammatically correct.
If a small part of science is proven wrong, it just meant tat small part is wrong. However u r prejudiced and practise stereotype and thus claim the whole organisation is wrong because a small part is wrong. In tat case, politicians, policemen, philosophers , theologistsand in fact the whole world's organisation had commit a wrong before and thus should be wrong to u too.
If a scientific hypothesis is proven wrong, does it means all the established laws and theories from einstein etc r wrong ?
11) U claimed: It is my version of truth, not yours
My ans: When asked u to define truth, the only thing u came out is "actual existence". However u add in "must work under all situation", "perfect", "all truth cannot be viewed collectively for better understanding" etc. U just keep adding things u like into it. Wat does it show ? No integrity, lier, fickle minded and absurbness.
Even the philosophers etc can narrow their definition but u can't because u r grammaticaly incapable.
-
U choose to keep cutting and pasting, then I do the same thing lor. And it is not the same
U believe Science = Body of Truths
U equate True = Truth
U believe crate of good apples can consist of rotten apples and u still deem it a crate of good apples, while i cannot accept it as a crate of good apples when there are rotten apples inside, hence a crate of mostly good apples is the most i can compromise on.
I get it. What else u want me to say ?
I believe Science = How and Why. To unravel the mysteries of the universe. Whether they find the truth or are truths or not doesnt matter to me because the Truth is already out there.
I differentiate between what is true and what is THE TRUTH. Thats all.
I equate True = True
Truth = Truth
Thats why I believe what is true , may not be the truth.
U believe 0/0 = Anything = 0 to infinity = Undefined
I believe 0/0 =Illegitimate operation = Undefined
U believe that X on one side can be anything , and X on the other side can be another thing too under the same equation. U want to follow your own verion of algebra , its up to you.
I believe that X on one side must be the same as the other X on the other side under the same equation hence X=X
Thats all. U can believe in what u want , I can believe in what i want. We have differences thats all. I am fully capable of understanding your POV.
Ok then forget it. I don't wanna talk about tis topic anymore
-
Last note on this topic
The problem is from some of the statements made by badzmaro
Science is about the HOW and WHY, and never about the truth.
After writing out these statements, a lot of people have problem with it and questioned why he has such an impression and these people include reservistsianz, deadstroke, larry teo etc. However badzmaro dismissed them and repeatedly said they r too stupid to understand his views. As such, tis topic goes to so many pages about arguments on his statements.
He states science answer Why and HOW and these r not truth. However to most people, any real answer to any question r truth. If a person asked “Did u sleep last night” and u answer honestly “yes”. Tat is already the truth. However he views it differently and any answers to questions, such as water cycle or how to make a compuiter r not truth.
He also uses a different meaning about “science” and “truth”. Up to tis moment in time, he claims the dictionary is wrong about their definition with these two words yet he refuse to state his definition clearly. He said the definition of science in the dictionary, which is “body of truth” as wrong and he cannot produce any evidence showing other organisation having a different view from the dictionary. He produce a statement made by Richard Feynman, which to his own admission, he cannot judge wat his views on science r.
For truth, he states it is very close to “actual existence”, however he never apply it to the things he said. He keep changing the definition of the word such as it must be perfect or it must work in all context etc which is again different from wat other people interprete. He also states in a wiki article tat various people have different view on truth. However generally they all follow the dictionary description tat it is dealing with true facts and he cannot state the views he follows or whose version of truth he is on. He also state tat wat is true may not be the truth. And when pointed out to him the logical contradiction (wat is not truth is false, and wat is false is not true) he refused to make a comment on it
He also states tat science can never come out with truth, and other people produce facts tat things such as gravity and maths like 1+1 is always the truth. Badzmaro also produce another example of 0/0 and claimed tat 1+1 is not truth. However these r fallacies and 0/0 or 1+1 r truth. He just used misrepresentation and mis-interpretation to force these basic equations to be false.
He also claimed tat science could be wrong, and thus not truth. Yet he cannot name a single establish scientific theory/ law to be wrong. It is also pointed out to him tat a wrong scientific hypothesis doesn’t make other establish theories from people like Einstein or Newton to be wrong. All these observations r independent with their independent evidences and we cannot stereotype and claimed all of it is wrong because some of the hypothesis made by other people r wrong
Lately, he is already not responding to questions and just stick and paste arguments without reading through. And he just say his version of truth is different from mine and thus excused from answering any question. My log in name is different from his too, does tat give me any excuse to not answer his question ? He has stated his version of truth as close to actual existence and thus still has to reconciled it with the questions asked, which he did not
Nevertheless I am tired of the topic, and it seems pointless to carry on since in the end, the only possible achievement is simply tat he has a view tat is isolated from the world, tat he is wrong is saying other people r too stupid to understand his view since he cannot define his own views as well. And tat really means little to me. And as such, if he does not wish to carry on the topic, I would not like to continue either.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Last note on this topic
The problem is from some of the statements made by badzmaro
Science is about the HOW and WHY, and never about the truth.
After writing out these statements, a lot of people have problem with it and questioned why he has such an impression and these people include reservistsianz, deadstroke, larry teo etc. However badzmaro dismissed them and repeatedly said they r too stupid to understand his views. As such, tis topic goes to so many pages about arguments on his statements.
He states science answer Why and HOW and these r not truth. However to most people, any real answer to any question r truth. If a person asked “Did u sleep last night” and u answer honestly “yes”. Tat is already the truth. However he views it differently and any answers to questions, such as water cycle or how to make a compuiter r not truth.
He also uses a different meaning about “science” and “truth”. Up to tis moment in time, he claims the dictionary is wrong about their definition with these two words yet he refuse to state his definition clearly. He said the definition of science in the dictionary, which is “body of truth” as wrong and he cannot produce any evidence showing other organisation having a different view from the dictionary. He produce a statement made by Richard Feynman, which to his own admission, he cannot judge wat his views on science r.
For truth, he states it is very close to “actual existence”, however he never apply it to the things he said. He keep changing the definition of the word such as it must be perfect or it must work in all context etc which is again different from wat other people interprete. He also states in a wiki article tat various people have different view on truth. However generally they all follow the dictionary description tat it is dealing with true facts and he cannot state the views he follows or whose version of truth he is on. He also state tat wat is true may not be the truth. And when pointed out to him the logical contradiction (wat is not truth is false, and wat is false is not true) he refused to make a comment on it
He also states tat science can never come out with truth, and other people produce facts tat things such as gravity and maths like 1+1 is always the truth. Badzmaro also produce another example of 0/0 and claimed tat 1+1 is not truth. However these r fallacies and 0/0 or 1+1 r truth. He just used misrepresentation and mis-interpretation to force these basic equations to be false.
He also claimed tat science could be wrong, and thus not truth. Yet he cannot name a single establish scientific theory/ law to be wrong. It is also pointed out to him tat a wrong scientific hypothesis doesn’t make other establish theories from people like Einstein or Newton to be wrong. All these observations r independent with their independent evidences and we cannot stereotype and claimed all of it is wrong because some of the hypothesis made by other people r wrong
Lately, he is already not responding to questions and just stick and paste arguments without reading through. And he just say his version of truth is different from mine and thus excused from answering any question. My log in name is different from his too, does tat give me any excuse to not answer his question ? He has stated his version of truth as close to actual existence and thus still has to reconciled it with the questions asked, which he did not
Nevertheless I am tired of the topic, and it seems pointless to carry on since in the end, the only possible achievement is simply tat he has a view tat is isolated from the world, tat he is wrong is saying other people r too stupid to understand his view since he cannot define his own views as well. And tat really means little to me. And as such, if he does not wish to carry on the topic, I would not like to continue either.
Obviosly u want to continue and continue to put words in my mouth.
<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
U ARE UNDER YOUR IMPRESSION. ITS YOUR WORDS. EVEN WHEN I SAID THATS NOT WHAT I MEANT, U ASSUME EVEN WITH EXPLAINATIONS. YOUR INTERPRETATION. ARE U ME ? YES OR NO ?
No I am not u. But your words r all for people to see. Unless your english is so bad tat u cannot represent wat u wanna say
I just say it as they say it. Theory of Gravity. I assume, they call it Theory of Gravity, MOST normal english people can understand. If u assume u cant , others cant, I have nothing to say. What else can I do ? Its pretty simple. Theory OF Gravity. Its not to show people, its a statement to you.
THEN EXPLAIN TO ME WHY U PUT ZERO TO INFINITY ? UNLESS U ADMIT U MADE A MISTAKE. U ARE HUMAN. ITS O.K TO MAKE MISTAKES. THATS MY WHOLE POINT. I MAKE MISTAKE, U MAKE MISTAKE, SCIENCE MAKE MISTAKE, MATHS MAKE MISTAKE, ABSOLUTE REALITY DOESNT, BECAUSE IT IS WHAT IT IS.
Explained it before, U can refer
Personally, I dont think u explained jack ? But if u think u did, what can I say right ?
TO ME. THAT STATEMENT IS ALREADY WRONG. IF IT SAYS SOME BODY OF TRUTHS or MOSTLY BODY OF TRUTHS, I CAN ACCEPT. REMEMBER, THIS IS TRUTH, UNDER YOUR DEFINITION.
Did u remember I saying tat if it is proven to be untrue, it is not longer science. So science is always a body of truth.
Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO
Unsure. U still has not given an example of a wrong scientific theory
Thats besides the point. If u are so unsure about science, how are u sure that its a body of truth ? U dont need me to tell u whether its YES or NO. Its up to you to decide. Thats all. Thats it. Simple. I am not here to tell u to forget your belief and accept mine. I am just here to air my points. Thats all.
Unsure, but u dare to say Science = Body of Truths? That must be some bold words! It has to be Yes or No. If u are unsure, please dont say anything to try to prove your point.
But if u think u can accept existence of falsehood in your body of truths, then I got nothing to say. It doesnt negate the effect of falsehood already in there. It needs to be replaced by a true theory, but even that, cant gurantee its correct. It might later be found to be false again. So because of that, because of the possibility of falsehood in that body of truths, I just cant accept it. Because I KNOW, there are definitely falsehood. But if u dont, good on you.
RECONCILE YOUR OWN BODY OF TRUTHS FIRST
Reconciled. Now why do u refuse to comment on the point of logic for so long ?
Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO
Unsure. U still has not given an example of a wrong scientific theory
Thats besides the point. If u are so unsure about science, how are u sure that its a body of truth ? U dont need me to tell u whether its YES or NO. Its up to you to decide. Thats all. Thats it. Simple. I am not here to tell u to forget your belief and accept mine. I am just here to air my points. Thats all.
Unsure, but u dare to say Science = Body of Truths? That must be some bold words! It has to be Yes or No. If u are unsure, please dont say anything to try to prove your point.
I am unsure because I do not know. If u can prove a theory tat is wrong before, then I will agree with u. Otherwise Theories may not be wrong before
If u think science is so great and u know it so well, it wont be so hard right ? U can just google and find out right ? Then u must be talking rubbish, talking cock to me the whole time.
Whether or not I prove a wrong theory or not is not the question. I am not here to spoon feed you. U seem like a smart man. I am sure u can find out yourself. Its not very hard.
And here u are talking about science is a body of truths, and when I ask you whether theories has been wrong before, how can u say UNSURE ? Means u dont not know your subject well. Unless you believe u dont have to know your subject well enough to make those statements. Then fair enough. Personally, I wouldnt, I would be damn sure before I make such a statements.
If something is wrong, can it be Truth (True = Truth) ? YES or NO
Yes. Examples like "Wat u said r wrong". This is the truth even though u r wrong. Wat is not the truth is definitely false/wrong but wat is wrong may be the truth.
Then there should not be any problem with “What is true may not be the truth”.
THEN EXPLAIN TO ME WHY U PUT ZERO TO INFINITY ? UNLESS U ADMIT U MADE A MISTAKE. U ARE HUMAN. ITS O.K TO MAKE MISTAKES. THATS MY WHOLE POINT. I MAKE MISTAKE, U MAKE MISTAKE, SCIENCE MAKE MISTAKE, MATHS MAKE MISTAKE, ABSOLUTE REALITY DOESNT, BECAUSE IT IS WHAT IT IS.
WHy not ? The graph shows it can be anything.
Maths make mistake. Not proven
I dont know about you, but I think , 0/0 is a fallacy and its already proven that its a mistake. U can call it a misinterpretation, misrepresentation or whatever, in the end of the day, it still cant solve what it was intended.
WHy not ? The graph shows it can be anything.
So.... IT CAN BE ANYTHING...
Does the graph ever reaches 0 ? YES or NO
No
So what the fuck is that ? Are u trying to pull answers out of ur ass again ?All u gotta do is just admit a mistake and we can move on. But I guess its just too hard for you.
Unless u meant.. IT COULD BE ANYTHING.... BUT ZERO. If it is like that, please correct yourself. No need to be ashamed. We are all human. We make mistakes. Say it with me together now, “ We are human, we make mistakes.”
U claimed: Wat is true may not be the truth
My ans: If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
It is a simple logic. Do u understand logic ? Why refuse to comment on the above ?
I got no problem again with your logic. Did I say ur logic is wrong ? What else do I need to comment ? U said ur logic cannot apply to my phrase, then so be it. Its YOUR logic. NOT MINE. I am not trying to get u to fit my Maserati engine part into your Hyundai engine.
Thats why u notice I dont comment much on you. U can believe what u want. I will only comment when there are mistakes, because things doesnt add up. But if u think it adds up, go ahead.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Last note on this topic
The problem is from some of the statements made by badzmaro
Science is about the HOW and WHY, and never about the truth.
After writing out these statements, a lot of people have problem with it and questioned why he has such an impression and these people include reservistsianz, deadstroke, larry teo etc. However badzmaro dismissed them and repeatedly said they r too stupid to understand his views. As such, tis topic goes to so many pages about arguments on his statements.
He states science answer Why and HOW and these r not truth. However to most people, any real answer to any question r truth. If a person asked “Did u sleep last night” and u answer honestly “yes”. Tat is already the truth. However he views it differently and any answers to questions, such as water cycle or how to make a compuiter r not truth.
He also uses a different meaning about “science” and “truth”. Up to tis moment in time, he claims the dictionary is wrong about their definition with these two words yet he refuse to state his definition clearly. He said the definition of science in the dictionary, which is “body of truth” as wrong and he cannot produce any evidence showing other organisation having a different view from the dictionary. He produce a statement made by Richard Feynman, which to his own admission, he cannot judge wat his views on science r.
For truth, he states it is very close to “actual existence”, however he never apply it to the things he said. He keep changing the definition of the word such as it must be perfect or it must work in all context etc which is again different from wat other people interprete. He also states in a wiki article tat various people have different view on truth. However generally they all follow the dictionary description tat it is dealing with true facts and he cannot state the views he follows or whose version of truth he is on. He also state tat wat is true may not be the truth. And when pointed out to him the logical contradiction (wat is not truth is false, and wat is false is not true) he refused to make a comment on it
He also states tat science can never come out with truth, and other people produce facts tat things such as gravity and maths like 1+1 is always the truth. Badzmaro also produce another example of 0/0 and claimed tat 1+1 is not truth. However these r fallacies and 0/0 or 1+1 r truth. He just used misrepresentation and mis-interpretation to force these basic equations to be false.
He also claimed tat science could be wrong, and thus not truth. Yet he cannot name a single establish scientific theory/ law to be wrong. It is also pointed out to him tat a wrong scientific hypothesis doesn’t make other establish theories from people like Einstein or Newton to be wrong. All these observations r independent with their independent evidences and we cannot stereotype and claimed all of it is wrong because some of the hypothesis made by other people r wrong
Lately, he is already not responding to questions and just stick and paste arguments without reading through. And he just say his version of truth is different from mine and thus excused from answering any question. My log in name is different from his too, does tat give me any excuse to not answer his question ? He has stated his version of truth as close to actual existence and thus still has to reconciled it with the questions asked, which he did not
Nevertheless I am tired of the topic, and it seems pointless to carry on since in the end, the only possible achievement is simply tat he has a view tat is isolated from the world, tat he is wrong is saying other people r too stupid to understand his view since he cannot define his own views as well. And tat really means little to me. And as such, if he does not wish to carry on the topic, I would not like to continue either.
This whole discussion is betwen you and me. If u think its THAT important to try to clear ur suposedly flawless , perfect arguments... YOU ARE WRONG my dear Stupidissmart.
U seem to be SO concerned with your own face , thats why i never expect you to admit to your own mistakes and misunderstandings.U are so concerned about how others percieve you thats why u will deny ur mistakes and continue with your supposedly own interpretations of my explainations. That is your apparent weakness and that is where i will attack you from. And continuely to push for your interpretations and force your compliance on me. But it appears, that 3 times i have decided to come to an understanding. But 3 times u blew it off and insist on continueing.
Well, then lets Cross-Examine your latest statements .
Hence from now on, its all about making you lose face. I have given u time and time again, a chance, an opportunity, a space so u can manuever, well, obviously, u dont want it, u just want to have the final say to WIN. Well, its not about winning here. U will find out sooner or later. I already said, to me, its not a matter of face. As i have clearly made omissions and admitted, but the same is NOT to say about you.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Last note on this topic
The problem is from some of the statements made by badzmaro
Science is about the HOW and WHY, and never about the truth.
After writing out these statements, a lot of people have problem with it and questioned why he has such an impression and these people include reservistsianz, deadstroke, larry teo etc. However badzmaro dismissed them and repeatedly said they r too stupid to understand his views. As such, tis topic goes to so many pages about arguments on his statements.
He states science answer Why and HOW and these r not truth. However to most people, any real answer to any question r truth. If a person asked “Did u sleep last night” and u answer honestly “yes”. Tat is already the truth. However he views it differently and any answers to questions, such as water cycle or how to make a compuiter r not truth.
He also uses a different meaning about “science” and “truth”. Up to tis moment in time, he claims the dictionary is wrong about their definition with these two words yet he refuse to state his definition clearly. He said the definition of science in the dictionary, which is “body of truth” as wrong and he cannot produce any evidence showing other organisation having a different view from the dictionary. He produce a statement made by Richard Feynman, which to his own admission, he cannot judge wat his views on science r.
For truth, he states it is very close to “actual existence”, however he never apply it to the things he said. He keep changing the definition of the word such as it must be perfect or it must work in all context etc which is again different from wat other people interprete. He also states in a wiki article tat various people have different view on truth. However generally they all follow the dictionary description tat it is dealing with true facts and he cannot state the views he follows or whose version of truth he is on. He also state tat wat is true may not be the truth. And when pointed out to him the logical contradiction (wat is not truth is false, and wat is false is not true) he refused to make a comment on it
He also states tat science can never come out with truth, and other people produce facts tat things such as gravity and maths like 1+1 is always the truth. Badzmaro also produce another example of 0/0 and claimed tat 1+1 is not truth. However these r fallacies and 0/0 or 1+1 r truth. He just used misrepresentation and mis-interpretation to force these basic equations to be false.
He also claimed tat science could be wrong, and thus not truth. Yet he cannot name a single establish scientific theory/ law to be wrong. It is also pointed out to him tat a wrong scientific hypothesis doesn’t make other establish theories from people like Einstein or Newton to be wrong. All these observations r independent with their independent evidences and we cannot stereotype and claimed all of it is wrong because some of the hypothesis made by other people r wrong
Lately, he is already not responding to questions and just stick and paste arguments without reading through. And he just say his version of truth is different from mine and thus excused from answering any question. My log in name is different from his too, does tat give me any excuse to not answer his question ? He has stated his version of truth as close to actual existence and thus still has to reconciled it with the questions asked, which he did not
Nevertheless I am tired of the topic, and it seems pointless to carry on since in the end, the only possible achievement is simply tat he has a view tat is isolated from the world, tat he is wrong is saying other people r too stupid to understand his view since he cannot define his own views as well. And tat really means little to me. And as such, if he does not wish to carry on the topic, I would not like to continue either.
