Why Darwinism isn't true.
-
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.
If u read through all the explanation, it basically means the same thing. The true knowledge of the world. And u specifically put the WHY and HOW etc. However as stated before, the answers to these questions r truth. And u refuse to comment on them
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.
See it is not tat difficult isn’t it ? Sheesh… I wonder who is the one who keep refusing to narrow his definition. But even though u have narrowed down the definition, it is still basically still the same thing. Natural phenomena is a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable. And fact is still truth. SO after all the hogwash about defining science, u still go back to the same definition. Your description of science is still the dealing with truth.
Oh.. now i need to spoon feed u again ? How about u read it yourself boy.
Tat is funny. U claim it support your argument yet refuse to show why. If u refuse to state why they r relevant to your argument, I just have to dismiss it
U sure its all true = truth ?
I think u missed out on the articles that doesnt mention any word true .
Which one ?
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.
Tat is strange. I did not say they r bullshit. I said they treat truth tat is derived from the word true. Did u even read my reply ?
This proves that u are narrow minded. There is ALL these people trying to define. Tring so damn hard.
It probably show u r narrow minded because the fact is everybody treated true as truth which is something tat is not false
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!
Another stupid comment from u. They r different things altogether, of course they should give different outcomes. Hence 1+1 =2 is a truth which u cannot prove wrong
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.
Ok. Then I said, even though he made mistakes or human made mistakes, tat doesn’t means science could not come out with truth.
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!
Is UNDEFINED = VARIABLE ? No ? IF NO THEN WHY DO U TREAT THEM AS THE SAME ? U said it does not cut the graph BUT U ALSO SAID 0/0 is logically ZERO. WHERE DO U GET THE IDEA tat 0/0 is ZERO ? If u think it is stupid, u r laughing at YOURSELF because u suggest tis hilarious answer first.
Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO
Unsure. U still has not given an example of a wrong scientific theory
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.
Tat is funny. Why can’t I say unsure ? U did not provide an example of scientific theory to be wronged then and I do not wish to commit on any answer. Did I said anything wrong ? NOPE. The only charge u can say about me is being conservative. So wat ?
-
-
How about tis reply ? U seems to conveniently forget about it
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:
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.
If u read through all the explanation, it basically means the same thing. The true knowledge of the world. And u specifically put the WHY and HOW etc. However as stated before, the answers to these questions r truth. And u refuse to comment on them
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.
See it is not tat difficult isn’t it ? Sheesh… I wonder who is the one who keep refusing to narrow his definition. But even though u have narrowed down the definition, it is still basically still the same thing. Natural phenomena is a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable. And fact is still truth. SO after all the hogwash about defining science, u still go back to the same definition. Your description of science is still the dealing with truth.
Oh.. now i need to spoon feed u again ? How about u read it yourself boy.
Tat is funny. U claim it support your argument yet refuse to show why. If u refuse to state why they r relevant to your argument, I just have to dismiss it
U sure its all true = truth ?
I think u missed out on the articles that doesnt mention any word true .
Which one ?
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.
Tat is strange. I did not say they r bullshit. I said they treat truth tat is derived from the word true. Did u even read my reply ?
This proves that u are narrow minded. There is ALL these people trying to define. Tring so damn hard.
It probably show u r narrow minded because the fact is everybody treated true as truth which is something tat is not false
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!
Another stupid comment from u. They r different things altogether, of course they should give different outcomes. Hence 1+1 =2 is a truth which u cannot prove wrong
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.
Ok. Then I said, even though he made mistakes or human made mistakes, tat doesn’t means science could not come out with truth.
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!
Is UNDEFINED = VARIABLE ? No ? IF NO THEN WHY DO U TREAT THEM AS THE SAME ? U said it does not cut the graph BUT U ALSO SAID 0/0 is logically ZERO. WHERE DO U GET THE IDEA tat 0/0 is ZERO ? If u think it is stupid, u r laughing at YOURSELF because u suggest tis hilarious answer first.
Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO
Unsure. U still has not given an example of a wrong scientific theory
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.
Tat is funny. Why can’t I say unsure ? U did not provide an example of scientific theory to be wronged then and I do not wish to commit on any answer. Did I said anything wrong ? NOPE. The only charge u can say about me is being conservative. So wat ?
Jeez
U didnt even give me options to choose my definition of Science. And u only put one.What u expect me to choose! Obviously my definition of Truth is different from yours, wont it be most probable that I cant accept your Body of Truths ? If u had spoon fed me with a choice of definitions, we wouldnt even be arguing over something supposedly easy to accept and understand like... threads ago ?
Is UNDEFINED = VARIABLE ? No ? IF NO THEN WHY DO U TREAT THEM AS THE SAME ? U said it does not cut the graph BUT U ALSO SAID 0/0 is logically ZERO. WHERE DO U GET THE IDEA tat 0/0 is ZERO ? If u think it is stupid, u r laughing at YOURSELF because u suggest tis hilarious answer first.
What u talking about ? I am speaking in a sense of LOGIC. Nothing which is 0 divides by Nothing which is 0 = Nothing Logically!
Tat is funny. Why can’t I say unsure ? U did not provide an example of scientific theory to be wronged then and I do not wish to commit on any answer. Did I said anything wrong ? NOPE. The only charge u can say about me is being conservative. So wat ?