<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } A:link { so-language: zxx } -->
Last note on this topic
The problem is from some of the statements made by badzmaro
Science is about the HOW and WHY, and never about the truth to me. If on the way they stumble upon the truth, bravo. The Truth.. IS ALREADY OUT THERE. It doesnt matter.
After writing out these statements, a lot of people have problem with it and questioned why he has such an impression and these people include reservistsianz, deadstroke, larry teo etc. However badzmaro dismissed them and repeatedly said they r too stupid to understand his views. As such, tis topic goes to so many pages about arguments on his statements.
A lot of people ? Sure, tell them to come in and discuss about it. A lot of people , or JUST YOU.
He states science answer Why and HOW and these r not truth. However to most people, any real answer to any question r truth. If a person asked “Did u sleep last night” and u answer honestly “yes”. Tat is already the truth. However he views it differently and any answers to questions, such as water cycle or how to make a compuiter r not truth.
How and Why can be false, hence can never be truth, it can be true , but not the truth.
Another example of how YOUR analogy and example are the best, while mine is redundant. Bravo another case of someone who thinks he MUST WIN..and ALWAYS RIGHT, even perhaps, even inhuman!
He also uses a different meaning about “science” and “truth”. Up to tis moment in time, he claims the dictionary is wrong about their definition with these two words yet he refuse to state his definition clearly. He said the definition of science in the dictionary, which is “body of truth” as wrong and he cannot produce any evidence showing other organisation having a different view from the dictionary. He produce a statement made by Richard Feynman, which to his own admission, he cannot judge wat his views on science r.
Please, reconcile your BODY of TRUTHS. For someone who is not even SURE of theories being wrong, seems to be so sure about what he is talking about. * BRAVO* clap clap
Evidence was produced, but u interpret it in your own meaning. I got nothing to say.
Are you Richard Feynman ? YES or NO
No. Let me ask u back
Are you Richard Feynman ? YES or NO
U r the one who quotes him first
No
I guess we are both in agreement again.
Thats why I believe my statement to be true, but not the truth, because only Richard Feynman is the ultimate judge to whether our statements are the truth to his definition or not.
You forgot to quote that, he asks us to CONTINUELLY SEEK TO CHALLENGE SCIENCE. But I supose, the DICTIONARY IS THE BIBLE TO YOU. I guess u are no different from biblical fanatics !
For truth, he states it is very close to “actual existence”,
however he never apply it to the things he said. He keep changing the definition of the word such as it must be perfect or it must work in all context etc which is again different from wat other people interprete. He also states in a wiki article tat various people have different view on truth. However generally they all follow the dictionary description tat it is dealing with true facts and he cannot state the views he follows or whose version of truth he is on. He also state tat wat is true may not be the truth. And when pointed out to him the logical contradiction (wat is not truth is false, and wat is false is not true) he refused to make a comment on it.
Well, for someone who is TOO stupid even after all the explainations. I got nothing to say. Willful ignorance IS also one of stupid's traits.
U claimed: Wat is true may not be the truth
My ans: If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not It is a simple logic. Do u understand logic ? WPleashy refuse to comment on the above ?
I got no problem again with your logic. Did I say ur logic is wrong ? What else do I need to comment ? U said ur logic cannot apply to my phrase, then so be it. Its YOUR logic. NOT MINE. I am not trying to get u to fit my Maserati engine part into your Hyundai engine.
Thats why u notice I dont comment much on you. U can believe what u want. I will only comment when there are mistakes, because things doesnt add up. But if u think it adds up, go ahead.
PLEASE.. SHOW ME.. in WIKI of TRUTH, that they are ALL IN LINE WITH THE DICTIOARY MEANING. Please.. by all means.
Again, another trait of Mr Faultless in action again. Want to read more ?
He also states tat science can never come out with truth, and other people produce facts tat things such as gravity and maths like 1+1 is always the truth. Badzmaro also produce another example of 0/0 and claimed tat 1+1 is not truth. However these r fallacies and 0/0 or 1+1 r truth. He just used misrepresentation and mis-interpretation to force these basic equations to be false.
Another stupid satement. U obviosly know what I meant. But let me refresh u again in what u acknowledged.
(I guess we both agree. No problem there) That was the whole point I was telling in the beginning. 1 + 1 = 2 is true... but not really the TRUTH! (17 Jan 9.58pm)
Because it depends on circumstances. Thats my whole point. Hope u have finally understand in my context by now.
See, its not very hard right. We are actually both on the same page. We are already on agreement on this issue.
BUT NO.. he doesnt WANT understanding. HE WANTS COMPLIANCE !
He just used misrepresentation and mis-interpretation to force these basic equations to be false.
OoOoh... I am shaking. So misrepresenation and mis-interpretation are NOT FALLACIES ?
Well, for someone who can have X on one side of the equation being 1 and X on the other side being 2 , wow.. so... YOU CAN and I CANT , and show u that if u do that, I can show u that 1 = 2. BRAVO BRAVO!!!! Wooooo!! For someone who says I am double standard. BRAVO !! *clap clap
I guess u just invented your OWN algebra.. but WAIT.. Stupid will say, its because I said 1 = 2, well.. DOH.. OBVIOSLY, if I apply UR stupid algebra equation.
I dont know about u guys, but normally, simple algebra is X=X , 1 =1 . But he CAN I CANT.
ANOTHER TRAIT.. of suposedly Mr Perfect, Mr Sibeh Kiasu King until can pulls answers OUT OF HIS ass and confuse people. U can confuse the people, the jury, but hey, I am here to clear the air.. to clear your bullshit.
Did u say “0/0 * 0 = 0/0 * infinity. Since 0/0 can be anything, the first set of 0/0 could be 1 while the second set could be 0, then it still come to the conclusion tat 0= 0 which is again right.” YES OR NO
Yes. I still stand by these words.
I guess... we all should follow HIS version of the algebra. But no.. WAIT.. he will explain! BECAUSE HE CAN I CANT! Regarding my fallacy.. explaining something I know, until something he says I dont know. Wow.. u know, I may be stupid.. but not THAT stupid.
Oh wait.. there is more. :
"STUPIDISMART on the 23rd Jan 1.03pm
I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter."
Does the graph ever reaches 0 ? YES or NO
You said : No
So... how it can be 0 when you yourself says it never touches 0 ? …....
U said (I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter. 23rd Jan 1.03pm )
His explaination is. Its 0 -ve , +ve. O.K.. BUT DOES IT EVER TOUCHES ZERO ! OBVIOSLY NOT, THIS is another case of pulling answers out of his ass and doing a desperate attempt to cover his own ass. I mean, I gotta admit, he is pretty good. But not THAT good.
In court man, you wouldve made a few big BOO BOO's to your own testimony.
He also claimed tat science could be wrong, and thus not truth. Yet he cannot name a single establish scientific theory/ law to be wrong. It is also pointed out to him tat a wrong scientific hypothesis doesn’t make other establish theories from people like Einstein or Newton to be wrong. All these observations r independent with their independent evidences and we cannot stereotype and claimed all of it is wrong because some of the hypothesis made by other people r wrong
Oh.. since when I stereotype ? They are wrong, they are true.. BUT NOT NECESSARILY BE “THE TRUTH”. But I guess again u are just TOO STUPID to understand. Because of your limited comprehension of True MUST = Truth .. FROM THE DICTIONARY.COM . Bravo... BRAVO*
Thats why u will always be SHEEP. U cannot be a scientist. U only use ur supposely superior.. LOGIC.
Scientific research is very good at improving our understanding of the natural world, including ourselves. Many of the things that people do, like learning and using language, like feeding themselves, like having and raising children, have been carefully studied by scientists with very interesting and useful results. However, science itself, which is after all another type of human activity, hasn't been studied much, scientifically. As a result, many of our beliefs about science don't really make much sense.
From the time of the discovery of the basic physical principles which we know as Newton's Laws, in the middle of the Seventeenth Century, until the revolutionary developments in physics and mathematics at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, scientifically educated people believed that science produces completely correct knowledge. (I guess u are one of THOSE “educated people”
In an amazing feat of sustained intelligence, Copernicus, Galileo, Tycho, Kepler and Newton had developed a body of research that combined observation, experimentation and theory in a new way. The resulting Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation seemed to explain beautifully every movement on the Earth and in the heavens with a small set of simple principles. Deductive certainty, familiar from the logical precision of geometry, guaranteed the existence of that truth revealed by science.
Our understanding of ourselves and our world, and our understanding of science itself, grew out of pre scientific beliefs and practices. One of those beliefs is the concept of truth.
We have been discussing some of the history of the concept of truth as applied to scientific knowledge. In light of that history, we can see that to regard scientific knowledge as true, or even as approaching truth, is actually quite suspect.
But I guess, u believe in DICTIONARY.COM , and is a Sheep.
Thats why I can understand, why u think the way u do. I dont blame you, I actually feel quite pity for you. But I am not here to force my beliefs on you. I am just AIRING my point. But I guess for someone to have different views from MR PERFECT, MR FAULTLESS, he just cant take it. HE NEEDS TO BE RIGHT... ALL THE TIME.
Even when he admits that:
Einstein is human. IF he is human, there is a possibility. Thats why we call it Human Error. U admit human make errors ? Did i say he is wrong ?
Possibility of human make mistakes doesn't means he made mistakes.
WOW.. even though human makes msitakes, but einstien doesnt.. WOW... FUCK.. I didnt know Einstien is not human ! I mean he is one damn intelligent and smart son of a bitch.. but I didnt know he was NOT HUMAN!
Wow....
U want me to spood feed you ? But no.. Wait.. I did, but he will just claim.. its not scientific method ! WHY ? Check this out.
Are scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses ?
No
Not fully. I believe tat peer review and scrutiny should be included as well
WOW.... now HE can add definitions into the meaning of Scientific Method BUT I CANT. bravo BRAVO !!! CLAP CLAP!! Well.. let me see, stupid must assume that back in the day, even with the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses , apparently, these scientists and astronomers , apprenty... managed to pass thier theory off without peer review and scrutiny. Pretty much means, they are all a bunch of dumb sheeps. Well done... wow... talk about an extreme case of POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK!
Lately, he is already not responding to questions and just stick and paste arguments without reading through. And he just say his version of truth is different from mine and thus excused from answering any question. My log in name is different from his too, does tat give me any excuse to not answer his question ? He has stated his version of truth as close to actual existence and thus still has to reconciled it with the questions asked, which he did not
WOW.. CUT n PASTE... IT SEEMS, u have been CUTTING n PASTING ur stupid 10 point question. For like..let me see.. a few threards. Substance is the same, QUESTIONS is the same. Sure, u can try to edit it and say I didnt, but I will just blow your ass out of the water from your quotes. Try me.
Nevertheless I am tired of the topic, and it seems pointless to carry on since in the end, the only possible achievement is simply tat he has a view tat is isolated from the world, tat he is wrong is saying other people r too stupid to understand his view since he cannot define his own views as well. And tat really means little to me. And as such, if he does not wish to carry on the topic, I would not like to continue either.
Oh.. so.. someone is tired... wait, hmmm.. should I let this slide, or should I egg your face in and lets continue this on to 2017.
OooOoh... so my view is isolated, actually, I dont give a rat's ass. If u want to be the dumb sheep.
Hope pictorials help.
By all means. I got a brain. I think out of the box. I challenge and question. I am more then willing to understand you truths and your beliefs, but for some reason, u just want to fit ur Hyundai engine part INTO my Maserati Engine .. let me guess, I would say.. NO.
Scholars , Intellectuals, Philosophers ALL have problem defining the meaning of Truth, the meaning of Science. But I guess, to stupid, it MUST ALL COME FROM THE DICTIONARY.COM.
Gee, I wonder HOW many isolated Scholars , Intellectuals, Philosophers back in the day, have become the mainstream today, and will continually be challenged until the end of time.
I shall end this passage with ANOTHER of his BULLSHIT.
Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO
Unsure. U still has not given an example of a wrong scientific theory
Oh so NOW u need me to spoon feed you ? Oh..no.. wait... he will say that Scientific theory must consist of scientific method. I am O>K with that.. but there is a twist.
Are scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses ?
No
Not fully. I believe tat peer review and scrutiny should be included as well
(WOW... SO.. once again he can ADD definitions.. n claim that... Astrologers, scientists in the day didnt consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses ... and definately NO PEER REVIEW.. WOW... BOLD STATEMENTS to make !)
And for someone who based so much of his testimony/statements on being TRUE = TRUTH, Body of truths , 1+1 , the theories, .. bla bla bla..
U end with an UNSURE.
This has to be the ultimate big BOO BOO in a cross examination so far.
U are in MY world now stupid. And u talk about me telling lies, and bad grammar , lousy english, substandard understanding of truth and science. U better know ur subject matter well.
If u are UNSURE, I suggest u SHUT THE FUCK UP, AND SIT THE FUCK DOWN.
Unless u believe u can understand half-ass'dly(If there is such a word) on a subject matter and make such statements.
U know.. U ARE NOT MR PERFECT, MR FLAWLESS , GODLIKE and INHUMAN.
And u want me to comply to your definitions ? Hahahahaha!
Man.. I am having a mind orgasm just typing this out.
-
All i wanted, was understanding. No spin, no twists, nada.
Mutual understanding of each other's belief. U can have ur Hyundai.. i can have my Maserati. But i will NOT accept suggestion to put ur Hyundai engine part into my Maserati.
Its not like i squeezed u to the point of no room to manuever did I ? No room to let this whole issue and u being flawless and faultless slide right ?
I am perfectly able to understand, but AGAIN, u DONT WANT UNDERSTANDING.. U WANT COMPLIANCE. How about u can kiss it. Until u at least admit to being as human as the rest of us, i am more inclined to slide towards your supossedly superior definitions of Science and Truth.
I guess its true, even when u said forget it and left it at that.. u just NEEEDED to post something extra. This says alot about the person u know.
I am specific.
True = True
Truth = Truth
Crate of good apples = Crate of good apples. NOT crate of SOME good apples. I can accept it as Crate of SOME good apples with rotten apples in it , but dont tell me its a crate of GOOD apples. I pay good money, if u cant gurantee me crate of Good apples, just tell me u got Crate of SOME good apples, or MOSTLY good apples, and we will do the percentage later.
U can be happy with rotten apples in your crate and STILL call it crate of good apples. Its your belief, u can accept it. I cant.,
Thats why, as a businessman... u will fail too.
-
I just say it as they say it. Theory of Gravity. I assume, they call it Theory of Gravity, MOST normal english people can understand. If u assume u cant , others cant, I have nothing to say. What else can I do ? Its pretty simple. Theory OF Gravity. Its not to show people, its a statement to you.
Of course u have nothing to say. The theory of gravity mention why gravity pull things to the ground and to u, tat is a theory and thus cannot be the truth. So u did say tat gravity is not truth
Personally, I dont think u explained jack ? But if u think u did, what can I say right ?
And where did u show maths made mistakes ? 1+1 or 0/0 ? U failed to show any mistakes. And how about mistakes in science ? U show no established theories tat had failed. So again u had shown nothing
Unsure, but u dare to say Science = Body of Truths? That must be some bold words! It has to be Yes or No. If u are unsure, please dont say anything to try to prove your point.
Why not ? If u ask me, my opinion is tat establish scientific theories had never been wrong. However U said tat science theories r wrong errors. I give u the benefit of the doubt and ask u to state it. U refuse. So wat do u expect me to say ?
Whether or not I prove a wrong theory or not is not the question. I am not here to spoon feed you. U seem like a smart man. I am sure u can find out yourself. Its not very hard.
Spoon feed ? Tis is your job, not mine. If u cannot even do the bare minimum, then u can just keep quiet and don’t need to reply to tis point
Then there should not be any problem with “What is true may not be the truth”.
Yes, I have a problem. Reconcile it with 1) wat is not truth is false and 2) wat is false cannot be true. Why ? U r lazy again ?
So what the fuck is that ? Are u trying to pull answers out of ur ass again ?All u gotta do is just admit a mistake and we can move on. But I guess its just too hard for you.
Unless u meant.. IT COULD BE ANYTHING.... BUT ZERO. If it is like that, please correct yourself. No need to be ashamed. We are all human. We make mistakes. Say it with me together now, “ We are human, we make mistakes.”
Tis is rubbish again. I said before the graph show x could be –ve infinity to + infinity. And 0 is between these values. U r thinking like a primary school kid tat is why u expect the graph to cut. I did not make a mistake here, it is just u refuse to accept the answer
I guess arguing from a mathmatics point of view is lost on u. I try another method. U know who is the first one who claims 0/0 is zero ? It is u. U said zero divide by zero is logically zero. Now look at the graph. Did it cut zero ? No ? Then why u said it it logically zero ?
I got no problem again with your logic. Did I say ur logic is wrong ? What else do I need to comment ? U said ur logic cannot apply to my phrase, then so be it. Its YOUR logic. NOT MINE. I am not trying to get u to fit my Maserati engine part into your Hyundai engine.
Ya ? But I got a problem with yours and thus ask u to clarify. Up till now u refuse to do it. And as said before, your maserati example is just bad
This whole discussion is betwen you and me. If u think its THAT important to try to clear ur suposedly flawless , perfect arguments... YOU ARE WRONG my dear Stupidissmart.
U seem to be SO concerned with your own face , thats why i never expect you to admit to your own mistakes and misunderstandings.U are so concerned about how others percieve you thats why u will deny ur mistakes and continue with your supposedly own interpretations of my explainations. That is your apparent weakness and that is where i will attack you from. And continuely to push for your interpretations and force your compliance on me. But it appears, that 3 times i have decided to come to an understanding. But 3 times u blew it off and insist on continueing.
Well, then lets Cross-Examine your latest statements .
Hence from now on, its all about making you lose face. I have given u time and time again, a chance, an opportunity, a space so u can manuever, well, obviously, u dont want it, u just want to have the final say to WIN. Well, its not about winning here. U will find out sooner or later. I already said, to me, its not a matter of face. As i have clearly made omissions and admitted, but the same is NOT to say about you.
Come on lor.
Science is about the HOW and WHY, and never about the truth to me. If on the way they stumble upon the truth, bravo. The Truth.. IS ALREADY OUT THERE. It doesnt matter.
As said before, any real answer to any question r truth. Why u failed to comment on tat ?
A lot of people ? Sure, tell them to come in and discuss about it. A lot of people , or JUST YOU
Fact is reservistsianz, deadstroke and larryteo have a problem with your definition. They have already questioned u on it. Whether they come in or not to discuss doesn’t erase the fact they do not agree with u before
How and Why can be false, hence can never be truth, it can be true , but not the truth.
Another example of how YOUR analogy and example are the best, while mine is redundant. Bravo another case of someone who thinks he MUST WIN..and ALWAYS RIGHT, even perhaps, even inhuman!
Tat again is another loop made by u. Science had stated facts which u cannot reject. They stated 1+1=2. They stated gravity. They stated water freezes at 0 degree. R u gonna say these r not truth ?
Please, reconcile your BODY of TRUTHS. For someone who is not even SURE of theories being wrong, seems to be so sure about what he is talking about. * BRAVO* clap clap
Evidence was produced, but u interpret it in your own meaning. I got nothing to say.
Wat evidence did u produce ? Why u refuse to answer the paragraph ? I don’t have any problem with the body of truth and I have given u my answers repeatedly. Tat is sure a sneaky way to avoid answering question
o Are you Richard Feynman ? YES or NO
U said before tat Richard Feynman had a different definition of science. U and I r not Richard Feynman. Then we cannot conclude wat is his view on science r. So u cannot show any other definition of science available other than the dictionary. Thus science is a body of truth
o PLEASE.. SHOW ME.. in WIKI of TRUTH, that they are ALL IN LINE WITH THE DICTIOARY MEANING. Please.. by all means.
Why not u show me wat is your definition of truth from it ? I think it is as plain as day tat u refuse to define it, keep adding arbitrary meaning to it and stick an article which never agree with wat u r saying.
I guess we both agree. No problem there) That was the whole point I was telling in the beginning. 1 + 1 = 2 is true... but not really the TRUTH! (17 Jan 9.58pm
I never say tat 1+1=2 is not the truth. I maintained tat it is the truth. U said tat truth must work for all contexts and I disagree. Then u said we agree tat 1=1 r not truth ? Tat is rubbish statement from u. Another fallacy
OoOoh... I am shaking. So misrepresenation and mis-interpretation are NOT FALLACIES ?
They r fallacies. And the meaning is really tat it is the truth but u just made the wrong interpretation to it
Well, for someone who can have X on one side of the equation being 1 and X on the other side being 2 , wow.. so... YOU CAN and I CANT , and show u that if u do that, I can show u that 1 = 2. BRAVO BRAVO!!!! Wooooo!! For someone who says I am double standard. BRAVO !! *clap clap
U r still stuck in variable. X is a defined variable. 0/0 is not defined. They r two different things. Again u used fallacies and tried to treat 2 different things as the same.
In court man, you wouldve made a few big BOO BOO's to your own testimony
If u r too stupid to understand undefined variable, I really suggest tat u should consult a person who is well versed in maths first. All the while u r still stuck in elementary maths and dealing with variable
Thats why u will always be SHEEP. U cannot be a scientist. U only use ur supposely superior.. LOGIC.
Scientific research is very good at improving our understanding of the natural world, including ourselves. Many of the things that people do, like learning and using language, like feeding themselves, like having and raising children, have been carefully studied by scientists with very interesting and useful results. However, science itself, which is after all another type of human activity, hasn't been studied much, scientifically. As a result, many of our beliefs about science don't really make much sense.
From the time of the discovery of the basic physical principles which we know as Newton's Laws, in the middle of the Seventeenth Century, until the revolutionary developments in physics and mathematics at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, scientifically educated people believed that science produces completely correct knowledge. (I guess u are one of THOSE “educated people”
In an amazing feat of sustained intelligence, Copernicus, Galileo, Tycho, Kepler and Newton had developed a body of research that combined observation, experimentation and theory in a new way. The resulting Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation seemed to explain beautifully every movement on the Earth and in the heavens with a small set of simple principles. Deductive certainty, familiar from the logical precision of geometry, guaranteed the existence of that truth revealed by science.
Our understanding of ourselves and our world, and our understanding of science itself, grew out of pre scientific beliefs and practices. One of those beliefs is the concept of truth.
We have been discussing some of the history of the concept of truth as applied to scientific knowledge. In light of that history, we can see that to regard scientific knowledge as true, or even as approaching truth, is actually quite suspect.
But I guess, u believe in DICTIONARY.COM , and is a Sheep.
Thats why I can understand, why u think the way u do. I dont blame you, I actually feel quite pity for you. But I am not here to force my beliefs on you. I am just AIRING my point. But I guess for someone to have different views from MR PERFECT, MR FAULTLESS, he just cant take it. HE NEEDS TO BE RIGHT... ALL THE TIME.
Even when he admits that:
Wa lao if u wanna plagarise, at least give the website a credit. Plagariser, u lift off section from the website
http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/terrible-truth.htm
And if u read the article, u know wat ? It is simply a person point of view without any evidence. And tis is normal since it is from a religious website. Wat is your view ? U have no view and u decide to steal other people idea ? Wat a shame
WOW.. even though human makes msitakes, but einstien doesnt.. WOW... FUCK.. I didnt know Einstien is not human ! I mean he is one damn intelligent and smart son of a bitch.. but I didnt know he was NOT HUMAN!
Another fallacy u made
1) Men made mistake
2) Einstien is man
3) So u conclude Einstein made mistake
The problem is,
1) Men don’t always make mistake. They can do the right things
2) Einstein don’t always make mistakes and can do the right things
3) We cannot conclude Einstein is wrong with his theories. He may have come out with truth
He is human. But u r just using fallacy to hide your flawed logic
WOW.... now HE can add definitions into the meaning of Scientific Method BUT I CANT. bravo BRAVO !!! CLAP CLAP!! Well.. let me see, stupid must assume that back in the day, even with the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses , apparently, these scientists and astronomers , apprenty... managed to pass thier theory off without peer review and scrutiny. Pretty much means, they are all a bunch of dumb sheeps. Well done... wow... talk about an extreme case of POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK!
Tat is strange but where do u pluck out the definition of scientific method from ? U never tell me where u get the definition and just plagarise and put it out. If u get it from respectable website, then I will agree tat your definition is right. I got mine from http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml
And it do include communicating the idea to other peers. Unlike u, I will agree I make a mistake. But u think u r always right and tat u refuse to acknowledge tat your definition of the words is so wrong
WOW.. CUT n PASTE... IT SEEMS, u have been CUTTING n PASTING ur stupid 10 point question. For like..let me see.. a few threards. Substance is the same, QUESTIONS is the same. Sure, u can try to edit it and say I didnt, but I will just blow your ass out of the water from your quotes. Try me.
I am using the 10 points because to me, u never answered them well. U just keep denying and denying.
Scholars , Intellectuals, Philosophers ALL have problem defining the meaning of Truth, the meaning of Science. But I guess, to stupid, it MUST ALL COME FROM THE DICTIONARY.COM.
They have no problem defining their truth but u have. U never even tell which school of thought u r following for the word truth. Tat is the biggest problem with u. And dictionary .com is English. If we wanna standardize our understanding, we use dictionary
o U end with an UNSURE.
I don’t really see your point. Unlike u, I have an open mind and not absolute. There is a possibility tat an established theory could be wrong before. The idea is whether science could come out with truth, and even if they r wrong before, they still come out with truth and we shouldn’t stereotype.
All i wanted, was understanding. No spin, no twists, nada.
Mutual understanding of each other's belief. U can have ur Hyundai.. i can have my Maserati. But i will NOT accept suggestion to put ur Hyundai engine part into my Maserati.
U wanna people to understand each other belief but u even failed to provide the definition of it. And u wrote nasty comments and conclude all the other people r stupid when u don’t even know wat u r saying.
o I am specific.
True = True
Truth = Truth
Wat u said here has absolutely no value or give out any additional information. Did it help to make people know about your truth more ? Nope
Crate of good apples = Crate of good apples. NOT crate of SOME good apples. I can accept it as Crate of SOME good apples with rotten apples in it , but dont tell me its a crate of GOOD apples. I pay good money, if u cant gurantee me crate of Good apples, just tell me u got Crate of SOME good apples, or MOSTLY good apples, and we will do the percentage later.
Again rubbish here. To u, there is no such thing as grey and everything must be black and white. U think u could buy a crate of 500 good apples with 0 spoilt apples in it ? Actually wat r u trying to say here ? U wanna stereotype ? If in a country there r criminal in it, u gonna say it is a lousy country ? If u have diarrhea before, r u gonna say u like to eat garbage ? If u say u wrote the wrong things before, r u gonna say u r stupid and wrote all the wrong things ?
If u talk about people should be honest about their mistakes, then I guess u should be honest about your mistakes on some of the statements u had made before. R u human ? If u admit u made a mistake, it is okay. However u just insisted on your undefined "truth" and "science" and states the dictionary, and probably the whole world's interpretation to be wrong.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I just say it as they say it. Theory of Gravity. I assume, they call it Theory of Gravity, MOST normal english people can understand. If u assume u cant , others cant, I have nothing to say. What else can I do ? Its pretty simple. Theory OF Gravity. Its not to show people, its a statement to you.
Of course u have nothing to say. The theory of gravity mention why gravity pull things to the ground and to u, tat is a theory and thus cannot be the truth. So u did say tat gravity is not truth
Personally, I dont think u explained jack ? But if u think u did, what can I say right ?
And where did u show maths made mistakes ? 1+1 or 0/0 ? U failed to show any mistakes. And how about mistakes in science ? U show no established theories tat had failed. So again u had shown nothing
o Unsure, but u dare to say Science = Body of Truths? That must be some bold words! It has to be Yes or No. If u are unsure, please dont say anything to try to prove your point.
Why not ? If u ask me, my opinion is tat establish scientific theories had never been wrong. However U said tat science theories r wrong errors. I give u the benefit of the doubt and ask u to state it. U refuse. So wat do u expect me to say ?
o Whether or not I prove a wrong theory or not is not the question. I am not here to spoon feed you. U seem like a smart man. I am sure u can find out yourself. Its not very hard.
Spoon feed ? Tis is your job, not mine. If u cannot even do the bare minimum, then u can just keep quiet and don’t need to reply to tis point
Then there should not be any problem with “What is true may not be the truth”.
Yes, I have a problem. Reconcile it with 1) wat is not truth is false and 2) wat is false cannot be true. Why ? U r lazy again ?
o So what the fuck is that ? Are u trying to pull answers out of ur ass again ?All u gotta do is just admit a mistake and we can move on. But I guess its just too hard for you.
Unless u meant.. IT COULD BE ANYTHING.... BUT ZERO. If it is like that, please correct yourself. No need to be ashamed. We are all human. We make mistakes. Say it with me together now, “ We are human, we make mistakes.”
Tis is rubbish again. I said before the graph show x could be –ve infinity to + infinity. And 0 is between these values. U r thinking like a primary school kid tat is why u expect the graph to cut. I did not make a mistake here, it is just u refuse to accept the answer
I got no problem again with your logic. Did I say ur logic is wrong ? What else do I need to comment ? U said ur logic cannot apply to my phrase, then so be it. Its YOUR logic. NOT MINE. I am not trying to get u to fit my Maserati engine part into your Hyundai engine.
Ya ? But I got a problem with yours and thus ask u to clarify. Up till now u refuse to do it. And as said before, your maserati example is just bad
o This whole discussion is betwen you and me. If u think its THAT important to try to clear ur suposedly flawless , perfect arguments... YOU ARE WRONG my dear Stupidissmart.
U seem to be SO concerned with your own face , thats why i never expect you to admit to your own mistakes and misunderstandings.U are so concerned about how others percieve you thats why u will deny ur mistakes and continue with your supposedly own interpretations of my explainations. That is your apparent weakness and that is where i will attack you from. And continuely to push for your interpretations and force your compliance on me. But it appears, that 3 times i have decided to come to an understanding. But 3 times u blew it off and insist on continueing.
Well, then lets Cross-Examine your latest statements .
Hence from now on, its all about making you lose face. I have given u time and time again, a chance, an opportunity, a space so u can manuever, well, obviously, u dont want it, u just want to have the final say to WIN. Well, its not about winning here. U will find out sooner or later. I already said, to me, its not a matter of face. As i have clearly made omissions and admitted, but the same is NOT to say about you.
Come on lor.
o Science is about the HOW and WHY, and never about the truth to me. If on the way they stumble upon the truth, bravo. The Truth.. IS ALREADY OUT THERE. It doesnt matter.
As said before, any real answer to any question r truth. Why u failed to comment on tat ?
A lot of people ? Sure, tell them to come in and discuss about it. A lot of people , or JUST YOU
Fact is reservistsianz, deadstroke and larrteo have a problem with your definition. They have already questioned u on it. Whether they come in or not to discuss doesn’t erase the fact they do not agree with u before
o How and Why can be false, hence can never be truth, it can be true , but not the truth.
Another example of how YOUR analogy and example are the best, while mine is redundant. Bravo another case of someone who thinks he MUST WIN..and ALWAYS RIGHT, even perhaps, even inhuman!
Tat again is another loop made by u. Science had stated facts which u cannot reject. They stated 1+1=2. They stated gravity. They stated water freezes at 0 degree. R u gonna say these r not truth ?
o Please, reconcile your BODY of TRUTHS. For someone who is not even SURE of theories being wrong, seems to be so sure about what he is talking about. * BRAVO* clap clap
Evidence was produced, but u interpret it in your own meaning. I got nothing to say.
Wat evidence did u produce ? Why u refuse to answer the paragraph ? I don’t have any problem with the body of truth and I have given u my answers repeatedly. Tat is sure a sneaky way to avoid answering question
o Are you Richard Feynman ? YES or NO
U said before tat Richard Feynman had a different definition of science. U and I r not Richard Feynman. Then we cannot conclude wat is his view on science r. So u cannot show any other definition of science available other than the dictionary. Thus science is a body of truth
o PLEASE.. SHOW ME.. in WIKI of TRUTH, that they are ALL IN LINE WITH THE DICTIOARY MEANING. Please.. by all means.
Why not u show me wat is your definition of truth from it ? I think it is as plain as day tat u refuse to define it, keep adding arbitrary meaning to it and stick an article which never agree with wat u r saying.
I guess we both agree. No problem there) That was the whole point I was telling in the beginning. 1 + 1 = 2 is true... but not really the TRUTH! (17 Jan 9.58pm
I never say tat 1+1=2 is not the truth. I maintained tat it is the truth. U said tat truth must work for all contexts and I disagree. Then u said we agree tat 1=1 r not truth ? Tat is rubbish statement from u. Another fallacy
o OoOoh... I am shaking. So misrepresenation and mis-interpretation are NOT FALLACIES ?
They r fallacies. And the meaning is really tat it is the truth but u just made the wrong interpretation to it
o Well, for someone who can have X on one side of the equation being 1 and X on the other side being 2 , wow.. so... YOU CAN and I CANT , and show u that if u do that, I can show u that 1 = 2. BRAVO BRAVO!!!! Wooooo!! For someone who says I am double standard. BRAVO !! *clap clap
U r still stuck in variable. X is a defined variable. 0/0 is not defined. They r two different things. Again u used fallacies and tried to treat 2 different things as the same.
In court man, you wouldve made a few big BOO BOO's to your own testimony
If u r too stupid to understand undefined variable, I really suggest tat u should consult a person who is well versed in maths first. All the while u r still stuck in elementary maths and dealing with variable
o Thats why u will always be SHEEP. U cannot be a scientist. U only use ur supposely superior.. LOGIC.
Scientific research is very good at improving our understanding of the natural world, including ourselves. Many of the things that people do, like learning and using language, like feeding themselves, like having and raising children, have been carefully studied by scientists with very interesting and useful results. However, science itself, which is after all another type of human activity, hasn't been studied much, scientifically. As a result, many of our beliefs about science don't really make much sense.
From the time of the discovery of the basic physical principles which we know as Newton's Laws, in the middle of the Seventeenth Century, until the revolutionary developments in physics and mathematics at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, scientifically educated people believed that science produces completely correct knowledge. (I guess u are one of THOSE “educated people”
In an amazing feat of sustained intelligence, Copernicus, Galileo, Tycho, Kepler and Newton had developed a body of research that combined observation, experimentation and theory in a new way. The resulting Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation seemed to explain beautifully every movement on the Earth and in the heavens with a small set of simple principles. Deductive certainty, familiar from the logical precision of geometry, guaranteed the existence of that truth revealed by science.
Our understanding of ourselves and our world, and our understanding of science itself, grew out of pre scientific beliefs and practices. One of those beliefs is the concept of truth.
We have been discussing some of the history of the concept of truth as applied to scientific knowledge. In light of that history, we can see that to regard scientific knowledge as true, or even as approaching truth, is actually quite suspect.
But I guess, u believe in DICTIONARY.COM , and is a Sheep.
Thats why I can understand, why u think the way u do. I dont blame you, I actually feel quite pity for you. But I am not here to force my beliefs on you. I am just AIRING my point. But I guess for someone to have different views from MR PERFECT, MR FAULTLESS, he just cant take it. HE NEEDS TO BE RIGHT... ALL THE TIME.
Even when he admits that:
Wa lao if u wanna plagarise, at least give the website a credit. Plagariser, u lift off section from the website
http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/terrible-truth.htm
And if u read the article, u know wat ? It is simply a person point of view without any evidence. And tis is normal since it is from a religious website. Wat is your view ? U have no view and u decide to steal other people idea ? Wat a shame
o WOW.. even though human makes msitakes, but einstien doesnt.. WOW... FUCK.. I didnt know Einstien is not human ! I mean he is one damn intelligent and smart son of a bitch.. but I didnt know he was NOT HUMAN!
Another fallacy u made
1) Men made mistake
2) Einstien is man
3) So u conclude Einstein made mistake
The problem is,
1) Men don’t always make mistake. They can do the right things
2) Einstein don’t always make mistakes and can do the right things
3) We cannot conclude Einstein is wrong with his theories. He may have come out with truth
He is human. But u r just using fallacy to hide your flawed logic
o WOW.... now HE can add definitions into the meaning of Scientific Method BUT I CANT. bravo BRAVO !!! CLAP CLAP!! Well.. let me see, stupid must assume that back in the day, even with the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses , apparently, these scientists and astronomers , apprenty... managed to pass thier theory off without peer review and scrutiny. Pretty much means, they are all a bunch of dumb sheeps. Well done... wow... talk about an extreme case of POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK!
Tat is strange but where do u pluck out the definition of scientific method from ? U never tell me where u get the definition and just plagarise and put it out. If u get it from respectable website, then I will agree tat your definition is right. I got mine from http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml
And it do include communicating the idea to other peers. Unlike u, I will agree I make a mistake. But u think u r always right and tat u refuse to acknowledge tat your definition of the words is so wrong
o WOW.. CUT n PASTE... IT SEEMS, u have been CUTTING n PASTING ur stupid 10 point question. For like..let me see.. a few threards. Substance is the same, QUESTIONS is the same. Sure, u can try to edit it and say I didnt, but I will just blow your ass out of the water from your quotes. Try me.
I am using the 10 points because to me, u never answered them well. U just keep denying and denying.
Scholars , Intellectuals, Philosophers ALL have problem defining the meaning of Truth, the meaning of Science. But I guess, to stupid, it MUST ALL COME FROM THE DICTIONARY.COM.
They have no problem defining their truth but u have. U never even tell which school of thought u r following for the word truth. Tat is the biggest problem with u. And dictionary .com is English. If we wanna standardize our understanding, we use dictionary
o U end with an UNSURE.
I don’t really see your point. Unlike u, I have an open mind and not absolute. There is a possibility tat an established theory could be wrong before. The idea is whether science could come out with truth, and even if they r wrong before, they still come out with truth and we shouldn’t stereotype.
o All i wanted, was understanding. No spin, no twists, nada.
Mutual understanding of each other's belief. U can have ur Hyundai.. i can have my Maserati. But i will NOT accept suggestion to put ur Hyundai engine part into my Maserati.
U wanna people to understand each other belief but u even failed to provide the definition of it. And u wrote nasty comments and conclude all the other people r stupid when u don’t even know wat u r saying.
o I am specific.
True = True
Truth = Truth
Wat u said here has absolutely no value or give out any additional information. Did it help to make people know about your truth more ? Nope
o Crate of good apples = Crate of good apples. NOT crate of SOME good apples. I can accept it as Crate of SOME good apples with rotten apples in it , but dont tell me its a crate of GOOD apples. I pay good money, if u cant gurantee me crate of Good apples, just tell me u got Crate of SOME good apples, or MOSTLY good apples, and we will do the percentage later.
Again rubbish here. To u, there is no such thing as grey and everything must be black and white. U think u could buy a crate of 500 good apples with 0 spoilt apples in it ? Actually wat r u trying to say here ? U wanna stereotype ? If in a country there r criminal in it, u gonna say it is a lousy country ? If u have diarrhea before, r u gonna say u like to eat garbage ? If u say u wrote the wrong things before, r u gonna say u r stupid and wrote all the wrong things ?
Well, spoon feeding has stopped since thread number like.. i dont know.