SO WHAT ?? Thats not the point, it just means u dont know about ur subject matter. If u want ur answer to be conservative and unsure, SAY SO. But the whole point, is YES or NO, its something u can discover yourself. U should know. I thought U really know. Because u talk of science as if u are very well versed. Hence if u are not sure, please dont say anything. And i dont have to do this to you.
See it is not tat difficult isn’t it ? Sheesh… I wonder who is the one who keep refusing to narrow his definition. But even though u have narrowed down the definition, it is still basically still the same thing. Natural phenomena is a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable. And fact is still truth. SO after all the hogwash about defining science, u still go back to the same definition. Your description of science is still the dealing with truth.
Now FACT is TRUTH ? DO u want to add anything else ? I am sure u can replace my Truth with Absolute Existence, why dont u do that ? Natural Phenomen = Absolute Existence. So whats the problem ?
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.
U could have just said NO. And tell me WHY. Thats it. U can say YES . Its not a trick question. The cross examination is just to see where u stand. How ur mind thinks. And we work out the differences and misunderstandings. Your intentions. Thats it. Its NOT A TRICK QUESTION. ITs a simple YES or NO question. No spin, no tricks , no part questions within a question.. NADA. All my questions are not even trick questions. They are just to discern what u believe and ur character thats all! And regards to the Crate of Good apples, isnt it OBVIOUS to me that my answer is NO.. i wont call it a crate of good apples ? U can accept rotten apples inside and still dub it as crate of good apples, i got no beef with it. It just shows me what u percieve as e.g Body of Truths. Simple. Not a trick question.
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 !
What u talking about ? We agreed and disagreed in a few things. Whats wrong with that ? Didnt u explain and I explain ? I am fully aware of ur understanding, just that like “zero to infinity” it makes no sense ! So is it ZERO or is it NOT ? Because you have contradictory statements ! I am really scratching my head, wondering which is the one u mean!
The main point, is u say u are UNSURE about ur own subject matter. End of the day , u just cant tell me jack shit. All this rubbish u been spouting, now doesnt mean anything. The basic fundamental is “U just dont know ur subject” I asked u a simple question. YES or NO.. u even gave me UNSURE, I didnt even expect that. I admit. Being conservative pretty much means u are being chicken to answer. Means u dont even know. The sheer simple matter is, u dont know.
Its like u coming telling me u are mechanic,then I ask u, can cars run on petrol ? U say unsure. If u dont know, n u tell me all about cars, I will think u are all about cock n bull. U gottta stand my shoes and try to understand why I just felt... insulted this whole time, thinking I was talking to someone who knows the subject matter!
Hence there is even a possibility that you are spewing rubbish out of ur ass!
I am speechless. Really.. I feel insulted. I think in the end of the day, whatever u say is useless ,unless u really know what u are talking about , u better keep your mouth shut. It just looks bad for U …. and ME too ! DAMNIT!
In forums, its still o.k... u are not being directly scrutinised! But outside, In real life, u better be sure, or else, its really going to be embarrassing. I am serious. Happened to me before. It was bad. REAL BAD. Take this as an advice, this is not an argument or debate or discussion. Its independant. Take it as a friendly advice.
-
-
Jeez. To me all the definition is similar to one another. And why should I spoonfeed u ?
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Jeez. To me all the definition is similar to one another. And why should I spoonfeed u ?
Anyways,
Have a good read about Truths. <---- this excerpt. Doesnt say ANYTHING about science =Truth.
This one too. <------ In the plus definition system, the term truth refers to: that quality which true propositions hold in common. Because the word truth also has numerous other meanings in philosophy, plus analysis uses the term impartial truth to refer to truth as defined in the plus system. In the present context, truth and impartial truth are equivalent. Yours is what encompasses true propositions hold in common.
Even Impartial Truth , the Objectivity is both a central and elusive concept in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. Contrary to this, most recent philosophers, since the Critique of Pure Reason (1781) by Immanuel Kant, have concluded that scientific knowledge is systematic knowledge of the nature of things as we perceive them rather than they are in themselves.
Read here too. <--- that is TRUTH in Silence. I admit, its not even mine or ur definition of truth, but it sure as hell is some form of Truth!
There are many truths about truths, and thats the TRUTH!
-Truth is found, not invented. It is there, independent from whether people believe in it or not (Gravity existed before Newton).
- The truth is true for all. (Regardless of the person, 2 +2 = 4)
- All the truth is absolute. Even the truths that affect to be relative are really absolute. "I was warm 10th of June in 2008" may affect the relative, but it is true for everyone, everywhere that I got the feeling of warmth in 10th of June, 2008.
- The truth does not change with it what we believe. If the whole world believes that cows can fly, it is still not the truth.
- Beliefs can not alter facts, regardless of how sincerely one believes in something.
A few phrases that you hear too often (and a brief counter question, which explains why they are just rhetorical nonsense).That is just but a few meanings of Truths. All iam saying is, there are possibilities. Thats all. IS it so hard to accept POSSIBILITIES ?
-
Have a good read about Truths. <---- this excerpt. Doesnt say ANYTHING about science =Truth.
It also doesn’t say tat science is not truth either.
- In the plus definition system, the term truth refers to: that quality which true propositions hold in common. Because the word truth also has numerous other meanings in philosophy, plus analysis uses the term impartial truth to refer to truth as defined in the plus system. In the present context, truth and impartial truth are equivalent. Yours is what encompasses true propositions hold in common.