Ya ? But I got a problem with yours and thus ask u to clarify. Up till now u refuse to do it. And as said before, your maserati example is just bad
Its a perfect example. But u are just too stupid to understand it. The engine. The core. The heart of the car.
Clarify ? I clarified with examples of 1+1 , Gravity, science able to be wrong... etc. But i guess as usual, u interprete it the way u do. So whats the point ? So be it.
Tis is rubbish again. I said before the graph show x could be –ve infinity to + infinity. And 0 is between these values. U r thinking like a primary school kid tat is why u expect the graph to cut. I did not make a mistake here, it is just u refuse to accept the answer
IS ZERO = ZERO +ve , -ve. YES OR NO? U know, pulling answers ouf o ur ass is one thing, not admitting to a mistake is another.
Tat again is another loop made by u. Science had stated facts which u cannot reject. They stated 1+1=2. They stated gravity. They stated water freezes at 0 degree. R u gonna say these r not truth
What loop ?Science explaines the How and Why . Truth is there. So whats the problem ? Please.. enlighten me.
Wat evidence did u produce ? Why u refuse to answer the paragraph ? I don’t have any problem with the body of truth and I have given u my answers repeatedly. Tat is sure a sneaky way to avoid answering question
SNEAKY ? lol... come on. U can do better then that. The sneaky one is not me stupid. I got no problem with u accepted rotten apples as crate of good apples.
But if u think u can accept existence of falsehood in your body of truths, then I got nothing to say. It doesnt negate the effect of falsehood already in there. It needs to be replaced by a true theory, but even that, cant gurantee its correct. It might later be found to be false again. So because of that, because of the possibility of falsehood in that body of truths, I just cant accept it. Because I KNOW, there are definitely falsehood. But if u dont, good on you.
Why not u show me wat is your definition of truth from it ? I think it is as plain as day tat u refuse to define it, keep adding arbitrary meaning to it and stick an article which never agree with wat u r saying.
Well.. let me guess, even when i defined it, u TOO create the loop by saying i never defined it. So why bother ? Right ? Since u are ALWAYS SO RIGHT.. n PERFECT.*clap clap*
GOOD ON YOU.
U said before tat Richard Feynman had a different definition of science. U and I r not Richard Feynman. Then we cannot conclude wat is his view on science r. So u cannot show any other definition of science available other than the dictionary. Thus science is a body of truth
U think its body of truths.. please.. by all means. U and I are not Richard Feynman, he is the ultimate judge to that truth.
I guess we both agree. No problem there) That was the whole point I was telling in the beginning. 1 + 1 = 2 is true... but not really the TRUTH! (17 Jan 9.58pm
I never say tat 1+1=2 is not the truth. I maintained tat it is the truth. U said tat truth must work for all contexts and I disagree. Then u said we agree tat 1=1 r not truth ? Tat is rubbish statement from u. Another fallacy
O REALLY... is 1+1 = 2 and 1 Sperm + 1 Ovum = 1 Fertilised egg are same ?
Please.. enlighten me again.
o OoOoh... I am shaking. So misrepresenation and mis-interpretation are NOT FALLACIES ?
They r fallacies. And the meaning is really tat it is the truth but u just made the wrong interpretation to it
OH SO NOW THEY ARE FALLACIES... and i made WRONG interpretation of it. BRAVO !! BRAVO !!! Please... enlighten me on my supposedly WRONG interpretation to it. SHOW ME.
U r still stuck in variable. X is a defined variable. 0/0 is not defined. They r two different things. Again u used fallacies and tried to treat 2 different things as the same.
Oh.. so now they are 2 different things... hahaha... i thought u said 0/0 can be ANYTHING. Please, check urself, or this one will really bite u in the ass REAL BAD.
A fallacy IS fallacy. U can pull ur ass out n say 0/0 on inside is ANYTHING, 0/0 on one side can be another ANYTHING, in the end of the day, THAT fallacy if i simplify it simply, i can prove 1 = 2. But i guess again, U R RIGHT.. I AM TOTALLY WRONG in my algebra.
If u r too stupid to understand undefined variable, I really suggest tat u should consult a person who is well versed in maths first. All the while u r still stuck in elementary maths and dealing with variable
lol... u sure ? U better be sure with ur above statement corresponds with X on one sides can equal one thing, and X on the other side can be another in the same equation.
Wa lao if u wanna plagarise, at least give the website a credit. Plagariser, u lift off section from the website
For someone who supposedly doesnt understand my "english" and "bad grammar" , i hope u can understand things written by others. But as usual, u will dismiss it, like theories, truths and science.
And if u read the article, u know wat ? It is simply a person point of view without any evidence. And tis is normal since it is from a religious website. Wat is your view ? U have no view and u decide to steal other people idea ? Wat a shame
My view is stated pages n pages before. Its very obvios its cut n paste with different fonts.
He is human. But u r just using fallacy to hide your flawed logic
WOW.. so your logic is superior ? So IF MAN makes mistakes, Einstein is a man, and Einstein makes mistakes is NOT logic ? U want me to show u that Einstein makes mistakes ? Do u ? Are u going to cut off ur left nut ?
And it do include communicating the idea to other peers. Unlike u, I will agree I make a mistake. But u think u r always right and tat u refuse to acknowledge tat your definition of the words is so wrong
WOW.. FINALLY.. U ADMIT U WILL MAKE A MISTAKE. Took u QUITE a while didnt it ?
They have no problem defining their truth but u have. U never even tell which school of thought u r following for the word truth. Tat is the biggest problem with u. And dictionary .com is English. If we wanna standardize our understanding, we use dictionary
So.. I NEED to follow a school of thought ? I cant have my OWN brain to decide on which are the ones i should adopt and which are the ones i dont ? U know, dictionary.com , u can treat it as ur bible . I , choose to absorb all information and disseminate it myself and come up with my own conclusion.
Truth is Truth = Actual Existence. But again u just too stupid
True = True
Whats so hard ? I already stated, clearly, with examples, fitting my description of what is true may not be the truth. U understood, but u just want to apply UR definition of TRUTH into my belief. So u ARE stupid. U know it cant work, but u keep insiting it. Hence i am more then willing to entertain u in this loop.
Again rubbish here. To u, there is no such thing as grey and everything must be black and white. U think u could buy a crate of 500 good apples with 0 spoilt apples in it ? Actually wat r u trying to say here ? U wanna stereotype ? If in a country there r criminal in it, u gonna say it is a lousy country ? If u have diarrhea before, r u gonna say u like to eat garbage ? If u say u wrote the wrong things before, r u gonna say u r stupid and wrote all the wrong things ?
Exactly, if there is grey.. U SAY ITS GREY. If its BLACK.. u SAY ITS BLACK.. if its WHITE.. u SAY ITS WHITE. U dont say something that is NOT.
Thats why, if u cant gurantee me a crate of GOOD APPLES, u tell me its Crate of MOSTLY good apples, i accept. Of course. So what if i am specific. What if i am down to the detail. It gets me get the job done. It gets me to identify affidavits and testimonies that are no exact, to find flaws and intentions. I expect my oil tanker to come with 27300 litres. But because they said 27300 litres with a variance of +- 0.05%, i accept. But just dont tell me its 100% 27300 litres of AGO product.
YOUR analogy are even MORE stupid. But as usual, UR analogy.. is THE BEST... OH SO PERFECT n MAKES SENSE. Please, spare me the superior analogies.
Since when i said i was not human ? I was the one saying i am human. I make mistakes. I admit my mistakes. Explaination was given to clear any misunderstandings. But like i said, U DONT WANT MY UNDERSTANDING, U WANT MY COMPLIANCE.
-
Ya ? But I got a problem with yours and thus ask u to clarify. Up till now u refuse to do it. And as said before, your maserati example is just bad
Its a perfect example. But u are just too stupid to understand it. The engine. The core. The heart of the car.
Perfect example ? Wat is the link between “truth” and engine then ? I don’t see the connection here. And there r things tat could be replaceable and things tat could not be replaceable. Most people will not mind eating kway teow instead of noodles or drinking different brand of milk. But of course, u r too stupid to realize tat your example is silly
Clarify ? I clarified with examples of 1+1 , Gravity, science able to be wrong... etc. But i guess as usual, u interprete it the way u do. So whats the point ? So be it.
The example of 1+1 is wrong and u keep insisting gravity is truth. Of course to a person who just keep denying, even basic knowledge is false to u
Tis is rubbish again. I said before the graph show x could be –ve infinity to + infinity. And 0 is between these values. U r thinking like a primary school kid tat is why u expect the graph to cut. I did not make a mistake here, it is just u refuse to accept the answer
IS ZERO = ZERO +ve , -ve. YES OR NO? U know, pulling answers ouf o ur ass is one thing, not admitting to a mistake is another.
Is zero between +ve infinity and –ve infinity ? Of course again u try to deny and refuse to answer questions in its entirely. And do u know who is the first person who says tat 0/0 is logically zero ? It is u. So u must be pulling answers from your ass
Tat again is another loop made by u. Science had stated facts which u cannot reject. They stated 1+1=2. They stated gravity. They stated water freezes at 0 degree. R u gonna say these r not truth
What loop ?Science explaines the How and Why . Truth is there. So whats the problem ? Please.. enlighten me.
As said before, any real answer to a question is truth. If u asked whether I slept last night and I answered an honest yes, tat answer is already the truth. So the answer to how and why like why is there rain and simple knowledge like water freezes at 0 degrees r real answers and thus truth. But then u just deny and deny and try to avoid question etc
But if u think u can accept existence of falsehood in your body of truths, then I got nothing to say. It doesnt negate the effect of falsehood already in there. It needs to be replaced by a true theory, but even that, cant gurantee its correct. It might later be found to be false again. So because of that, because of the possibility of falsehood in that body of truths, I just cant accept it. Because I KNOW, there are definitely falsehood. But if u dont, good on you.
The loop is really u saying tat there r no truth in science at all, and tat they cannot even make a simple statement. I have asked before. Simple things like things r pulled to the ground by gravity is a fact and truth. Simple things like 1+1=2 is also simple truth, or how water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius etc. However u refuse to believe such simple things to be truth. It don’t even have to be a complicated theory and a simple basic knowledge and fact. But of course u just deny tat these simple facts r even true.
Well.. let me guess, even when i defined it, u TOO create the loop by saying i never defined it. So why bother ? Right ? Since u are ALWAYS SO RIGHT.. n PERFECT.*clap clap*
If u defined it, then I will stop the loop. Simple right ? When I say u start a loop. It is because I have answerd your points but u just avoid it. But for the definition case, u cannot. If u think your statement is so full of sense, then u should just give a proper definition to it. But u refused. So it is obvious u really is just talking cock
U said before tat Richard Feynman had a different definition of science. U and I r not Richard Feynman. Then we cannot conclude wat is his view on science r. So u cannot show any other definition of science available other than the dictionary. Thus science is a body of truth
U think its body of truths.. please.. by all means. U and I are not Richard Feynman, he is the ultimate judge to that truth.
Ya lor. Then it still go back to the fact tat the accepted definition of science is still body of truth. U never manage to show anybody with opposing views to tis
O REALLY... is 1+1 = 2 and 1 Sperm + 1 Ovum = 1 Fertilised egg are same ?
Please.. enlighten me again.
Wat do u wanna find in the first place before u start the calculation ? Surely u must have logical problem or question at hand before u apply the solution right ? Otherwise u r really just talking cock
OH SO NOW THEY ARE FALLACIES... and i made WRONG interpretation of it. BRAVO !! BRAVO !!! Please... enlighten me on my supposedly WRONG interpretation to it. SHOW ME.
U mean on the definition of fallacy ? U can check the dictionary which states tat fallacy: a misleading or unsound argument
Oh.. so now they are 2 different things... hahaha... i thought u said 0/0 can be ANYTHING. Please, check urself, or this one will really bite u in the ass REAL BAD.
A fallacy IS fallacy. U can pull ur ass out n say 0/0 on inside is ANYTHING, 0/0 on one side can be another ANYTHING, in the end of the day, THAT fallacy if i simplify it simply, i can prove 1 = 2. But i guess again, U R RIGHT.. I AM TOTALLY WRONG in my algebra.
Another logic flaw of yours
1) It could be anything
2) So u claimed it could be variable
3) However it don’t have to be a variable. It can be anything
4) So your argument is still wrong because it could be anything other than a variable and thus my equation is not wrong
So again u made another fallacy and mis-interprete by providing unsound arguments.
lol... u sure ? U better be sure with ur above statement corresponds with X on one sides can equal one thing, and X on the other side can be another in the same equation.
Yes I am sure. And U r still treating 0/0 as a defined variable and u r just too stupid to realize tat.
For someone who supposedly doesnt understand my "english" and "bad grammar" , i hope u can understand things written by others. But as usual, u will dismiss it, like theories, truths and science.
Well so u admit u plagarise right ? And u cannot come out with your arguments isn’t it ?
My view is stated pages n pages before. Its very obvios its cut n paste with different fonts.
Then why not have the courtesy to quote where u take it from ? I guess u did state your view long long ago. Science is never about the truth right ? Even your article do not support tat fact
WOW.. so your logic is superior ? So IF MAN makes mistakes, Einstein is a man, and Einstein makes mistakes is NOT logic ? U want me to show u that Einstein makes mistakes ? Do u ? Are u going to cut off ur left nut ?
Did u not understand your fallacy ?
o 1) Men made mistake
2) Einstien is man
3) So u conclude Einstein made mistake
The problem is,
1) Men don’t always make mistake. They can do the right things
2) Einstein don’t always make mistakes and can do the right things
3) We cannot conclude Einstein is wrong with his theories. He may have come out with truth
He is human. But u r just using fallacy to hide your flawed logic
So u made a stereotype. U said Einstein make mistake, which I agree. But I do not agree tat his theories which r well established and accepted r mistakes. But to u, it is because he made mistakes before. Again shows your stereotype
And it do include communicating the idea to other peers. Unlike u, I will agree I make a mistake. But u think u r always right and tat u refuse to acknowledge tat your definition of the words is so wrong
WOW.. FINALLY.. U ADMIT U WILL MAKE A MISTAKE. Took u QUITE a while didnt it ?
U still have not shown me where u get the definition from. The question will be better if u did not plagarise and stick the right source u get it from.
So.. I NEED to follow a school of thought ? I cant have my OWN brain to decide on which are the ones i should adopt and which are the ones i dont ? U know, dictionary.com , u can treat it as ur bible . I , choose to absorb all information and disseminate it myself and come up with my own conclusion.
Truth is Truth = Actual Existence. But again u just too stupid
True = True
Whats so hard ? I already stated, clearly, with examples, fitting my description of what is true may not be the truth. U understood, but u just want to apply UR definition of TRUTH into my belief. So u ARE stupid. U know it cant work, but u keep insiting it.
The very basic thing to do is simply define it properly, which is something u refuse. If u say u come from your own school of thought, then surely u must tell wat it is about right ? And I did not treat the dictionary as a bible. I treat it as dictionary. The standard way of using English vocabulary and words.
If u say it is actual existence, then u have to answer many questions which u avoided before.
Do u agree tat a collective collection of truth studied together can enhance the understanding of the subject ?
o 2) If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
It is a simple logic.
Can u explain why the above does not apply to u ?
Why do u claim tat truth like 1+1 must work for all circumstances according to your definition? Why can’t it be true in a certain snapshot make it truth ?
Exactly, if there is grey.. U SAY ITS GREY. If its BLACK.. u SAY ITS BLACK.. if its WHITE.. u SAY ITS WHITE. U dont say something that is NOT.
Thats why, if u cant gurantee me a crate of GOOD APPLES, u tell me its Crate of MOSTLY good apples, i accept. Of course. So what if i am specific. What if i am down to the detail. It gets me get the job done. It gets me to identify affidavits and testimonies that are no exact, to find flaws and intentions. I expect my oil tanker to come with 27300 litres. But because they said 27300 litres with a variance of +- 0.05%, i accept. But just dont tell me its 100% 27300 litres of AGO product.
Tat is again silly. U KNOW WHO IS THE ONE TAT WANT TO BE DEFINITIVE ABOUT TIS ? U. U ask me to give a YES or NO answer to your question on the crate. Now u state tat we shouldn’t answer so definitively when u force people to give a definitive answer ? Isn't it your answer tat u will NOT call a crate with good apples as good apples.
I gave the answer of unsure then. To u, U gave the answer tat is must never be called a crate of good apples. U sure really use a lot of fallacies
Since when i said i was not human ? I was the one saying i am human. I make mistakes. I admit my mistakes. Explaination was given to clear any misunderstandings. But like i said, U DONT WANT MY UNDERSTANDING, U WANT MY COMPLIANCE.
Wat is the mistake u said u made ? The only one I see is tat u say u type "truth" as "true" a long time ago. After that where else ? Now u said I want your compliance, which is really wrong. I want your understanding. But wat do u say ? U cannot define the word "science", u cannot define "truth" properly then u made a vague encompassing point tat science is never about truth and called other people stupid ! U say the dictinary is wrong, people who follow dictionary r stupid and cannot think out of the box and said 1=1 is not truth. People ask all these to understand wat the hell u r saying. But U just don't want people to understand u !
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Ya ? But I got a problem with yours and thus ask u to clarify. Up till now u refuse to do it. And as said before, your maserati example is just bad
Its a perfect example. But u are just too stupid to understand it. The engine. The core. The heart of the car.
Perfect example ? Wat is the link between “truth” and engine then ? I don’t see the connection here. And there r things tat could be replaceable and things tat could not be replaceable. Most people will not mind eating kway teow instead of noodles or drinking different brand of milk. But of course, u r too stupid to realize tat your example is silly
Clarify ? I clarified with examples of 1+1 , Gravity, science able to be wrong... etc. But i guess as usual, u interprete it the way u do. So whats the point ? So be it.
The example of 1+1 is wrong and u keep insisting gravity is truth. Of course to a person who just keep denying, even basic knowledge is false to u
Tis is rubbish again. I said before the graph show x could be –ve infinity to + infinity. And 0 is between these values. U r thinking like a primary school kid tat is why u expect the graph to cut. I did not make a mistake here, it is just u refuse to accept the answer
IS ZERO = ZERO +ve , -ve. YES OR NO? U know, pulling answers ouf o ur ass is one thing, not admitting to a mistake is another.
Is zero between +ve infinity and –ve infinity ? Of course again u try to deny and refuse to answer questions in its entirely. And do u know who is the first person who says tat 0/0 is logically zero ? It is u. So u must be pulling answers from your ass
Tat again is another loop made by u. Science had stated facts which u cannot reject. They stated 1+1=2. They stated gravity. They stated water freezes at 0 degree. R u gonna say these r not truth
What loop ?Science explaines the How and Why . Truth is there. So whats the problem ? Please.. enlighten me.
As said before, any real answer to a question is truth. If u asked whether I slept last night and I answered an honest yes, tat answer is already the truth. So the answer to how and why like why is there rain and simple knowledge like water freezes at 0 degrees r real answers and thus truth. But then u just deny and deny and try to avoid question etc
But if u think u can accept existence of falsehood in your body of truths, then I got nothing to say. It doesnt negate the effect of falsehood already in there. It needs to be replaced by a true theory, but even that, cant gurantee its correct. It might later be found to be false again. So because of that, because of the possibility of falsehood in that body of truths, I just cant accept it. Because I KNOW, there are definitely falsehood. But if u dont, good on you.
The loop is really u saying tat there r no truth in science at all, and tat they cannot even make a simple statement. I have asked before. Simple things like things r pulled to the ground by gravity is a fact and truth. Simple things like 1+1=2 is also simple truth, or how water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius etc. However u refuse to believe such simple things to be truth. It don’t even have to be a complicated theory and a simple basic knowledge and fact. But of course u just deny tat these simple facts r even true.
Well.. let me guess, even when i defined it, u TOO create the loop by saying i never defined it. So why bother ? Right ? Since u are ALWAYS SO RIGHT.. n PERFECT.*clap clap*
If u defined it, then I will stop the loop. Simple right ? When I say u start a loop. It is because I have answerd your points but u just avoid it. But for the definition case, u cannot. If u think your statement is so full of sense, then u should just give a proper definition to it. But u refused. So it is obvious u really is just talking cock
U said before tat Richard Feynman had a different definition of science. U and I r not Richard Feynman. Then we cannot conclude wat is his view on science r. So u cannot show any other definition of science available other than the dictionary. Thus science is a body of truth
U think its body of truths.. please.. by all means. U and I are not Richard Feynman, he is the ultimate judge to that truth.
Ya lor. Then it still go back to the fact tat the accepted definition of science is still body of truth. U never manage to show anybody with opposing views to tis
O REALLY... is 1+1 = 2 and 1 Sperm + 1 Ovum = 1 Fertilised egg are same ?
Please.. enlighten me again.
Wat do u wanna find in the first place before u start the calculation ? Surely u must have logical problem or question at hand before u apply the solution right ? Otherwise u r really just talking cock
OH SO NOW THEY ARE FALLACIES... and i made WRONG interpretation of it. BRAVO !! BRAVO !!! Please... enlighten me on my supposedly WRONG interpretation to it. SHOW ME.
U mean on the definition of fallacy ? U can check the dictionary which states tat fallacy: a misleading or unsound argument
Oh.. so now they are 2 different things... hahaha... i thought u said 0/0 can be ANYTHING. Please, check urself, or this one will really bite u in the ass REAL BAD.
A fallacy IS fallacy. U can pull ur ass out n say 0/0 on inside is ANYTHING, 0/0 on one side can be another ANYTHING, in the end of the day, THAT fallacy if i simplify it simply, i can prove 1 = 2. But i guess again, U R RIGHT.. I AM TOTALLY WRONG in my algebra.
Another logic flaw of yours
1) It could be anything
2) So u claimed it could be variable
3) However it don’t have to be a variable. It can be anything
4) So your argument is still wrong because it could be anything other than a variable and thus my equation is not wrong
So again u made another fallacy and mis-interprete by providing unsound arguments.
lol... u sure ? U better be sure with ur above statement corresponds with X on one sides can equal one thing, and X on the other side can be another in the same equation.
Yes I am sure. And U r still treating 0/0 as a defined variable and u r just too stupid to realize tat.
For someone who supposedly doesnt understand my "english" and "bad grammar" , i hope u can understand things written by others. But as usual, u will dismiss it, like theories, truths and science.
Well so u admit u plagarise right ? And u cannot come out with your arguments isn’t it ?
My view is stated pages n pages before. Its very obvios its cut n paste with different fonts.
Then why not have the courtesy to quote where u take it from ? I guess u did state your view long long ago. Science is never about the truth right ? Even your article do not support tat fact
WOW.. so your logic is superior ? So IF MAN makes mistakes, Einstein is a man, and Einstein makes mistakes is NOT logic ? U want me to show u that Einstein makes mistakes ? Do u ? Are u going to cut off ur left nut ?
Did u not understand your fallacy ?
o 1) Men made mistake
2) Einstien is man
3) So u conclude Einstein made mistake
The problem is,
1) Men don’t always make mistake. They can do the right things
2) Einstein don’t always make mistakes and can do the right things
3) We cannot conclude Einstein is wrong with his theories. He may have come out with truth
He is human. But u r just using fallacy to hide your flawed logic
So u made a stereotype. U said Einstein make mistake, which I agree. But I do not agree tat his theories which r well established and accepted r mistakes. But to u, it is because he made mistakes before. Again shows your stereotype
And it do include communicating the idea to other peers. Unlike u, I will agree I make a mistake. But u think u r always right and tat u refuse to acknowledge tat your definition of the words is so wrong
WOW.. FINALLY.. U ADMIT U WILL MAKE A MISTAKE. Took u QUITE a while didnt it ?
U still have not shown me where u get the definition from. The question will be better if u did not plagarise and stick the right source u get it from.
So.. I NEED to follow a school of thought ? I cant have my OWN brain to decide on which are the ones i should adopt and which are the ones i dont ? U know, dictionary.com , u can treat it as ur bible . I , choose to absorb all information and disseminate it myself and come up with my own conclusion.
Truth is Truth = Actual Existence. But again u just too stupid
True = True
Whats so hard ? I already stated, clearly, with examples, fitting my description of what is true may not be the truth. U understood, but u just want to apply UR definition of TRUTH into my belief. So u ARE stupid. U know it cant work, but u keep insiting it.
The very basic thing to do is simply define it properly, which is something u refuse. If u say u come from your own school of thought, then surely u must tell wat it is about right ? And I did not treat the dictionary as a bible. I treat it as dictionary. The standard way of using English vocabulary and words.
If u say it is actual existence, then u have to answer many questions which u avoided before.
Do u agree tat a collective collection of truth studied together can enhance the understanding of the subject ?
o 2) If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
It is a simple logic.
Can u explain why the above does not apply to u ?
Why do u claim tat truth like 1+1 must work for all circumstances according to your definition? Why can’t it be true in a certain snapshot make it truth ?
Exactly, if there is grey.. U SAY ITS GREY. If its BLACK.. u SAY ITS BLACK.. if its WHITE.. u SAY ITS WHITE. U dont say something that is NOT.
Thats why, if u cant gurantee me a crate of GOOD APPLES, u tell me its Crate of MOSTLY good apples, i accept. Of course. So what if i am specific. What if i am down to the detail. It gets me get the job done. It gets me to identify affidavits and testimonies that are no exact, to find flaws and intentions. I expect my oil tanker to come with 27300 litres. But because they said 27300 litres with a variance of +- 0.05%, i accept. But just dont tell me its 100% 27300 litres of AGO product.
Tat is again silly. U KNOW WHO IS THE ONE TAT WANT TO BE DEFINITIVE ABOUT TIS ? U. U ask me to give a YES or NO answer to your question on the crate. Now u state tat we shouldn’t answer so definitively when u force people to give a definitive answer ? Isn't it your answer tat u will NOT call a crate with good apples as good apples.
I gave the answer of unsure then. To u, U gave the answer tat is must never be called a crate of good apples. U sure really use a lot of fallacies
Since when i said i was not human ? I was the one saying i am human. I make mistakes. I admit my mistakes. Explaination was given to clear any misunderstandings. But like i said, U DONT WANT MY UNDERSTANDING, U WANT MY COMPLIANCE.
Wat is the mistake u said u made ? The only one I see is tat u say u type "truth" as "true" a long time ago. After that where else ? Now u said I want your compliance, which is really wrong. I want your understanding. But wat do u say ? U cannot define the word "science", u cannot define "truth" properly then u made a vague encompassing point tat science is never about truth and called other people stupid ! U say the dictinary is wrong, people who follow dictionary r stupid and cannot think out of the box and said 1=1 is not truth. People ask all these to understand wat the hell u r saying. But U just don't want people to understand u !
The truth is that there are some serious reasons to doubt that 'scientific' theories or principles can ever be thought of as absolutely true.
There are difficulties in the reasoning that anoints any scientific theory as absolutely true, and they have to do with the basic process of science itself. The scientific method can be thought of as a heuristic that always (in theory) moves forward, toward models with greater and greater explanatory and predictive strength. It also leaves open further questioning that will itself be subject to the heuristic.
There has been a great deal of progress that has come out of science, and this may be evidence that explanatory and predictive models have played out well so far. But there is a certain Western mindset that readily accepts our present world as a state of advancement. There are other ways of looking at the world we have engineered and concluding that we have run amok, or at least that we haven't gotten some of the important stuff right at all. I am wildly enthusiastic about science, but we need to proceed with far more humility and caution than has been our banner up to now.
It's decided by "Scientific Methods", but will only be true until such time that new evidences are discovered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
The truth has not changed nor will it be decided by a majority, but by the evidence.
Facts are facts. Will a vote of over half a group of physicists suspend the effects of gravity? Certainly not. But gravity is hard to ignore.
Most of those who fully understand the scientific principles are convinced.
Scientific thinking has evolved. Why wouldn't it? Everything else does. Denying it, wishing it away or refusing to accept it won't change it. Scientific truth is not subject to the governance of majority vote. The natural world operates by its own rules. Puzzle them out, understand them, accept them and adapt them to make your life and the lives of your brothers and sisters better, or step off.
Probably every single advance in science started out as a minority view, as did some that stayed that way because they didn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Just because something is now in a minority does not mean it will some day attain majority acceptance status.
Its very simple. Someone to be able to come up with thus thinking, does not contradict with my thinking. Just because minority has a little bit differences in belief doesnt mean they are totally wrong.
U will notice true and truth used , true = true, truth = truth.
Another fallacy u made
1) Men made mistake
2) Einstien is man
3) So u conclude Einstein made mistake
The problem is,
1) Men don’t always make mistake. They can do the right things
2) Einstein don’t always make mistakes and can do the right things
3) We cannot conclude Einstein is wrong with his theories. He may have come out with truth
OH.. SO when I APPLY LOGIC 101 , ITS WRONG, BUT YOUR LOGIC IS RIGHT. BRAVO BRAVO !!! CLAP CLAP! Wooo MR PERFECT IN ACTION HERE.
Chronology of Einstein’s Mistakes
-
1905 Mistake in clock synchronization procedure on which Einstein based special relativity
-
1905 Failure to consider Michelson-Morley experiment
-
1905 Mistake in transverse mass of high-speed particles
-
1905 Multiple mistakes in the mathematics and physics used in calculation of viscosity of liquids, from which Einstein deduced size of molecules
-
1905 Mistakes in the relationship between thermal radiation and quanta of light
-
1905 Mistake in the first proof of E = mc2
-
1906 Mistakes in the second, third, and fourth proofs of E = mc2
-
1907 Mistake in the synchronization procedure for accelerated clocks
-
1907 Mistakes in the Principle of Equivalence of gravitation and acceleration
-
1911 Mistake in the first calculation of the bending of light
-
1913 Mistake in the first attempt at a theory of general relativity
-
1914 Mistake in the fifth proof of E = mc2
-
1915 Mistake in the Einstein-de Haas experiment
-
1915 Mistakes in several attempts at theories of general relativity
-
1916 Mistake in the interpretation of Mach’s principle
-
1917 Mistake in the introduction of the cosmological constant (the “biggest blunder”)
-
1919 Mistakes in two attempts to modify general relativity
-
1925 Mistakes and more mistakes in the attempts to formulate a unified theory
-
1927 Mistakes in discussions with Bohr on quantum uncertainties
-
1933 Mistakes in interpretation of quantum mechanics (Does God play dice?)
-
1934 Mistake in the sixth proof of E = mc2
-
1939 Mistake in the interpretation of the Schwarzschild singularity and gravitational collapse (the “black hole”)
So.. are u going to cut ur left nut out ? Are u going to eat back your vomite now Mr Stupid ?
U know anything about Thermodynamics ? When we were in primary and secondary schools, what did the teachers teach us. Compare it to what UNI taught us. First thing the lecturer said was "WHAT U KNOW ABOUT THERMODYNAMICS.. IS WRONG.. THIS IS THE REAL STUFF"
But as usual, u will deny, but its up to you. U will as usual pull answers and interpretations out of from your ASS. I am here to show u the possibilities. To believe or to accept or not, is up to you. But to say i am talking rubbish, is another. Because the same can be equally said about u. You can believe in what u want. THats why, u will never be a great scientist or a great businessman.
Hence.. for someone who is UNSURE about the subject matters, you are talking as much rubbish... or even more.
Truth:
'Philosophy 101' would divide the idea of physical 'truth' into small and capital-cased "t"s, wherein small case = transient, fallable, personal "truth" vs. the universal, greater-than-an-individual, (quasi-)permanent capital case "Truth".
There are certain things that everyone or virtually everyone agrees on, and are therefor seen as "Universal Truths", but that doesn't make them right, because there's bound to be someone who disagrees with them, and as long as we're all human, all our beliefs are on the same footing, even if one or another happens to be in the majority.
If you consider something true, then it is true for you, yes. But it's no as though that doesn't mean anything, in fact it dictates your personal reality to a huge degree.Then, there is Emotional truth, where is basically just a statement made by a MAJORITY TO CONTROL THE MINORITY.
Another distortion of the the word TRUE is when truth or falsity doesn't apply to a statement. For instance, another ABer used the example: "'that movie sucked' can be true for you, but not for the next person." This is not something can be evaluated in terms of its truth or falisty. It cannot be true that a movie sucked. It can be true that a movie sucked according to certain criteria, or it can be true that you believe the movie sucked, but whether or not the movie really sucked cannot be spoken of in terms of truth.
You so simply equate True = Truth.. DO U WORSHIP DICTIONARY.COM ? Here, we have scholars, intellectuals , philosophers.. and all u can equate true = truth is ur simple logic. If speaks in lengths about ur limited knowledge. Even if i may not know how to present my definition properly and clearly, my examples has shown again n again the meaning of my truth.
Do u understand Fitch's Paradox of Truth ?Moores Paradox ? The knowability thesis ? Are u omniscient ?
Maybe u should have a good read THIS .
If u come out with your bullshit statement that it all corressponds with.. DICTIONARY.COM and NOTHING ON MY DEFINITION ,u are indeed ultimately, too stupid, too wilfully ignorant or just too Kiasu Si to admit ur bamboozling.
What is Truth ?
What is a theory of truth?<---- Notice the word THEORY ?
Let's take an example from Physics, a science that is famous for theories. A theory of electricity is an explanation of the nature and cause of electricity and a set of laws that electrical phenomena obey. A theory of truth is essentially an explanation of the nature of truth and a set of laws that "true" things obey. Electricity is the property that all electrical things share. What is the property that all true statements have in common? Why is a theory of truth important? Because that is what, ultimately, our cognitive life is all about: truth. Whenever we analyze a scene, whenever we analyze a statement, whenever we recall a memory, whenever we do anything with our brain, we are on a quest for truth. Our cognitive life is a continuous struggle for truth: is that stain in the distance a tree? Is she home tonight? Will my flight take off on time? Why did the Roman empire fall? Our mind, ultimately, is an organ to identify truth. The meaing of our life is truth.
Correspondence
Perhaps the most intuitive theory of truth is the "correspondence theory of truth", that relates truth to reality: a statement is true if and only if the world it describes is real. Truth corresponds to the facts. The statement "snow is white" is true in virtue of the fact that snow is, indeed, white. The statement "my name is Piero" is true in virtue of the fact that my name is, indeed, Piero. And so forth. There are several problems with this theory of truth. The truth predicate (the expression "is true") acts as an intermediary between words (language, mind) and the world. One problem is that this definition of truth relates two things that are very different in nature and it is not clear how we can find a correspondence between things that belong to different realms. Precisely, statements (such as "snow is white" and "my name is Piero") are mental objects. They are in my head. The reality we compare them with is made of objects, such as snow. A statement is made of a number of words (each of which may present its own problems at close scrutiny). The reality is refers to is made of objects and properties of objects. Is there truly a correspondece between the words "snow is white" and the fact that snow is white? How can we compared two things that are different in nature, like a mental object and a physical fact? This point is important because we are supposed to define truth outside us: truth must not depend on us, it must depend on the world. Something is true not because I think so, but because there is some objective truth out there in the world. If this is the case, the problem is: how can a mental object like a statement relate to an object that is outside the mind. Second, most statements just do not accurately reflect reality: is snow white? Not really. The closer you look at snow the less white it is. Is today a "hot" day? Yes, if you don't start arguing about which temperature qualifies for hot. And so forth. The first objection can be answered by observing that, if you believe in modern science, we rarely talk about things that exist and mostly talk about things that our brain presents us with. I don't know if there exists snow. My brain shows me something that we named snow, but Quantum Physics tells me that there is only a clod of particles. I see white, but Quantum Physics tells me that there is a stream of photons. And so forth. When we say that snow is white, we are not referring to something that exists in the world (it may or it may not exist), we are referring to something that is happening in our brain: our brain received some inputs from the senses and generated the perception of snow and of white. Therefore, both statements and "reality" are mental objects, and it is perfectly legitimate to relate a mental object such as the statement "snow is white" to a mental object such as the perception or the memory that snow is white. We can rephrase the correspondence problem in neural terms. A statement (for example, about the snow being white) is a neural pattern in the brain. The fact that snow is white is also a neural pattern in the brain (either a pattern of recalling a memory of snow or a pattern of perceiving the snow). It is perfectly legitimate to compare two patterns of brain activity.
Alfred Tarski found his own solution to the problems of the correspondence theory. Alfred Tarski's theory of truth has two components. First, he defines a true staments as a statement that corresponds to reality. This is only a definition of "true statement" and not of "truth" in general. Of course, if one lists all true statements, one gets a definition of truth: truth is "snow is white" and "my name is Piero" and "the Earth is not the center of the universe" and "France won the 1998 world cup" and "..." But this is neither elegant nor practical (most languages have an infinite number of true statements). The second component to Tarski's theory is the idea that truth can only be defined relative to another language. Most languages include the word "true", but that leads to paradoxes like "I am lying" which is both true and false at the same time. The problem is simply that "true" is a word of the language and we are applying it to a statement of the language. Tarski realized that one can't define truth in a language through the language itself and avoid contradictions. So he defined only "truth in a language". One must use a "meta-language" to define truth in the "object language". Truth in the object language can then be defined recursively from the truth of elementary statements (the "sentential functions"). "For all sentences s in language L, s is true if and only if T(s) is true", where T(s) is a formula containing s and L's primitives. Alfred Tarski's theory of truth does not work well with ordinary languages, although it works wonders with the formal languages of mathematical logic. The problem with Tarski's theory is that it is not clear what he defined. He did not defined truth, but "truth in a language". By this, it is not clear if he indirectly acknowledged that the nature of truth is impossible or even pointless. A secondary problem is that his theory does not distinguish the linguistic theory from the metaphysical theory: explaining the word "true" is a linguistic matter, whereas explaining the nature of truth is a metaphysical matter. Tarski's theory is about the linguistic feature, and does not seem to even address the metaphysical question.
Coherence
The correspondence theory of truth assumes that the definition of truth is in the world. However, one can object that everything is ultimately in the mind and therefore the definition of truth is inside us. It is pointless to look for a definition in the world. Idealists (as opposed to materialists) believe this. This leads to a difference theory of truth: truth can no longer be defined as the correspondence to the facts of the worlds, but has to be defined as the correspondence with the facts of the mind. The "coherence theory of truth" defines truth as coherence with the system of beliefs in one's mind: the statement "snow is white" is true if the fact asserted by this statement this is coherent with all the other facts that are believed to be true. Truth is defined by the set of coherent statements that make up a whole system of beliefs. Any theory of Cosmology, for example, is of this kind: the truth of a statement about black holes cannot verified (because we can't travel into a black hole and not even close to one) and therefore it only depends on whether it is coherent with the other "truths" of Cosmology. Idealists believe that this is the definition of truth in general: we can never be sure of the world, therefore we can only assess whether a statement is coherent or not with our beliefs. The idea of "coherence" is extended by phenomenology to mean a state of balance with the environment. Martin Heidegger, one of the most confusing and cryptic (not to mention boring) of philosophers, claimed that truth is "freedom". What he calls freedom is an "attunement" with the world (or "letting beings be"). You attune to the world and truth is revealed to you.