If we think about it, it is easy to see that: all true propositions are true. If it is true that all true propositions are true then all true propositions share something in common, that is, they are all true. Figuring this out is so easy, that it is annoying to be forced to state it out in words.
That all true propositions share the quality of being-true is so obvious that we easily overlook it. Quick as a wink the idea truth, symbolized by whatever word is used in the language we speak, enters our vocabulary and we proceed with our life unaware that we have reached a new plain of philosophical potential.
Your article treat true as truth as well.
that is TRUTH in Silence. I admit, its not even mine or ur definition of truth, but it sure as hell is some form of Truth!
This article is really just religious and thus not relevant to scientific observations
Truth is found, not invented. It is there, independent from whether people believe in it or not (Gravity existed before Newton).
- The truth is true for all. (Regardless of the person, 2 +2 = 4)
- All the truth is absolute. Even the truths that affect to be relative are really absolute. "I was warm 10th of June in 2008" may affect the relative, but it is true for everyone, everywhere that I got the feeling of warmth in 10th of June, 2008.
- The truth does not change with it what we believe. If the whole world believes that cows can fly, it is still not the truth.
- Beliefs can not alter facts, regardless of how sincerely one believes in something.They r not really relevant to the current topic anyway. All the above quotes doesn’t means science cannot state truth
There are many truths about truths, and thats the TRUTH!
That is just but a few meanings of Truths. All iam saying is, there are possibilities. Thats all. IS it so hard to accept POSSIBILITIES ?
However the basic idea is tat it must still be linked with “true” and “false”.
If u think it is not hard to accept possibility, then it isn’t hard to accept tat science do states truth. I mean if u see the computer in front of u, surely there must be some truths in it otherwise it won’t work.
-
U didnt even give me options to choose my definition of Science. And u only put one.What u expect me to choose! Obviously my definition of Truth is different from yours, wont it be most probable that I cant accept your Body of Truths ? If u had spoon fed me with a choice of definitions, we wouldnt even be arguing over something supposedly easy to accept and understand like... threads ago ?
Is your definition of science, why should I provide options for u to choose ? U wanna me so spoon feed u with your own definition of words ? Rubbish !
What u talking about ? I am speaking in a sense of LOGIC. Nothing which is 0 divides by Nothing which is 0 = Nothing Logically!
Another rubbish statement. There is no logic in dividing by zero. If u think it is logical, then show me where it cuts the graph !
SO WHAT ?? Thats not the point, it just means u dont know about ur subject matter. If u want ur answer to be conservative and unsure, SAY SO. But the whole point, is YES or NO, its something u can discover yourself. U should know. I thought U really know. Because u talk of science as if u are very well versed. Hence if u are not sure, please dont say anything. And i dont have to do this to you.
As said, I am being conservative. Did I say anything wrong ? Nope. I am just letting u do some research on your own instead of me spoonfeeding u and telling u all the answers and read all your stupid articles
Now FACT is TRUTH ? DO u want to add anything else ? I am sure u can replace my Truth with Absolute Existence, why dont u do that ? Natural Phenomen = Absolute Existence. So whats the problem ?
Is tat so hard to believe ? Look at the dictionary
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
something that actually exists; reality; truth
something said to be true or supposed to have happened
So wat is the problem ? Your definition still give the same idea tat science is a body of truth. It is just explaining the same term in another way
U could have just said NO. And tell me WHY. Thats it. U can say YES . Its not a trick question. The cross examination is just to see where u stand. How ur mind thinks. And we work out the differences and misunderstandings. Your intentions. Thats it. Its NOT A TRICK QUESTION. ITs a simple YES or NO question. No spin, no tricks , no part questions within a question.. NADA. All my questions are not even trick questions. They are just to discern what u believe and ur character thats all! And regards to the Crate of Good apples, isnt it OBVIOUS to me that my answer is NO.. i wont call it a crate of good apples ? U can accept rotten apples inside and still dub it as crate of good apples, i got no beef with it. It just shows me what u percieve as e.g Body of Truths. Simple. Not a trick question.
And I could have said “don’t know” and said my reasons as well. It is a trick question. U think things as only black and white, yes or no but in actual fact things could be in shades of grey. When u start asking these questions, u already show your thinking tat everything is either yes or no.
And again u made a fallacy here. Even if I said “yes” about apples, it doesn’t means science is not “truth”. I have said before. Of a hypothesis is wrong, it is remove from science and it is still truth
What u talking about ? We agreed and disagreed in a few things. Whats wrong with that ? Didnt u explain and I explain ? I am fully aware of ur understanding, just that like “zero to infinity” it makes no sense ! So is it ZERO or is it NOT ? Because you have contradictory statements ! I am really scratching my head, wondering which is the one u mean!
U said we agree but I never say we do. I told u liao, the answer is for undefined value but in your case u r thinking like a variable. If it cuts the graph, then it is already defined. U do not understand at all. And as said before, it can be anything. Isn’t tis already mentioned many times ?
The main point, is u say u are UNSURE about ur own subject matter. End of the day , u just cant tell me jack shit. All this rubbish u been spouting, now doesnt mean anything. The basic fundamental is “U just dont know ur subject” I asked u a simple question. YES or NO.. u even gave me UNSURE, I didnt even expect that. I admit. Being conservative pretty much means u are being chicken to answer. Means u dont even know. The sheer simple matter is, u dont know.
The only thing u managed to show is simply I did not give u an answer u desire. U ask something very vague and expect me to come out with a black and white answer. I simply refuse and u kick up a fuss over it. Childish isn’t it ?
And u did not answered all the points which I pointed out before. Why do u so selective answering ?
-
How about tis reply ? U seems to conveniently forget about it
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:
Have a good read about Truths. <---- this excerpt. Doesnt say ANYTHING about science =Truth.
It also doesn’t say tat science is not truth either.
- In the plus definition system, the term truth refers to: that quality which true propositions hold in common. Because the word truth also has numerous other meanings in philosophy, plus analysis uses the term impartial truth to refer to truth as defined in the plus system. In the present context, truth and impartial truth are equivalent. Yours is what encompasses true propositions hold in common.
If we think about it, it is easy to see that: all true propositions are true. If it is true that all true propositions are true then all true propositions share something in common, that is, they are all true. Figuring this out is so easy, that it is annoying to be forced to state it out in words.
That all true propositions share the quality of being-true is so obvious that we easily overlook it. Quick as a wink the idea truth, symbolized by whatever word is used in the language we speak, enters our vocabulary and we proceed with our life unaware that we have reached a new plain of philosophical potential.
Your article treat true as truth as well.
that is TRUTH in Silence. I admit, its not even mine or ur definition of truth, but it sure as hell is some form of Truth!
This article is really just religious and thus not relevant to scientific observations
Truth is found, not invented. It is there, independent from whether people believe in it or not (Gravity existed before Newton).
- The truth is true for all. (Regardless of the person, 2 +2 = 4)
- All the truth is absolute. Even the truths that affect to be relative are really absolute. "I was warm 10th of June in 2008" may affect the relative, but it is true for everyone, everywhere that I got the feeling of warmth in 10th of June, 2008.
- The truth does not change with it what we believe. If the whole world believes that cows can fly, it is still not the truth.
- Beliefs can not alter facts, regardless of how sincerely one believes in something.They r not really relevant to the current topic anyway. All the above quotes doesn’t means science cannot state truth
There are many truths about truths, and thats the TRUTH!
That is just but a few meanings of Truths. All iam saying is, there are possibilities. Thats all. IS it so hard to accept POSSIBILITIES ?
However the basic idea is tat it must still be linked with “true” and “false”.
If u think it is not hard to accept possibility, then it isn’t hard to accept tat science do states truth. I mean if u see the computer in front of u, surely there must be some truths in it otherwise it won’t work.
Exactly. Doesnt say about truth , doesnt say science is about truth .
If we think about it, it is easy to see that: all true propositions are true. If it is true that all true propositions are true then all true propositions share something in common, that is, they are all true. Figuring this out is so easy, that it is annoying to be forced to state it out in words.
That all true propositions share the quality of being-true is so obvious that we easily overlook it. Quick as a wink the idea truth, symbolized by whatever word is used in the language we speak, enters our vocabulary and we proceed with our life unaware that we have reached a new plain of philosophical potential.
Are u sure it treats true to truth or does it treat true to truth as in impartial truth? ARE U VERY SURE ? YES OR NO. There is more excerpts then just that line, explaining the IDEA of truth.
However the basic idea is tat it must still be linked with “true” and “false”.
If u think it is not hard to accept possibility, then it isn’t hard to accept tat science do states truth. I mean if u see the computer in front of u, surely there must be some truths in it otherwise it won’t work.
surely there must be some truths. Of course. SOME truths. U notice SOME ?
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
U didnt even give me options to choose my definition of Science. And u only put one.What u expect me to choose! Obviously my definition of Truth is different from yours, wont it be most probable that I cant accept your Body of Truths ? If u had spoon fed me with a choice of definitions, we wouldnt even be arguing over something supposedly easy to accept and understand like... threads ago ?
Is your definition of science, why should I provide options for u to choose ? U wanna me so spoon feed u with your own definition of words ? Rubbish !
What u talking about ? I am speaking in a sense of LOGIC. Nothing which is 0 divides by Nothing which is 0 = Nothing Logically!
Another rubbish statement. There is no logic in dividing by zero. If u think it is logical, then show me where it cuts the graph !
SO WHAT ?? Thats not the point, it just means u dont know about ur subject matter. If u want ur answer to be conservative and unsure, SAY SO. But the whole point, is YES or NO, its something u can discover yourself. U should know. I thought U really know. Because u talk of science as if u are very well versed. Hence if u are not sure, please dont say anything. And i dont have to do this to you.
As said, I am being conservative. Did I say anything wrong ? Nope. I am just letting u do some research on your own instead of me spoonfeeding u and telling u all the answers and read all your stupid articles
Now FACT is TRUTH ? DO u want to add anything else ? I am sure u can replace my Truth with Absolute Existence, why dont u do that ? Natural Phenomen = Absolute Existence. So whats the problem ?
Is tat so hard to believe ? Look at the dictionary
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
something that actually exists; reality; truth
something said to be true or supposed to have happened
So wat is the problem ? Your definition still give the same idea tat science is a body of truth. It is just explaining the same term in another way
U could have just said NO. And tell me WHY. Thats it. U can say YES . Its not a trick question. The cross examination is just to see where u stand. How ur mind thinks. And we work out the differences and misunderstandings. Your intentions. Thats it. Its NOT A TRICK QUESTION. ITs a simple YES or NO question. No spin, no tricks , no part questions within a question.. NADA. All my questions are not even trick questions. They are just to discern what u believe and ur character thats all! And regards to the Crate of Good apples, isnt it OBVIOUS to me that my answer is NO.. i wont call it a crate of good apples ? U can accept rotten apples inside and still dub it as crate of good apples, i got no beef with it. It just shows me what u percieve as e.g Body of Truths. Simple. Not a trick question.