Pragmatism
Charles Peirce enunciated the "pragmatist" motto, that amounts to: the meaning of an idea consists in its practical effects on our daily lives. If two ideas have the same practical effects on us, they have the same meaning. The idea of truth is defined accordingly: truth is the effect is has on us, and that effect is "consensus". Truth is not agreement with reality, it is agreement among humans. That agreement is reached after a process of scientific investigation. At the end of each such process, humans reach a consensus about what is "true" (e.g., that the Earth is not the center of the universe, that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, that the Everest is the tallest mountain on the Earth). This set the foundations for relating truth to "verifications": something is true if and onloy if its truth can be practically verified. For Michael Dummett, the truth of a statement must be provable in a finite amount of time, otherwise the statement is not true. The statement "I will never win the Nobel prize" is provable (just wait until I die), but the statement "I am a genius" or "there will never be another like me" are not provable, and thereforetheir truth value cannot be determined. When we say that a statement is true, we mean that it can be verified. Dummett applies to the world at large the same rules that "intuitionists" applied to logic: to decide the truth of a statement is to prove a theorem. The proof determines truth. If no proof can be constructed, then there is no truth. Verification is not just a means to achieve truth: it is truth. The two concepts are virtually impossible to separate.
Deflation
In 1927 Frank Ramsey inaugurated "deflationary" thinking about truth by claiming that the word "true" is simply redundant: "it is true that the snow is white" does not say anything more than "the snow is white". By adding "it is true that" we are not adding anything, we are merely making it sound nicer. Quine's "disquotationalism" follows from this claim: to ascribe truth to a statement merely means to remove the quotation marks. For example, the statement "snow is white" is true if and only if it is a fact that snow is white. Now remove the inessential words and what you have is: "snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white. The truth predicate "is true" simply removes the quotation marks. "Truth is disquotation". Quine concedes that the truth predicate (the expression "is true") has at least one useful function: it allows us to generalize, like when I state "everything I told you is true". By using the truth predicate, I can simplify what would otherwise be an infinite list of statements. But this is the only usefulness of the truth predicate: there is no need for a theory of truth, there is no nature of truth. The truth predicate is merely a linguistic expedient to generalize statements. The problem remains, of course, that ordinary humans can easily grasp the concept of "true", whether Quine believes it to be a mere "disquotation" or not. There is something that we call "truth" in our minds. Donald Davidson advocates that truth is a primitive concept that cannot be defined via anyt other concept. In fact, no other concept would exist without the concept of truth.
Functionalism
Inspired by Ludwig Wittgenstein's common-sense theory of truth, that different statements can be all true without being true in the same way (that led him to "alethic pluralism", i.e. to accept that truth is a multi-faceted concept), Lynch takes issue with the idea that there is "one" theory of truth. Lynch argues that there is a plurality of "truths", rather than a single all-encompassing theory of truth. For example, truth in ethics and truth in justice and truth in mathematics obey different laws. The nature of truth is difficult to find because there isn't only one nature of truth. One needs a different theory of truth for each domain, and that is precisely what ordinary humans employ in their daily lives. Just like functionalism believes in "multiple realizations" of the same mental phenomenon, i.e. that the same mental state can be "realized" by different physical states (what matters being the function, not the "stuff"), Lynch believes that "truth" (a uniform concept across domains) can be realized by different theories in different domains. For example, pain is a mental state that is causually related to some inputs (e.g., a sore finger), outputs (e.g., facial expression and sounds), and other mental states (e.g., unhappiness). Any state that realizes this causal role is called "pain", even if the pain due to a blister and the pain due to a cold are very different in nature. Lynch claims that "truth" names a functional role, and that we all understand what that role is, regardless of what realizes it. Lynch compares this with the concept of "head of state": both the president of the United States, the king of Jordan, Fidel Castro and the chancellor of Germany are heads of state, although they way they got the job and the way they administer it vary greatly. The "function" of head of state, though, is understood the same way in the US, France and Cuba. (A possible objection is that equality is sometimes merely a form of fuzziness: the closer you look, the less similar Castro and the king of Jordan are, and the less clear the term "head of state" is. One can suspect that "functional role" is a synonym for "vague definition". Relax the definition and just about anything in this universe will have the same "functional role" as anything else). If truth is merely a functional role, if "to be true" is to play the alethic role, what is exactly that role? Lynch thinks that truth is defined by an "alethic network", a set of interdepenmdent definitions that, jointly, define each other: a proposition is whatever is true or false, a fact is what makes a proposition true or false, etc. Lynch claims that each "alethic concept" in the alethic network is defined by the role it plays in the network. One can't grasp an alethic concept (truth, proposition, fact) without grasping them all. Each alethic concept depends on all of the others. Truth cannot be defined as "stand alone", but only as part of the broader definition of all alethic entities. Truth is the property of playing the truth role in an alethic network.There is one and only one concept of truth, but it can be realized in multiple ways.
But wait... in case, u dot NOT understand! How can u blame me to NOT accept Science = Body of Truths , when the meaning , definition of truth itself, is a topic of discussion as well. You are just too simple minded, to equate True= Truth from DICTIONARY.COM .
But if u are TOO STUPID to read a summary, here is a more DETAILED ONE. CLICK HERE STUPID.
BUT WAIT ! THERE IS MORE !
Proving truth
Explanations > Social Research > Articles > Proving truth
Assertion | Rationalism | Verification | Falsification | See also
A big problem in science and social research is the question of proving whether a statement is true or not, where truth is defined as common agreement about the validity of the statement. We all have our individual truths, but only when target people agrees a truth does it have any external value.
Assertion
The simplest way of creating truth is simply to assert a belief to be true, and this is regularly used even by scientists today. Various means are used to strengthen the assertion.
Assignment to unquestionable source
In science, the assignment is typically to the current paradigm, whether it is Newtonian Physics, Quantum Mechanics or whatever. It may also be assigned to a canonized text or theorist.
The religious equivalent is to assign truth to God, either as written in the Bible (the Koran, etc.) or to the Priests who are mouthpieces of God.
Common sense and other forms of coercion
The other common use of assertion is to state something as 'common sense', with the implication that anyone who challenges the statement does not have common sense and hence is too stupid to challenge it anyway.
Other forms of coercion includes the physicality with which a statement is made (eg. loud voice, staring, etc.) and various persuasive methods as found elsewhere in this website!
Rationalism
The Rationalist approach is to use logic and structured argumentation to prove a point. Note that as it is internal, a rational truth, although it is more believable, may still be considered to be a belief.
Rational argument started with the Athenian Greeks and re-emerged after centuries of religious assertion during the Age of Enlightenment, most famously with René Descartes.
Agreement, not coercion
To make a rational argument, all players must be allowed to make assertions, but others must also be allowed to challenge them. Because no external proof is needed in logic, the only conclusions of an argument can be that people agree or they disagree. Truth is thus still an internal construction and comes from agreement rather than the coercive approach of assertion.
Conditional truths
Rational arguments often use conditional statements, of the form 'if A then B', and seeks to gain agreement on types of belief. The logic applied typically makes significant use of mathematical set theory and Boolean Algebra.
Verification
Verification (also known as Confirmation or Justification) is an approach used within science for many years for proving that hypotheses are true. It was used for a long time in Positivism.
Verification assumes that an assertion of A=B need only be shown to be true once (or a few times) to be forever true.
Observable demonstration
Proper verification requires observable, empirical evidence. Rather than argue that something is true, verification shows that it is true. This is based on the assumption that when several people observe something, they perceive the same thing and can draw similar conclusions and meanings about it.
Experimental proof
The classic method of verification is to set up an experiment that includes both a control and a target group, and through controlled conditions showing that the target group exhibits the hypothesized behavior solely because of an extra stimulus or different condition that they were given that the control group were not.
Falsification
The problem with verification, as Karl Popper pointed out, was that just because you can show something to be true in one set of circumstances, you cannot then use induction to create a general truth that is true in all circumstances.
Falsification assumes that an assertion of A=B is true only if all possibilities of A<>B are shown to be false (which is often a much larger domain).
Start from anywhere
Whereas a verificationist inductive approach starts with observation and then forms a theory to test elsewhere, falsification allows you to start anywhere, with any theory or assertion you like. The reason for this is that silly statements are easily falsified.
Testing for falsehood
The basic principle of falsification is that truth is created when falsification efforts fail. The idea is thus tested with the intent of proving it false, thus deliberately overcoming the trap of confirmation bias.
Testability
The problem so far with falsification is that you could start with an assertion that Elvis has reincarnated on Venus, and because you cannot prove it false you might assume that it is true. Falsification thus includes the condition that reasonable tests can be done - in this case traveling to Venus and searching every nook and cranny (and then doing DNA tests on the glittering creatures found there).
The problem with verification, as Karl Popper pointed out, was that just because you can show something to be true in one set of circumstances, you cannot then use induction to create a general truth that is true in all circumstances. <---- GEEE..... WOW... PLEASE.. DONT BE STUPID AND THINK UR DEFINITION OF TRUTH AND SCIENCE.. IS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH.
There is truth that is verifiable - mathematics, chemistry, physics, etc.
Confucius stated that "absolute Truth is indestructible. Being indestructible, it is eternal. Being eternal, it is self-existent. Being self-existent, it is infinite. Being infinite, it is vast and deep. Being vast and deep, it is transcendental and intelligent."
Plato said, "truth is the beginning of every good thing, both in heaven and on earth; and he who would be blessed and happy should be from the first a partaker of truth, for then he can be trusted."
John Locke said, about truth, "to love truth is the principal part of human perfection in this world, and the seed-plot of all other virtues."
When something is said to be true, it is then conformable to fact, thereby free from being false.What is true.. MAY NOT be the truth.. depending on circumstances. Truth = Absolute Existence (something so near to that dicionary.com meaning) SO TELL ME, did ur bible DICTIONARY.COM say anything about it ?
I believe the Truth is written everywhere in the universe but never in human handwriting or by a manmade product -- those are only capable of bits and glimpses of Truth if they are lucky or someone's truth being passed off as Truth. I believe we all recognize Truth when we encounter it, even though we may not be fully conscious of what occurred.
To find out if a truth really exists we would need to have two concepts in mind: “Time” and “Actuality” now what does Time mean here? to authenticate something as real you would need to see exactly “When” something happened,”How” it happened and “Who” witnessed it.
The second aspect to have into consideration when about to take something as real is “Actuality”. facts, rather than things that people believe or imagine, the state of the given event being real or really existing.
But how does perception effect truth? in order for truth to be properly
defined
, it would need to be factually and logically stated. in other words,
it would need to be real. There can never be two sets of truths, when
one does not come into agreement with the other. Only one can be true, not both. perhaps by digging deeper into a
statement or report you could conclude what is not true, truth is not
error and is not contradictory. truth cannot be deceptive. If truth really exists then we should be able to find it, and if it cannot be known then it probably doesn’t exist, but it does exist, for example you know that is true that you are reading this, you know is true that you can see, those are two undeniable truths. it is also truth that your computer display came into existence by means of a creator, the monitor could not have created itself because if something doesn’t exist then it cannot execute an action, ie: creating itself. those are logical and factual truths, they are all absolute truths.
At this point we have concluded by undeniable logic that truth exists, but can truth really exist as factual all the time? does truth change over time? If we are hoping to ever discover an eternal and absolute truth which is beyond our cultural, religious and personal preferences, we must understand that we are looking for a truth greater than ourselves, something that goes above and beyond our native environment, something above our cultural and individual inclinations.
Imagine
centuries ago you and me are seating somewhere debating and talking
about the universe, I say: “wow how interesting the earth is flat
and is seating on these -
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Ya ? But I got a problem with yours and thus ask u to clarify. Up till now u refuse to do it. And as said before, your maserati example is just bad
Its a perfect example. But u are just too stupid to understand it. The engine. The core. The heart of the car.
Perfect example ? Wat is the link between “truth” and engine then ? I don’t see the connection here. And there r things tat could be replaceable and things tat could not be replaceable. Most people will not mind eating kway teow instead of noodles or drinking different brand of milk. But of course, u r too stupid to realize tat your example is silly
Clarify ? I clarified with examples of 1+1 , Gravity, science able to be wrong... etc. But i guess as usual, u interprete it the way u do. So whats the point ? So be it.
The example of 1+1 is wrong and u keep insisting gravity is truth. Of course to a person who just keep denying, even basic knowledge is false to u
Tis is rubbish again. I said before the graph show x could be –ve infinity to + infinity. And 0 is between these values. U r thinking like a primary school kid tat is why u expect the graph to cut. I did not make a mistake here, it is just u refuse to accept the answer
IS ZERO = ZERO +ve , -ve. YES OR NO? U know, pulling answers ouf o ur ass is one thing, not admitting to a mistake is another.
Is zero between +ve infinity and –ve infinity ? Of course again u try to deny and refuse to answer questions in its entirely. And do u know who is the first person who says tat 0/0 is logically zero ? It is u. So u must be pulling answers from your ass
Tat again is another loop made by u. Science had stated facts which u cannot reject. They stated 1+1=2. They stated gravity. They stated water freezes at 0 degree. R u gonna say these r not truth
What loop ?Science explaines the How and Why . Truth is there. So whats the problem ? Please.. enlighten me.
As said before, any real answer to a question is truth. If u asked whether I slept last night and I answered an honest yes, tat answer is already the truth. So the answer to how and why like why is there rain and simple knowledge like water freezes at 0 degrees r real answers and thus truth. But then u just deny and deny and try to avoid question etc
But if u think u can accept existence of falsehood in your body of truths, then I got nothing to say. It doesnt negate the effect of falsehood already in there. It needs to be replaced by a true theory, but even that, cant gurantee its correct. It might later be found to be false again. So because of that, because of the possibility of falsehood in that body of truths, I just cant accept it. Because I KNOW, there are definitely falsehood. But if u dont, good on you.
The loop is really u saying tat there r no truth in science at all, and tat they cannot even make a simple statement. I have asked before. Simple things like things r pulled to the ground by gravity is a fact and truth. Simple things like 1+1=2 is also simple truth, or how water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius etc. However u refuse to believe such simple things to be truth. It don’t even have to be a complicated theory and a simple basic knowledge and fact. But of course u just deny tat these simple facts r even true.
Well.. let me guess, even when i defined it, u TOO create the loop by saying i never defined it. So why bother ? Right ? Since u are ALWAYS SO RIGHT.. n PERFECT.*clap clap*
If u defined it, then I will stop the loop. Simple right ? When I say u start a loop. It is because I have answerd your points but u just avoid it. But for the definition case, u cannot. If u think your statement is so full of sense, then u should just give a proper definition to it. But u refused. So it is obvious u really is just talking cock
U said before tat Richard Feynman had a different definition of science. U and I r not Richard Feynman. Then we cannot conclude wat is his view on science r. So u cannot show any other definition of science available other than the dictionary. Thus science is a body of truth
U think its body of truths.. please.. by all means. U and I are not Richard Feynman, he is the ultimate judge to that truth.
Ya lor. Then it still go back to the fact tat the accepted definition of science is still body of truth. U never manage to show anybody with opposing views to tis
O REALLY... is 1+1 = 2 and 1 Sperm + 1 Ovum = 1 Fertilised egg are same ?
Please.. enlighten me again.
Wat do u wanna find in the first place before u start the calculation ? Surely u must have logical problem or question at hand before u apply the solution right ? Otherwise u r really just talking cock
OH SO NOW THEY ARE FALLACIES... and i made WRONG interpretation of it. BRAVO !! BRAVO !!! Please... enlighten me on my supposedly WRONG interpretation to it. SHOW ME.
U mean on the definition of fallacy ? U can check the dictionary which states tat fallacy: a misleading or unsound argument
Oh.. so now they are 2 different things... hahaha... i thought u said 0/0 can be ANYTHING. Please, check urself, or this one will really bite u in the ass REAL BAD.
A fallacy IS fallacy. U can pull ur ass out n say 0/0 on inside is ANYTHING, 0/0 on one side can be another ANYTHING, in the end of the day, THAT fallacy if i simplify it simply, i can prove 1 = 2. But i guess again, U R RIGHT.. I AM TOTALLY WRONG in my algebra.
Another logic flaw of yours
1) It could be anything
2) So u claimed it could be variable
3) However it don’t have to be a variable. It can be anything
4) So your argument is still wrong because it could be anything other than a variable and thus my equation is not wrong
So again u made another fallacy and mis-interprete by providing unsound arguments.
lol... u sure ? U better be sure with ur above statement corresponds with X on one sides can equal one thing, and X on the other side can be another in the same equation.
Yes I am sure. And U r still treating 0/0 as a defined variable and u r just too stupid to realize tat.
For someone who supposedly doesnt understand my "english" and "bad grammar" , i hope u can understand things written by others. But as usual, u will dismiss it, like theories, truths and science.
Well so u admit u plagarise right ? And u cannot come out with your arguments isn’t it ?
My view is stated pages n pages before. Its very obvios its cut n paste with different fonts.
Then why not have the courtesy to quote where u take it from ? I guess u did state your view long long ago. Science is never about the truth right ? Even your article do not support tat fact
WOW.. so your logic is superior ? So IF MAN makes mistakes, Einstein is a man, and Einstein makes mistakes is NOT logic ? U want me to show u that Einstein makes mistakes ? Do u ? Are u going to cut off ur left nut ?
Did u not understand your fallacy ?
o 1) Men made mistake
2) Einstien is man
3) So u conclude Einstein made mistake
The problem is,
1) Men don’t always make mistake. They can do the right things
2) Einstein don’t always make mistakes and can do the right things
3) We cannot conclude Einstein is wrong with his theories. He may have come out with truth
He is human. But u r just using fallacy to hide your flawed logic
So u made a stereotype. U said Einstein make mistake, which I agree. But I do not agree tat his theories which r well established and accepted r mistakes. But to u, it is because he made mistakes before. Again shows your stereotype
And it do include communicating the idea to other peers. Unlike u, I will agree I make a mistake. But u think u r always right and tat u refuse to acknowledge tat your definition of the words is so wrong
WOW.. FINALLY.. U ADMIT U WILL MAKE A MISTAKE. Took u QUITE a while didnt it ?
U still have not shown me where u get the definition from. The question will be better if u did not plagarise and stick the right source u get it from.
So.. I NEED to follow a school of thought ? I cant have my OWN brain to decide on which are the ones i should adopt and which are the ones i dont ? U know, dictionary.com , u can treat it as ur bible . I , choose to absorb all information and disseminate it myself and come up with my own conclusion.
Truth is Truth = Actual Existence. But again u just too stupid
True = True
Whats so hard ? I already stated, clearly, with examples, fitting my description of what is true may not be the truth. U understood, but u just want to apply UR definition of TRUTH into my belief. So u ARE stupid. U know it cant work, but u keep insiting it.
The very basic thing to do is simply define it properly, which is something u refuse. If u say u come from your own school of thought, then surely u must tell wat it is about right ? And I did not treat the dictionary as a bible. I treat it as dictionary. The standard way of using English vocabulary and words.
If u say it is actual existence, then u have to answer many questions which u avoided before.
Do u agree tat a collective collection of truth studied together can enhance the understanding of the subject ?
o 2) If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
It is a simple logic.
Can u explain why the above does not apply to u ?
Why do u claim tat truth like 1+1 must work for all circumstances according to your definition? Why can’t it be true in a certain snapshot make it truth ?
Exactly, if there is grey.. U SAY ITS GREY. If its BLACK.. u SAY ITS BLACK.. if its WHITE.. u SAY ITS WHITE. U dont say something that is NOT.
Thats why, if u cant gurantee me a crate of GOOD APPLES, u tell me its Crate of MOSTLY good apples, i accept. Of course. So what if i am specific. What if i am down to the detail. It gets me get the job done. It gets me to identify affidavits and testimonies that are no exact, to find flaws and intentions. I expect my oil tanker to come with 27300 litres. But because they said 27300 litres with a variance of +- 0.05%, i accept. But just dont tell me its 100% 27300 litres of AGO product.