And I could have said “don’t know” and said my reasons as well. It is a trick question. U think things as only black and white, yes or no but in actual fact things could be in shades of grey. When u start asking these questions, u already show your thinking tat everything is either yes or no.
And again u made a fallacy here. Even if I said “yes” about apples, it doesn’t means science is not “truth”. I have said before. Of a hypothesis is wrong, it is remove from science and it is still truth
What u talking about ? We agreed and disagreed in a few things. Whats wrong with that ? Didnt u explain and I explain ? I am fully aware of ur understanding, just that like “zero to infinity” it makes no sense ! So is it ZERO or is it NOT ? Because you have contradictory statements ! I am really scratching my head, wondering which is the one u mean!
U said we agree but I never say we do. I told u liao, the answer is for undefined value but in your case u r thinking like a variable. If it cuts the graph, then it is already defined. U do not understand at all. And as said before, it can be anything. Isn’t tis already mentioned many times ?
The main point, is u say u are UNSURE about ur own subject matter. End of the day , u just cant tell me jack shit. All this rubbish u been spouting, now doesnt mean anything. The basic fundamental is “U just dont know ur subject” I asked u a simple question. YES or NO.. u even gave me UNSURE, I didnt even expect that. I admit. Being conservative pretty much means u are being chicken to answer. Means u dont even know. The sheer simple matter is, u dont know.
The only thing u managed to show is simply I did not give u an answer u desire. U ask something very vague and expect me to come out with a black and white answer. I simply refuse and u kick up a fuss over it. Childish isn’t it ?
And u did not answered all the points which I pointed out before. Why do u so selective answering ?
SO WHAT ?? Thats not the point, it just means u dont know about ur subject matter. If u want ur answer to be conservative and unsure, SAY SO. But the whole point, is YES or NO, its something u can discover yourself. U should know. I thought U really know. Because u talk of science as if u are very well versed. Hence if u are not sure, please dont say anything. And i dont have to do this to you.
Conservative my ass. It just means u are too chicken to answer. Its a simple YES or NO. You appear to know ur subject matter well, and all your statements u come up with UNSURE.
Is tat so hard to believe ? Look at the dictionary
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
something that actually exists; reality; truth
something said to be true or supposed to have happened
WOW... so what is Actually Exists ?What is Reality ? Is it not ACTUAL REALITY ?
something that actually exists; reality; truth
GRAVITY
something said to be true or supposed to have happened
GRAVITY
Need i say more ? Even before the word GRAVITY existed, has Gravity not existed already ? Tell me.
And I could have said “don’t know” and said my reasons as well. It is a trick question. U think things as only black and white, yes or no but in actual fact things could be in shades of grey. When u start asking these questions, u already show your thinking tat everything is either yes or no.
Trick question ? HOW CAN IT BE A TRICK QUESTION. UR MEEPOK BULLSHIT IS MORE LIKE A TRICK QUESTION AND U GOT THE BALLS TO SAY MINE IS A TRICK QUESTION. Whats the problem with Yes or No ? I KNOW my subject matter well, thats why i can give a definite answer YES or NO in my own questions. Is it THAT indefinite ?I am SURE with your bold statements and convictions u can either answer YES or NO. You already claim science = Body of Truths, but yet u are UNSURE about the theories, so how the FUCK can u even think its Body of Truths ?That means u accept falsity in your body of Truths , thats why i CANNOT accept body of truths to contain Falsity. Simple.
Of course, u will say my analogy is rubbish and exampls are crap. But unfortunately, thats just how it is.
And u did not answered all the points which I pointed out before. Why do u so selective answering ?
What points ? they are all answered.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
How about tis reply ? U seems to conveniently forget about it
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 !
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
So.. they are still two different dish. Its no longer MEE pok.. and no longer KWAY TEOW if its not KWAY TEOW in it.So tell me. Does it NOT taste different ? IS IT NOT a different dish as i answered ? So whats the problem ? Unlike u, i dont READ into your trick question. And some of your questions are not EVEN questions.
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
Your definition of Truth and mine are different. That is the core of our beliefs. All the cosmetics sure, u can add the mirror , ur 4 spoke wheels into my 5 spoke wheel. But the ENGINE>. the CORE... is different. Hell its going to look wierd , but the engine wont run, and it will look like a bad piece of junk.
OF COURSE.. my EXAMPLES.. as usual.. are STUPID.. n SILLY. WHILE URS.. ur MEEPOK.. wow.. is SO GREAT. Another trait of Stupidissmart.
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
OH.. so NOTHING which is 0 divides by NOTHING which is 0 LOGICALLY.. EQUALS WHAT ? U TELL ME.. tell me now. What does NOTHING divide by NOTHING logically. TELL ME ?AM I TALKING MATHEMATICS ? OR AM I TALKING LOGIC HERE. WHAT IS THE ANSWER LOGICALLY ?
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 ?
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.
Simple . 1 + 1 = 2 Mathematically must apply in all cases. N that is quantity. However it fails to do so. Hence its a true and the truth mathematically. But not THE TRUTH. Simple.
Do u understand Fitch's Paradox of Truth ?Moores Paradox ? The knowability thesis ? Are u omniscient ?
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
See.. once again... MY EXAMPLES are silly.. and YOURS IS GODLIKE PERFECT EXAMPLES. U know, for me to accept your ur supposedly superior examples, honestly, urs is not great either. CLAP CLAP BRAVO!
Honesty, i have answered ur stupid questions, but u just refuse to see it. Let me cut n paste again
U could have just said NO. And tell me WHY. Thats it. U can say YES . Its not a trick question. The cross examination is just to see where u stand. How ur mind thinks. And we work out the differences and misunderstandings. Your intentions. Thats it. Its NOT A TRICK QUESTION. ITs a simple YES or NO question. No spin, no tricks , no part questions within a question.. NADA. All my questions are not even trick questions. They are just to discern what u believe and ur character thats all! And regards to the Crate of Good apples, isnt it OBVIOUS to me that my answer is NO.. i wont call it a crate of good apples ? U can accept rotten apples inside and still dub it as crate of good apples, i got no beef with it. It just shows me what u percieve as e.g Body of Truths. Simple. Not a trick question.
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 !
What ? is that it ? Did i not clarify Science and Theologians and admit that there may be misunderstanding in the way i worded it ? Besides that, show me my errors.
VAGUE ? Or u just TOO STUPID ? IF i dont want people to understand, I wouldnt be here till PAGE 17. And there is no one. Its only you. I really thought i was talking to someone with as much intellectual capacity as me, I feel insulted.
What u talking about ? We agreed and disagreed in a few things. Whats wrong with that ? Didnt u explain and I explain ? I am fully aware of ur understanding, just that like “zero to infinity” it makes no sense ! So is it ZERO or is it NOT ? Because you have contradictory statements ! I am really scratching my head, wondering which is the one u mean!
The main point, is u say u are UNSURE about ur own subject matter. End of the day , u just cant tell me jack shit. All this rubbish u been spouting, now doesnt mean anything. The basic fundamental is “U just dont know ur subject” I asked u a simple question. YES or NO.. u even gave me UNSURE, I didnt even expect that. I admit. Being conservative pretty much means u are being chicken to answer. Means u dont even know. The sheer simple matter is, u dont know.
Its like u coming telling me u are mechanic,then I ask u, can cars run on petrol ? U say unsure. If u dont know, n u tell me all about cars, I will think u are all about cock n bull. U gottta stand my shoes and try to understand why I just felt... insulted this whole time, thinking I was talking to someone who knows the subject matter!
Hence there is even a possibility that you are spewing rubbish out of ur ass!
I am speechless. Really.. I feel insulted. I think in the end of the day, whatever u say is useless ,unless u really know what u are talking about , u better keep your mouth shut. It just looks bad for U …. and ME too ! DAMNIT!
In forums, its still o.k... u are not being directly scrutinised! But outside, In real life, u better be sure, or else, its really going to be embarrassing. I am serious. Happened to me before. It was bad. REAL BAD. Take this as an advice, this is not an argument or debate or discussion. Its independant. Take it as a friendly advice.
-
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.
-
"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 ?
-
Don't care about Badzmaro.
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Don't care about Badzmaro.
Do u have something to add ?
-
There is no god.
-
What difference is there between Jesus and those characters from super hero comic books?
-
Exactly. Doesnt say about truth , doesnt say science is about truth .
Which point r u answering n here ? If u r talking about your definition of science, it is as plain as day tat science record truth and facts. A lot of times, the dictionary just explain some ideas similar but in a different way. Or r u really dumb tat u refuse to see the underlying and physical meaning of the message but just look for key words ?
Are u sure it treats true to truth or does it treat true to truth as in impartial truth? ARE U VERY SURE ? YES OR NO. There is more excerpts then just that line, explaining the IDEA of truth.
Then r u sure then wat is true may not be the truth ? The message above explains tat the word truth is simply derived from “true”
surely there must be some truths. Of course. SOME truths. U notice SOME ?
Then can u explain why u emphasis tat science is NEVER about truth before ? So u agree u made a mistake before ? REPEAT AFTER ME… HUMAN MAKE MISTAKE… HUMAN MAKE MISTAKE
SO WHAT ?? Thats not the point, it just means u dont know about ur subject matter. If u want ur answer to be conservative and unsure, SAY SO. But the whole point, is YES or NO, its something u can discover yourself. U should know. I thought U really know. Because u talk of science as if u are very well versed. Hence if u are not sure, please dont say anything. And i dont have to do this to you.
Let me see… u expect me to answer yes or no, I answer unsure and u attack me for such a silly thing ? I don’t have to play your game. The reason why I said unsure is because I am conservative and wanna safeguard myself by giving a non committal answer. However u draw stupid conclusions from it and use it as though it is something remarkable. Is tat your best attack against me ? When I didn’t even commit to any particular stand ?
WOW... so what is Actually Exists ?What is Reality ? Is it not ACTUAL REALITY ?
something that actually exists; reality; truth
GRAVITY
something said to be true or supposed to have happened
GRAVITY
Need i say more ? Even before the word GRAVITY existed, has Gravity not existed already ? Tell me
Wat talking u ?
What points ? they are all answered.