Tat is again silly. U KNOW WHO IS THE ONE TAT WANT TO BE DEFINITIVE ABOUT TIS ? U. U ask me to give a YES or NO answer to your question on the crate. Now u state tat we shouldn’t answer so definitively when u force people to give a definitive answer ? Isn't it your answer tat u will NOT call a crate with good apples as good apples.
I gave the answer of unsure then. To u, U gave the answer tat is must never be called a crate of good apples. U sure really use a lot of fallacies
Since when i said i was not human ? I was the one saying i am human. I make mistakes. I admit my mistakes. Explaination was given to clear any misunderstandings. But like i said, U DONT WANT MY UNDERSTANDING, U WANT MY COMPLIANCE.
Wat is the mistake u said u made ? The only one I see is tat u say u type "truth" as "true" a long time ago. After that where else ? Now u said I want your compliance, which is really wrong. I want your understanding. But wat do u say ? U cannot define the word "science", u cannot define "truth" properly then u made a vague encompassing point tat science is never about truth and called other people stupid ! U say the dictinary is wrong, people who follow dictionary r stupid
"STUPIDISMART on the 23rd Jan 1.03pm
I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter."
Does the graph ever reaches 0 ? YES or NO
You said : No
So... how it can be 0 when you yourself says it never touches 0 ? …....
U said (I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter. 23rd Jan 1.03pm )
But as usual, u willfully deny it. So again, no point asking for an understanding on that matter.
Did I not say 0/0 is Undefined and its not a legitimate operation in the beginning of this subject ? YES or NO
You said : NO. U say 0/0 is logically zero which is obviously wrong
&
(0 which is NOTHING divides by 0 NOTHING logically = Nothing. But MATHS cant say its 0. Why ? 23 Jan 11.58pm)
&
(Asumming 0/0 technically u allow it to exist, 0x1 = 0 , 0x2 =0 . The following must be true. 0x1 = 0x2 = 0 Right ? If the following is true, Dividing by 0 gives 0/0 x 1 = 0/0 x 2 . So simplify, you have 1 = 2 . The fallacy is the implicit assumption that dividing by 0 is a legitimate operation. 24 Jan 7.28pm)
Isnt it obvious that it is NOT a legitimate operation ? But as usual, u refuse to accept mutual understanding and say I never said it, or I phrased it wrong, wrong definition , bad grammar... whatever bullshit. But its o.k.
U are the stupid one that says ZERO to INFINITY.
I asked u.. DOES IT TOUCH ZERO. U SAY NO.
So .. i look at graph.. i scratch my head. I asked u.. YO! WHERE THE ZERO ?U can say all the bullshit +ve -ve infinity, SURE.. BUT WHERE IS ZERO. I am confused. U TELL ME!
WHO IS THE ONE CREATING THE LOOP HERE ?
U are just too stupid. To equate what is not the Truth to be FALSE , and not the possibility of it being TRUE.
If i define what ? U defined it X=Y , hence I ask u , WTF ? Whether variable is defined or not , is not the point. I alreayd said, 0/0 = Illegit Operation = UNDEFINED. But somehow, ur undefined .. can be ANTHING. WOW..
Are u telling me ur equation is correct ? ARE U TELLING ME THIS KIND OF EQUATION EXISTS ? YES OR NO ?I view 0/0 = Undefined. A Fallacy.
If u are arguing with me, i am assuming u are saying its not a fallacy. IS THAT WHAT U ARE TRYING TO SAY ? YES OR NO ?
IF u are agreeing with me that its a fallacy.. what the fuck are we even having this conversation ? Are u just trying to pick a fight ? Is that it ? Yes or No ?Simple.
If u say it is actual existence, then u have to answer many questions which u avoided before.
Oh.. wow.. i answered pretty much every gawd damn thing. Which part of Actualy Existence do u not understand ? Gravity = Actual Existence. Rain = Actual Existence. ME YOU = Actual Existence. What else u want me to say ? I think its pretty simple term. Are u really THAT STUPID ?
O REALLY... is 1+1 = 2 and 1 Sperm + 1 Ovum = 1 Fertilised egg are same ?
Please.. enlighten me again.
Wat do u wanna find in the first place before u start the calculation ? Surely u must have logical problem or question at hand before u apply the solution right ? Otherwise u r really just talking cock
O REALLY... is 1+1 = 2 and 1 Sperm + 1 Ovum = 1 Fertilised egg are same ?
Please.. all i ask is quanity. Are u really THAT STUPID ?
Lets see.. ur definition of Science = Body of Truths.
sci⋅ence
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge. 7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Origin:
1300–50; ME < MF < L scientia knowledge, equiv. to scient- (s. of sciÄ“ns), prp. of scÄ«re to know + -ia -ia
Synonyms:
7. art, technique, method, discipline.<!-- if($('wl')){ $('wl').onmousedown = function () { return pk(this, {en:'aww',io:'0',b:'di1',tp:'d',ec:'1'}); }; } // -->
Science Astronomy & God
Super Intellect or Natural Science Where did the Universe come from?
CosmicFingerprints.com <!-- try{ var anchors=document.getElementsByTagName("a"); for(i = 0; i < anchors.length; i++) { if(anchors[i].href.indexOf("http://browse/") != -1 || anchors[i].href.indexOf("http:///") != -1){ anchors[i].href = anchors[i].href.replace("http://browse/","http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/"); anchors[i].href = anchors[i].href.replace("http:///","http://thesaurus.reference.com/"); } else if(anchors[i].href.indexOf("http:") != -1 && anchors[i].href.length == 5){ anchors[i].href = anchors[i].href.replace("http:","http://thesaurus.reference.com/"); } }}catch(e){ } // -->sci·ence <!-- AC_FL_RunContent = 0; // --> <!-- var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "<a href=\"http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/ahd4WAV/S0146700/science\" target=\"_blank\"><img src=\"http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif\" border=\"0\" /></a>", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsp.ask.com%2Fdictstatic%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fahd4%2FS%2FS0146700.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=7c5212dd&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write(); // --> <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/ahd4WAV/S0146700/science" target="_blank"><img src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" /></a> (sÄ«'É™ns) 
n.-
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
-
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
-
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
-
-
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
-
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
-
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
-
Science Christian Science.
WOW.. the ONLY explaination with Truth in it... is the one u PICKED that one, WHILE THE REST NEVER MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT TRUTH! ... wow..i guess, u are NOT the only one that picks and choose. LET ME SEE.. WHICH ONE SHOULD I PICK... mmmmm......mmmmm....*smacks his lips*
Albert Einstein "Science without religion is LAME, and Religion without Science is Blind"
Examples have been given why i cannot accept it as a body of Truths because
Your Truth and my Truth is different . YES or NO ?
Yes
The most i can accept is body of knowledge
Did u not understand your fallacy ?
o 1) Men made mistake
2) Einstien is man
3) So u conclude Einstein made mistake
The problem is,
1) Men don’t always make mistake. They can do the right things
2) Einstein don’t always make mistakes and can do the right things
3) We cannot conclude Einstein is wrong with his theories. He may have come out with truth
He is human. But u r just using fallacy to hide your flawed logic
Chronology of Einstein’s Mistakes
-
1905 Mistake in clock synchronization procedure on which Einstein based special relativity
-
1905 Failure to consider Michelson-Morley experiment
-
1905 Mistake in transverse mass of high-speed particles
-
1905 Multiple mistakes in the mathematics and physics used in calculation of viscosity of liquids, from which Einstein deduced size of molecules
-
1905 Mistakes in the relationship between thermal radiation and quanta of light
-
1905 Mistake in the first proof of E = mc2
-
1906 Mistakes in the second, third, and fourth proofs of E = mc2
-
1907 Mistake in the synchronization procedure for accelerated clocks
-
1907 Mistakes in the Principle of Equivalence of gravitation and acceleration
-
1911 Mistake in the first calculation of the bending of light
-
1913 Mistake in the first attempt at a theory of general relativity
-
1914 Mistake in the fifth proof of E = mc2
-
1915 Mistake in the Einstein-de Haas experiment
-
1915 Mistakes in several attempts at theories of general relativity
-
1916 Mistake in the interpretation of Mach’s principle
-
1917 Mistake in the introduction of the cosmological constant (the “biggest blunder”)
-
1919 Mistakes in two attempts to modify general relativity
-
1925 Mistakes and more mistakes in the attempts to formulate a unified theory
-
1927 Mistakes in discussions with Bohr on quantum uncertainties
-
1933 Mistakes in interpretation of quantum mechanics (Does God play dice?)
-
1934 Mistake in the sixth proof of E = mc2
-
1939 Mistake in the interpretation of the Schwarzschild singularity and gravitational collapse (the “black hole”)
THAT FOR A FACT HE IS HUMAN. HE MAKES MISTAKES. AND I PROVED THAT HE DID. ARE U GOING TO CUT UR LEFT NUT NOW ?
SO are u going to CUT OFF UR GRONADS ?
IF EINSTEIN MAKES MISTAKES, ITS OKAY FOR YOU TO MAKE MISTAKES TOO. Now REPEAT AFTER ME AGAIN..
"WE ARE HUMANS.. HUMANS.. MAKE MISTAKES"
-
Its very simple. Someone to be able to come up with thus thinking, does not contradict with my thinking. Just because minority has a little bit differences in belief doesnt mean they are totally wrong.
Frankly speaking, wat the hell r u trying to say here ? Someone to be able to come up with “thus” thinking and does not contradict with your thinking ? Wat r u really thinking ? U put the article, but wat is the message and relevance to you ? It the article, it never states tat science is NEVER about the truth. So wat is your point ? And it doesn’t support your stupid logical flaw of “true” = “true” bla bla bla. Did u read the conclusion of your article
It would seem that all are agreed on this answer. It is possible that sometimes when people read the answers of others there are mis-understandings. Most certainly truth in science is not decided by majority vote.
They specifically used the word "truth"!
OH.. SO when I APPLY LOGIC 101 , ITS WRONG, BUT YOUR LOGIC IS RIGHT. BRAVO BRAVO !!! CLAP CLAP! Wooo MR PERFECT IN ACTION HERE.
Tat is another stupid thing u wrote. Did I ever say Einstein never make mistake ?
Did u read the reply
-
- So u made a stereotype. U said Einstein make mistake, which I agree. But I do not agree tat his theories which r well established and accepted r mistakes. But to u, it is because he made mistakes before. Again shows your stereotype
And the list u show r not ESTABLISHED or ACCEPTED theories yet. So wat have u shown again ? Nothing. And my statements r still true
o Another fallacy u made
1) Men made mistake
2) Einstien is man
3) So u conclude Einstein made mistake
The problem is,
1) Men don’t always make mistake. They can do the right things
2) Einstein don’t always make mistakes and can do the right things
3) We cannot conclude Einstein is wrong with his theories. He may have come out with truth
So wat is wrong with the above ? Go back and read carefully before u make a fool of yourself. U should really cut off your left nut instead
U know anything about Thermodynamics ? When we were in primary and secondary schools, what did the teachers teach us. Compare it to what UNI taught us. First thing the lecturer said was "WHAT U KNOW ABOUT THERMODYNAMICS.. IS WRONG.. THIS IS THE REAL STUFF"
Tis again highlight your poor knowledge of science. The laws of thermodynamics still stands now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
The laws of thermodynamics describe the transport of heat and work in thermodynamic processes. These laws have become some of the most important in all of physics and other types of science associated with thermodynamics
..
During the last 80 years writers have suggested additional laws, but none of them have become well accepted
Now u tell me “transitional state theory”. Tis basically deals with chemistry. They r totally different things altogether. U really have a bad foundation in science
Another distortion of the the word TRUE is when truth or falsity doesn't apply to a statement. For instance, another ABer used the example: "'that movie sucked' can be true for you, but not for the next person." This is not something can be evaluated in terms of its truth or falisty. It cannot be true that a movie sucked. It can be true that a movie sucked according to certain criteria, or it can be true that you believe the movie sucked, but whether or not the movie really sucked cannot be spoken of in terms of truth.
Then apply the written theory to scientific facts such as gravity and water freezes at 0 degrees. The above is really talking about subjective opinions such as movies r good r not however we r talking about science and facts. If a scientific observation is true, can it not be the truth ? If it is not the truth, can it even be true ?
Do u understand Fitch's Paradox of Truth ?Moores Paradox ? The knowability thesis ? Are u omniscient ?
Why don’t u give a summary of these theories instead of just sticking and pasting them ? Why r they relevant to your argument ? The only thing they said is tat we cannot know ALL the truth. It doesn’t says we cannot know ANY truth
What is a theory of truth?<---- Notice the word THEORY ?
Actually again wat does tis have to do with your argument ? U highlight theory of “truth” is simply means “truth” is not “truth”. Tat is your “truth” is not “truth” to u too.
But wait... in case, u dot NOT understand! How can u blame me to NOT accept Science = Body of Truths , when the meaning , definition of truth itself, is a topic of discussion as well. You are just too simple minded, to equate True= Truth from DICTIONARY.COM .
However the fact is tat everybody treat truth as something true. If u actually read from your article
Theory of truth
A theory of truth is essentially an explanation of the nature of truth and a set of laws that "true" things obey.
Correspondenc
Perhaps the most intuitive theory of truth is the "correspondence theory of truth", that relates truth to reality: a statement is true if and only if the world it describes is real.
Coherence
The "coherence theory of truth" defines truth as coherence with the system of beliefs in one's mind: the statement "snow is white" is true if the fact asserted by this statement this is coherent with all the other facts that are believed to be true.
Pragmatism
This set the foundations for relating truth to "verifications": something is true if and only if its truth can be practically verified.
Deflation
The truth predicate "is true" simply removes the quotation marks. (predicate means based)
Functionalism
Lynch thinks that truth is defined by an "alethic network", a set of interdepenmdent definitions that, jointly, define each other: a proposition is whatever is true or false, a fact is what makes a proposition true or false, etc.
All of them states approximately the same idea tat truth is something true. They r the same. But u said they r different and tat is laughable
But if u are TOO STUPID to read a summary, here is a more DETAILED ONE. CLICK HERE STUPID.
If u read your article, they use “truth” and “true” interchangeably. Did u really read your article before pasting them ?
Proving truth
Explanations > Social Research > Articles > Proving truth
If u read your article, it is stating how to proves TRUTH. And so ? Wat is the point u wanna say ?
The problem with verification, as Karl Popper pointed out, was that just because you can show something to be true in one set of circumstances, you cannot then use induction to create a general truth that is true in all circumstances.
But scientific method states tat it has to be true under the right conditions. So tis has really nothing to do with the topic at hand
What is true.. MAY NOT be the truth.. depending on circumstances. Truth = Absolute Existence (something so near to that dicionary.com meaning) SO TELL ME, did ur bible DICTIONARY.COM say anything about it ?
On observation and facts, wat u state is still simply rubbish. U still have not shown me anything yet. Truth is still derived from the word true. The dictionary is still correct
I believe the Truth is written everywhere in the universe but never in human handwriting or by a manmade product -- those are only capable of bits and glimpses of Truth if they are lucky or someone's truth being passed off as Truth. I believe we all recognize Truth when we encounter it, even though we may not be fully conscious of what occurred.
In the universe man say there is gravity. SO tat means it is not truth to u ?
If truth really exists then we should be able to find it, and if it cannot be known then it probably doesn’t exist, but it does exist, for example you know that is true that you are reading this, you know is true that you can see, those are two undeniable truths.
See ? Even your green worded article use truth and true as the same. So it just shows your stupid logic is wrong
Before u even ATTEMPT to reply, give it a GOOD THOROUGH READ. STUPID IS NOT SMART! DONT BE AN OXYMORON. I AM SURE U WILL EXPLAIN N ELABORATE UR SMARTNESS BY BEING STUPID, BUT TRUST ME, ITS DEFINATELY NOT IN THIS CONTEXT.
Did u read it yourself ? I bet u didn’t
U are the stupid one that says ZERO to INFINITY.
I asked u.. DOES IT TOUCH ZERO. U SAY NO.
So .. i look at graph.. i scratch my head. I asked u.. YO! WHERE THE ZERO ?U can say all the bullshit +ve -ve infinity, SURE.. BUT WHERE IS ZERO. I am confused. U TELL ME!
I have explained many times and u still face the same problem. U view undefined value as a variable. They r different items but u just refuse to accept it. Since u wanna play tat game, did u know u started stating 0/0 is logically zero. If u say I am wrong because the graph never cuts zero, u r wrong because u stated tis as well
O REALLY... is 1+1 = 2 and 1 Sperm + 1 Ovum = 1 Fertilised egg are same
No. Because u r talking about MATH equation in the first part and CHEMISTRY/BIO equation in the second. Why should they be the same ?
THAT FOR A FACT HE IS HUMAN. HE MAKES MISTAKES. AND I PROVED THAT HE DID. ARE U GOING TO CUT UR LEFT NUT NOW ?
SO are u going to CUT OFF UR GRONADS ?
IF EINSTEIN MAKES MISTAKES, ITS OKAY FOR YOU TO MAKE MISTAKES TOO. Now REPEAT AFTER ME AGAIN..
"WE ARE HUMANS.. HUMANS.. MAKE MISTAKES"
Actually wat talking u ? U really failed to get wat I say isn’t it ?
Tat is another stupid thing u wrote. Did I ever say Einstein never make mistake ?
Did u read the reply
-
- So u made a stereotype. U said Einstein make mistake, which I agree. But I do not agree tat his theories which r well established and accepted r mistakes. But to u, it is because he made mistakes before. Again shows your stereotype
And the list u show r not ESTABLISHED or ACCEPTED theories yet. So wat have u shown again ? Nothing. And my statements r still true
o Another fallacy u made
1) Men made mistake
2) Einstien is man
3) So u conclude Einstein made mistake
The problem is,
1) Men don’t always make mistake. They can do the right things
2) Einstein don’t always make mistakes and can do the right things
3) We cannot conclude Einstein is wrong with his theories. He may have come out with truth
So wat is wrong with the above ? Go back and read carefully before u make a fool of yourself. U should really cut off your left nut instead
-
-
Lets see.. ur definition of Science = Body of Truths.
sci⋅ence
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (How and Why, unravelling the mysteries of the universe.)3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.(How and Why, unravelling the mysteries of the universe.)4. systematized knowledge in general.(How and Why, unravelling the mysteries of the universe.)5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.(How and Why, unravelling the mysteries of the universe.)6. a particular branch of knowledge.(How and Why, unravelling the mysteries of the universe.)7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Origin:Synonyms:
7. art, technique, method, discipline.sci·ence-
-
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
-
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
-
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
-
-
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
-
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
-
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
-
Science Christian Science.
WOW.. the ONLY explaination with Truth in it... is the one u PICKED that one, WHILE THE REST NEVER MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT TRUTH! ... wow..i guess, u are NOT the only one that picks and choose. LET ME SEE.. WHICH ONE SHOULD I PICK... mmmmm......mmmmm....*smacks his lips*
Albert Einstein "Science without religion is LAME, and Religion without Science is Blind"
I think i will choose...
sci·ence
-
-
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
-
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
-
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
-
- systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
or systematized knowledge in general
But yeah, i'll go with the one in red.
So.. have i DEFINED my meaning of science to u now ? Kapish ? Dont forget, its from ur bible... dictionary.com
-
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Its very simple. Someone to be able to come up with thus thinking, does not contradict with my thinking. Just because minority has a little bit differences in belief doesnt mean they are totally wrong.
Frankly speaking, wat the hell r u trying to say here ? Someone to be able to come up with “thus” thinking and does not contradict with your thinking ? Wat r u really thinking ? U put the article, but wat is the message and relevance to you ? It the article, it never states tat science is NEVER about the truth. So wat is your point ? And it doesn’t support your stupid logical flaw of “true” = “true” bla bla bla. Did u read the conclusion of your article
It would seem that all are agreed on this answer. It is possible that sometimes when people read the answers of others there are mis-understandings. Most certainly truth in science is not decided by majority vote.