Do u agree tat a collective collection of truth studied together can enhance the understanding of the subject ?
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 ?
Trick question ? HOW CAN IT BE A TRICK QUESTION. UR MEEPOK BULLSHIT IS MORE LIKE A TRICK QUESTION AND U GOT THE BALLS TO SAY MINE IS A TRICK QUESTION. Whats the problem with Yes or No ? I KNOW my subject matter well, thats why i can give a definite answer YES or NO in my own questions. Is it THAT indefinite ?I am SURE with your bold statements and convictions u can either answer YES or NO. You already claim science = Body of Truths, but yet u are UNSURE about the theories, so how the FUCK can u even think its Body of Truths ?That means u accept falsity in your body of Truths , thats why i CANNOT accept body of truths to contain Falsity. Simple.
Why should I play your stupid game ? I chose to answer “don’t know” is my freedom. And u r picking on it because I say “don’t know” ? Wow why must u force people to follow your rule ? Did u give me money ?
Second, your question is really stupid. It is like asking if I see a glass of water filled almost to the brim, will I say it is a full glass of water or not ? Now if I say yes, which is probably wat most people will say, u said I have bad standard and tat it is not full because it is not filled to the brim. If I say No, then u will say I am unreasonable and tat most people will call it full. So wat do u expect me to say ? If u think it is not a trick question, then u reply yes or no to the question
A glass of water is fill up 90% and almost to the brim. DO u call it a full glass of water ?
So.. they are still two different dish. Its no longer MEE pok.. and no longer KWAY TEOW if its not KWAY TEOW in it.So tell me. Does it NOT taste different ? IS IT NOT a different dish as i answered ? So whats the problem ? Unlike u, i dont READ into your trick question. And some of your questions are not EVEN questions.
U said most people will accept it as the same yourself. U really talk cock, talk about other stupid things like engine and expect it to link to your question about truth. Wat is the link ? No link. U r just talking rubbish all the way
Your definition of Truth and mine are different. That is the core of our beliefs. All the cosmetics sure, u can add the mirror , ur 4 spoke wheels into my 5 spoke wheel. But the ENGINE>. the CORE... is different. Hell its going to look wierd , but the engine wont run, and it will look like a bad piece of junk.
And so wat has it got to do with truth ? engine is an engine, a car is a a car and your truth is different from all tis.
OH.. so NOTHING which is 0 divides by NOTHING which is 0 LOGICALLY.. EQUALS WHAT ? U TELL ME.. tell me now. What does NOTHING divide by NOTHING logically. TELL ME ?AM I TALKING MATHEMATICS ? OR AM I TALKING LOGIC HERE. WHAT IS THE ANSWER LOGICALLY ?
Logically it means undefined. But u give the stupid answer of zero. Can u even tell me wat is division by zero ? U CANNOT EVEN GIVE ME THE LOGICAL MEANING OF IT. And u just keep ignoring tis question. Tis is just stupid.
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.
Tat is very strange, u spell truth as T.R.U.T.H and I spell it as T.R.U.T.H. If tat logic does not apply to your truth, then obviously u have to elaborate.
1)U said truth is “actual existence”.
2) If a statement is not based on “actual existence”, it is false.
3) If it is false, it is not true.
Then your stupid statement about wat is true may not be the truth is rubbish because if it is not the truth, it cannot be true as well
U could have just said NO. And tell me WHY. Thats it. U can say YES . Its not a trick question. The cross examination is just to see where u stand. How ur mind thinks. And we work out the differences and misunderstandings. Your intentions. Thats it. Its NOT A TRICK QUESTION. ITs a simple YES or NO question. No spin, no tricks , no part questions within a question.. NADA. All my questions are not even trick questions. They are just to discern what u believe and ur character thats all! And regards to the Crate of Good apples, isnt it OBVIOUS to me that my answer is NO.. i wont call it a crate of good apples ? U can accept rotten apples inside and still dub it as crate of good apples, i got no beef with it. It just shows me what u percieve as e.g Body of Truths. Simple. Not a trick question.
Just limiting the answer is assuming tat everything must be in black and white, and not grey. Is everything in black and white ? Could there be shades of grey ? In fact u r persisting and try to force me to just say yes or not WITHOUT elaboration. Isn’t these already trick questions ?
And again u made another fallacy here. How I treat a crate of apples doesn’t mean I treat the same to a body of truth. These r completely 2 different issues altogether. If I use your examples, a “crate f good apples” is like a Hyundai while “body of truth” is like Maserati. Could I put Hyundai engine into Maserati ?
What ? is that it ? Did i not clarify Science and Theologians and admit that there may be misunderstanding in the way i worded it ? Besides that, show me my errors.
U said tat the gravity is not truth before.
Your reply 26th Jan 1040
- OF COURSE. LIKED I SAID, IT DEPENDS ON CIRCUMSTANCES. Acceleration of Gravity is TRUE, but u cant say its LIKE THAT, as Gravity on Earth and Moon are different. Its TRUE, i dont think of it as.. THE TRUTH.
U claimed tat the laws of thermodynamics r wrong U claimed tat 0/0 is logically zero. U stated tat 1+1=2 is not truth. U claimed truth has no scope and could work in ALL circumstances. U claimed tat 1=2 from division of 0/0. U claimed real and true answers to questions r not truth. U said mathematical truth r not truth. U thought 10/0 and 0/0 actually give different answers. U claimed tat people who use the dictionary r just followers and not superior. U claimed tat I said Einstein is always right and wanna me to cut off my left ball.