They specifically used the word "truth"!
OH.. SO when I APPLY LOGIC 101 , ITS WRONG, BUT YOUR LOGIC IS RIGHT. BRAVO BRAVO !!! CLAP CLAP! Wooo MR PERFECT IN ACTION HERE.
Tat is another stupid thing u wrote. Did I ever say Einstein never make mistake ?
Did u read the reply
-
- So u made a stereotype. U said Einstein make mistake, which I agree. But I do not agree tat his theories which r well established and accepted r mistakes. But to u, it is because he made mistakes before. Again shows your stereotype
And the list u show r not ESTABLISHED or ACCEPTED theories yet. So wat have u shown again ? Nothing. And my statements r still true
o Another fallacy u made
1) Men made mistake
2) Einstien is man
3) So u conclude Einstein made mistake
The problem is,
1) Men don’t always make mistake. They can do the right things
2) Einstein don’t always make mistakes and can do the right things
3) We cannot conclude Einstein is wrong with his theories. He may have come out with truth
So wat is wrong with the above ? Go back and read carefully before u make a fool of yourself. U should really cut off your left nut instead
U know anything about Thermodynamics ? When we were in primary and secondary schools, what did the teachers teach us. Compare it to what UNI taught us. First thing the lecturer said was "WHAT U KNOW ABOUT THERMODYNAMICS.. IS WRONG.. THIS IS THE REAL STUFF"
Tis again highlight your poor knowledge of science. The laws of thermodynamics still stands now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
The laws of thermodynamics describe the transport of heat and work in thermodynamic processes. These laws have become some of the most important in all of physics and other types of science associated with thermodynamics
..
During the last 80 years writers have suggested additional laws, but none of them have become well accepted
Now u tell me “transitional state theory”. Tis basically deals with chemistry. They r totally different things altogether. U really have a bad foundation in science
Another distortion of the the word TRUE is when truth or falsity doesn't apply to a statement. For instance, another ABer used the example: "'that movie sucked' can be true for you, but not for the next person." This is not something can be evaluated in terms of its truth or falisty. It cannot be true that a movie sucked. It can be true that a movie sucked according to certain criteria, or it can be true that you believe the movie sucked, but whether or not the movie really sucked cannot be spoken of in terms of truth.
Then apply the written theory to scientific facts such as gravity and water freezes at 0 degrees. The above is really talking about subjective opinions such as movies r good r not however we r talking about science and facts. If a scientific observation is true, can it not be the truth ? If it is not the truth, can it even be true ?
Do u understand Fitch's Paradox of Truth ?Moores Paradox ? The knowability thesis ? Are u omniscient ?
Why don’t u give a summary of these theories instead of just sticking and pasting them ? Why r they relevant to your argument ? The only thing they said is tat we cannot know ALL the truth. It doesn’t says we cannot know ANY truth
What is a theory of truth?<---- Notice the word THEORY ?
Actually again wat does tis have to do with your argument ? U highlight theory of “truth” is simply means “truth” is not “truth”. Tat is your “truth” is not “truth” to u too.
But wait... in case, u dot NOT understand! How can u blame me to NOT accept Science = Body of Truths , when the meaning , definition of truth itself, is a topic of discussion as well. You are just too simple minded, to equate True= Truth from DICTIONARY.COM .
However the fact is tat everybody treat truth as something true. If u actually read from your article
Theory of truth
A theory of truth is essentially an explanation of the nature of truth and a set of laws that "true" things obey.
Correspondenc
Perhaps the most intuitive theory of truth is the "correspondence theory of truth", that relates truth to reality: a statement is true if and only if the world it describes is real.
Coherence
The "coherence theory of truth" defines truth as coherence with the system of beliefs in one's mind: the statement "snow is white" is true if the fact asserted by this statement this is coherent with all the other facts that are believed to be true.
Pragmatism
This set the foundations for relating truth to "verifications": something is true if and only if its truth can be practically verified.
Deflation
The truth predicate "is true" simply removes the quotation marks. (predicate means based)
Functionalism
Lynch thinks that truth is defined by an "alethic network", a set of interdepenmdent definitions that, jointly, define each other: a proposition is whatever is true or false, a fact is what makes a proposition true or false, etc.
All of them states approximately the same idea tat truth is something true. They r the same. But u said they r different and tat is laughable
But if u are TOO STUPID to read a summary, here is a more DETAILED ONE. CLICK HERE STUPID.
If u read your article, they use “truth” and “true” interchangeably. Did u really read your article before pasting them ?
Proving truth
Explanations > Social Research > Articles > Proving truth
If u read your article, it is stating how to proves TRUTH. And so ? Wat is the point u wanna say ?
The problem with verification, as Karl Popper pointed out, was that just because you can show something to be true in one set of circumstances, you cannot then use induction to create a general truth that is true in all circumstances.
But scientific method states tat it has to be true under the right conditions. So tis has really nothing to do with the topic at hand
What is true.. MAY NOT be the truth.. depending on circumstances. Truth = Absolute Existence (something so near to that dicionary.com meaning) SO TELL ME, did ur bible DICTIONARY.COM say anything about it ?
On observation and facts, wat u state is still simply rubbish. U still have not shown me anything yet. Truth is still derived from the word true. The dictionary is still correct
I believe the Truth is written everywhere in the universe but never in human handwriting or by a manmade product -- those are only capable of bits and glimpses of Truth if they are lucky or someone's truth being passed off as Truth. I believe we all recognize Truth when we encounter it, even though we may not be fully conscious of what occurred.
In the universe man say there is gravity. SO tat means it is not truth to u ?
If truth really exists then we should be able to find it, and if it cannot be known then it probably doesn’t exist, but it does exist, for example you know that is true that you are reading this, you know is true that you can see, those are two undeniable truths.
See ? Even your green worded article use truth and true as the same. So it just shows your stupid logic is wrong
Before u even ATTEMPT to reply, give it a GOOD THOROUGH READ. STUPID IS NOT SMART! DONT BE AN OXYMORON. I AM SURE U WILL EXPLAIN N ELABORATE UR SMARTNESS BY BEING STUPID, BUT TRUST ME, ITS DEFINATELY NOT IN THIS CONTEXT.
Did u read it yourself ? I bet u didn’t
U are the stupid one that says ZERO to INFINITY.
I asked u.. DOES IT TOUCH ZERO. U SAY NO.
So .. i look at graph.. i scratch my head. I asked u.. YO! WHERE THE ZERO ?U can say all the bullshit +ve -ve infinity, SURE.. BUT WHERE IS ZERO. I am confused. U TELL ME!
I have explained many times and u still face the same problem. U view undefined value as a variable. They r different items but u just refuse to accept it. Since u wanna play tat game, did u know u started stating 0/0 is logically zero. If u say I am wrong because the graph never cuts zero, u r wrong because u stated tis as well
O REALLY... is 1+1 = 2 and 1 Sperm + 1 Ovum = 1 Fertilised egg are same
No. Because u r talking about MATH equation in the first part and CHEMISTRY/BIO equation in the second. Why should they be the same ?
THAT FOR A FACT HE IS HUMAN. HE MAKES MISTAKES. AND I PROVED THAT HE DID. ARE U GOING TO CUT UR LEFT NUT NOW ?
SO are u going to CUT OFF UR GRONADS ?
IF EINSTEIN MAKES MISTAKES, ITS OKAY FOR YOU TO MAKE MISTAKES TOO. Now REPEAT AFTER ME AGAIN..
"WE ARE HUMANS.. HUMANS.. MAKE MISTAKES"
Actually wat talking u ? U really failed to get wat I say isn’t it ?
Tat is another stupid thing u wrote. Did I ever say Einstein never make mistake ?
Did u read the reply
-
- So u made a stereotype. U said Einstein make mistake, which I agree. But I do not agree tat his theories which r well established and accepted r mistakes. But to u, it is because he made mistakes before. Again shows your stereotype
And the list u show r not ESTABLISHED or ACCEPTED theories yet. So wat have u shown again ? Nothing. And my statements r still true
o Another fallacy u made
1) Men made mistake
2) Einstien is man
3) So u conclude Einstein made mistake
The problem is,
1) Men don’t always make mistake. They can do the right things
2) Einstein don’t always make mistakes and can do the right things
3) We cannot conclude Einstein is wrong with his theories. He may have come out with truth
So wat is wrong with the above ? Go back and read carefully before u make a fool of yourself. U should really cut off your left nut instead
Do u understand Fitch's Paradox of Truth ?Moores Paradox ? The knowability thesis ? Are u omniscient ?
Why don’t u give a summary of these theories instead of just sticking and pasting them ? Why r they relevant to your argument ? The only thing they said is tat we cannot know ALL the truth. It doesn’t says we cannot know ANY truth
Oh.. now i need to spoon feed u again ? How about u read it yourself boy.
U sure its all true = truth ?
I think u missed out on the articles that doesnt mention any word true .
I mean , if u think they are all bullshit, they all mean UR definition of True = Truth. Go ahead. I got no problem. I dont believe in half of them anyways. They are all different I got no beef. U want to believe ur truth , its up to you. I got nothing.
This proves that u are narrow minded. There is ALL these people trying to define. Tring so damn hard.
Laughable ? Are u sure u know what they are talking about ? THEY ARE VERY VERY DIFFERENT MAN... Why dont u READ again Fitch's Paradox of Truth ?Moores Paradox ?
These are just SOME of the examples. But as usual, MINE CANT, YOURS CAN.
No. Because u r talking about MATH equation in the first part and CHEMISTRY/BIO equation in the second. Why should they be the same ?
BRAVO.. U GOT IT... U FINALLY GOT IT! AGAIN ! PLEASE.. DONT REVERT BACK TO STUPID AGAIN!
Tat is another stupid thing u wrote. Did I ever say Einstein never make mistake ?
Einstein is human. IF he is human, there is a possibility. Thats why we call it Human Error. U admit human make errors ? Did i say he is wrong ?
Possibility of human make mistakes doesn't means he made mistakes.
WOW.. are u trying to elaborate ? Should i accept your elaboration, or play wilfull ignorance like you.
And the list u show r not ESTABLISHED or ACCEPTED theories yet. So wat have u shown again ? Nothing. And my statements r still true
Does science make mistakes ? YES or NO
Yes
Did i say all his theory are wrong ? DID I ? YES OR NO ? ALL I SAID WAS, EINSTEIN is Human , he makes mistakes. Thats all. Simple. U just THINK u know what i am talking about but u jump to conclusion. IF u are unsure. Ask.
Are u trying to say he doesnt make mistakes? A mistake is a mistake. It doesnt matter. Even if it is corrected, or no established or accepted theories, he still makes mistakes. Simple as that.
Do u THINK EINSTEIN MAKES MISTAKES ? YES OR NO ?
IF EINSTEIN MAKES MISTAKES, ITS OKAY FOR YOU TO MAKE MISTAKES TOO. Now REPEAT AFTER ME AGAIN..
"WE ARE HUMANS.. HUMANS.. MAKE MISTAKES"
Another fallacy u made
1) Men made mistake
2) Einstien is man
3) So u conclude Einstein made mistake
What fallacy ? Is it wrong to conclude that Einstein makes mistakes ? DID I SAY HIS THEORIES IS WRONG ? TELL ME. U ARE A MAN. U MAKE MISTAKES. THATS ALL.
-
-
"STUPIDISMART on the 23rd Jan 1.03pm
I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter."
Does the graph ever reaches 0 ? YES or NO
You said : No
So... how it can be 0 when you yourself says it never touches 0 ? …....
U said (I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter. 23rd Jan 1.03pm )
U are the stupid one that says ZERO to INFINITY.
I asked u.. DOES IT TOUCH ZERO. U SAY NO.
So .. i look at graph.. i scratch my head. I asked u.. YO! WHERE THE ZERO ?U can say all the bullshit +ve -ve infinity, SURE.. BUT WHERE IS ZERO. I am confused. U TELL ME!
Did I not say 0/0 is Undefined and its not a legitimate operation in the beginning of this subject ? YES or NO
You said : NO. U say 0/0 is logically zero which is obviously wrong
&
(0 which is NOTHING divides by 0 NOTHING logically = Nothing. But MATHS cant say its 0. Why ? 23 Jan 11.58pm)
&
(Asumming 0/0 technically u allow it to exist, 0x1 = 0 , 0x2 =0 . The following must be true. 0x1 = 0x2 = 0 Right ? If the following is true, Dividing by 0 gives 0/0 x 1 = 0/0 x 2 . So simplify, you have 1 = 2 . The fallacy is the implicit assumption that dividing by 0 is a legitimate operation. 24 Jan 7.28pm)
Isnt it obvious that it is NOT a legitimate operation ?
-
Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO
Unsure. U still has not given an example of a wrong scientific theory
Oh so NOW u need me to spoon feed you ? Oh..no.. wait... he will say that Scientific theory must consist of scientific method. I am O>K with that.. but there is a twist.
Are scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses ?
No
Not fully. I believe tat peer review and scrutiny should be included as well
(WOW... SO.. once again he can ADD definitions.. n claim that... Astrologers, scientists in the day didnt consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses ... and definately NO PEER REVIEW.. WOW... BOLD STATEMENTS to make !)
And for someone who based so much of his testimony/statements on being TRUE = TRUTH, Body of truths , 1+1 , the theories, .. bla bla bla..
U end with an UNSURE.
This has to be the ultimate big BOO BOO in a cross examination so far.
U are in MY world now stupid. And u talk about me telling lies, and bad grammar , lousy english, substandard understanding of truth and science. U better know ur subject matter well.
If u are UNSURE, I suggest u SHUT THE FUCK UP, AND SIT THE FUCK DOWN.
Unless u believe u can understand half-ass'dly(If there is such a word) on a subject matter and make such statements.
"U still has not given an example of a wrong scientific theory"
Superseded theories
[edit] Biology
- Maternal impression – the theory that the mother's thoughts created birth defects. Rendered obsolete by genetic theory (see also fetal origins of adult disease, genomic imprinting)
- Miasma theory of disease – the theory that diseases are caused by "bad air". Rendered obsolete by the germ theory of disease.
- Preformationism – the theory that all organisms have existed since the beginning of life, and that gametes contain a miniature but complete preformed individual. Rendered obsolete by cytology, discovery of DNA and Atomic theory.
- Recapitulation theory – the theory that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". Always obsolete; see Baer's laws of embryology.
- Spontaneous generation – the theory that life spontaneously emerged from dead matter today. Rendered obsolete by abiogenesis/biogenesis.
- Telegony (pregnancy) – the theory that an offspring can inherit characteristics from a previous mate of its mother's as well as its actual parents; a theory often associated with racism. Always obsolete; see heredity.
[edit] Chemistry
- Classical elements – discredited by Rhazes
- Caloric theory
- Phlogiston theory – replaced by Lavoisier's work on oxidation
- Part of Dalton's law
- Vital essence theory
[edit] Physics
- Emission theory of vision – discredited by Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen)
- Aristotelian theory of gravity – discredited by Muhammad ibn Musa, al-Biruni, al-Baghdadi and Galileo Galilei
- Aristotelian physics – discredited by Alhacen, al-Biruni, Avicenna, Avempace, al-Baghdadi, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton
- Luminiferous aether – failed to be detected by the sufficiently sensitive Michelson-Morley experiment, made obsolete by Einstein's work.
- Caloric theory – Lavoisier's successor to phlogiston, discredited by Rumford's and Joule's work
- Vis viva – Gottfried Leibniz's elementary and limited early formulation of the principle of conservation of energy
- "Purely electrostatic" theories of the generation of voltage differences.
- Emitter theory – another now-obsolete theory of light propagation.
- Progression of atomic theory
-
- Plum pudding model of the atom – assuming the protons and electrons were mixed together in a single mass
- Rutherford model of the atom with an impenetrable nucleus orbitted by electrons.
- Bohr model with quantized orbits
- Electron cloud model following the invention of Quantum Mechanics in 1925 and the eventual atomic orbital models derived from the quantum mechanical solution to the hydrogen atom.
- All of classical physics, while useful in practice, is in principle superseded by relativistic physics and quantum physics, to which classical physics is often a close approximation.
[edit] Astronomy and cosmology
- Ptolemaic system – obsoleted by Ibn al-Shatir and Copernicus
- Geocentric universe – obsoleted by Copernicus and Galileo
- Copernican system – obsoleted by Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton
- Newtonian gravity – superseded by general relativity, to which it is an excellent approximation unless the masses involved are very large or the distances very small. The Perihelion precession of Mercury was the first experimental evidence against Newtonian gravity; it also fails to describe black holes correctly.
- Ether theory
- Steady State Theory was a model developed by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle of an expanding universe that had no beginning. It was once a competitor of the Big Bang model until the Big Bang was confirmed as the correct model after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background.
[edit] Geography and climate
- Flat Earth theory. On length scales much smaller than the radius of the Earth, a flat map projection gives a quite accurate approximation to true distances and sizes, but distortions become increasingly significant over larger distances.
- Hollow Earth theory
- The Open Polar Sea, an ice-free sea once supposed to surround the North Pole
- Rain follows the plow – the theory that human settlement increases rainfall in arid regions (only true to the extent that crop fields evapotranspirate more than barren wilderness)
[edit] Geology
- Continental drift was superseded by plate tectonics
- Expanding Earth theory was superseded by subduction
- Catastrophism was largely replaced by uniformitarianism
[edit] Psychology
- The Freudian unconscious, superseded by a variety of more specific and predictive theories
- Pure behaviorist explanations for language acquisition in infancy, superseded by the study of cognitive adaptations for language.[citation needed]
- The blank slate theory of socialization, disproven by research on cross-cultural universals and evolutionary psychology
- Persistence of vision – is being debated by investigative psychologists.[citation needed]
[edit] Medicine
- Theory of the four bodily humours – discredited by Rhazes, Avenzoar, Ibn al-Nafis, Ibn al-Lubudi and William Harvey
- Eclectic Medicine – Transformed into alternative medicine.
- Physiognomy, related to phrenology, held that inner character was strongly correlated with physical appearance.
[edit] Obsolete branches of enquiry
- Alchemy, which led to the development of chemistry – alchemy was discredited by al-Kindi, al-Biruni, Avicenna and Ibn Khaldun
- Astrology, which led to the development of astronomy – astrology was discredited by al-Farabi, Alhacen, al-Biruni, Avicenna and Averroes
- Phrenology is considered a pseudoscience
- Numerology (as distinct from number theory) is considered a pseudoscience
[edit] Theories now considered to be incomplete
Here are theories that are no longer considered the most complete representation of reality, but are still useful in particular domains or under certain conditions. For some theories a more complete model is known, but in practical use the coarser approximation provides good results with much less calculation.
- Atomic theory initially proposed that Atoms were indivisible, but now it is known that they are composed of subatomic particles.
- Nuclei disintegrate at high energy.
- Heliocentric universe theory is still used in the coordinate system of celestial mechanics.
- Newtonian mechanics was extended by Theory of Relativity and quantum mechanics. It is still the standard tool in engineering and physics at atomic or larger scales and velocities not approaching the speed of light.
- Classical electrodynamics approximates quantum electrodynamics.
- Bohr model of the atom was extended by the quantum mechanical model of the atom.
- Newton's sine-square law for the force of a fluid on a body is no longer considered useful at low speeds, though it has found application in hypersonic flow.
Are u going to cut off ur left nut now ? How about the gronads?
So once again, let me cut n paste my statement:
If u are UNSURE, I suggest u SHUT THE FUCK UP, AND SIT THE FUCK DOWN.
Unless u believe u can understand half-ass'dly(If there is such a word) on a subject matter and make such statements.