What u talking about ? We agreed and disagreed in a few things. Whats wrong with that ? Didnt u explain and I explain ? I am fully aware of ur understanding, just that like “zero to infinity” it makes no sense ! So is it ZERO or is it NOT ? Because you have contradictory statements ! I am really scratching my head, wondering which is the one u mean!
I said, it is UNDEFINED. It could be ANYTHING. If u talk about contradictory statements, u said gravity is truth and not truth, u say 1+1 is a mathematical truth which is not truth. U said 0/0 is logically 0 but u show the graph yourself and say it cannot be zero.
The main point, is u say u are UNSURE about ur own subject matter. End of the day , u just cant tell me jack shit. All this rubbish u been spouting, now doesnt mean anything. The basic fundamental is “U just dont know ur subject” I asked u a simple question. YES or NO.. u even gave me UNSURE, I didnt even expect that. I admit. Being conservative pretty much means u are being chicken to answer. Means u dont even know. The sheer simple matter is, u dont know.
Shows your only argument here. Read above
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
<!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]-->
Exactly. Doesnt say about truth , doesnt say science is about truth .
Which point r u answering n here ? If u r talking about your definition of science, it is as plain as day tat science record truth and facts. A lot of times, the dictionary just explain some ideas similar but in a different way. Or r u really dumb tat u refuse to see the underlying and physical meaning of the message but just look for key words ?
Are u sure it treats true to truth or does it treat true to truth as in impartial truth? ARE U VERY SURE ? YES OR NO. There is more excerpts then just that line, explaining the IDEA of truth.
Then r u sure then wat is true may not be the truth ? The message above explains tat the word truth is simply derived from “true”
surely there must be some truths. Of course. SOME truths. U notice SOME ?
Then can u explain why u emphasis tat science is NEVER about truth before ? So u agree u made a mistake before ? REPEAT AFTER ME… HUMAN MAKE MISTAKE… HUMAN MAKE MISTAKE
SO WHAT ?? Thats not the point, it just means u dont know about ur subject matter. If u want ur answer to be conservative and unsure, SAY SO. But the whole point, is YES or NO, its something u can discover yourself. U should know. I thought U really know. Because u talk of science as if u are very well versed. Hence if u are not sure, please dont say anything. And i dont have to do this to you.
Let me see… u expect me to answer yes or no, I answer unsure and u attack me for such a silly thing ? I don’t have to play your game. The reason why I said unsure is because I am conservative and wanna safeguard myself by giving a non committal answer. However u draw stupid conclusions from it and use it as though it is something remarkable. Is tat your best attack against me ? When I didn’t even commit to any particular stand ?
WOW... so what is Actually Exists ?What is Reality ? Is it not ACTUAL REALITY ?
something that actually exists; reality; truth
GRAVITY
something said to be true or supposed to have happened
GRAVITY
Need i say more ? Even before the word GRAVITY existed, has Gravity not existed already ? Tell me
Wat talking u ?
What points ? they are all answered.
Do u agree tat a collective collection of truth studied together can enhance the understanding of the subject ?
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 ?
Trick question ? HOW CAN IT BE A TRICK QUESTION. UR MEEPOK BULLSHIT IS MORE LIKE A TRICK QUESTION AND U GOT THE BALLS TO SAY MINE IS A TRICK QUESTION. Whats the problem with Yes or No ? I KNOW my subject matter well, thats why i can give a definite answer YES or NO in my own questions. Is it THAT indefinite ?I am SURE with your bold statements and convictions u can either answer YES or NO. You already claim science = Body of Truths, but yet u are UNSURE about the theories, so how the FUCK can u even think its Body of Truths ?That means u accept falsity in your body of Truths , thats why i CANNOT accept body of truths to contain Falsity. Simple.
Why should I play your stupid game ? I chose to answer “don’t know” is my freedom. And u r picking on it because I say “don’t know” ? Wow why must u force people to follow your rule ? Did u give me money ?
Second, your question is really stupid. It is like asking if I see a glass of water filled almost to the brim, will I say it is a full glass of water or not ? Now if I say yes, which is probably wat most people will say, u said I have bad standard and tat it is not full because it is not filled to the brim. If I say No, then u will say I am unreasonable and tat most people will call it full. So wat do u expect me to say ? If u think it is not a trick question, then u reply yes or no to the question
A glass of water is fill up 90% and almost to the brim. DO u call it a full glass of water ?
So.. they are still two different dish. Its no longer MEE pok.. and no longer KWAY TEOW if its not KWAY TEOW in it.So tell me. Does it NOT taste different ? IS IT NOT a different dish as i answered ? So whats the problem ? Unlike u, i dont READ into your trick question. And some of your questions are not EVEN questions.
U said most people will accept it as the same yourself. U really talk cock, talk about other stupid things like engine and expect it to link to your question about truth. Wat is the link ? No link. U r just talking rubbish all the way
Your definition of Truth and mine are different. That is the core of our beliefs. All the cosmetics sure, u can add the mirror , ur 4 spoke wheels into my 5 spoke wheel. But the ENGINE>. the CORE... is different. Hell its going to look wierd , but the engine wont run, and it will look like a bad piece of junk.
And so wat has it got to do with truth ? engine is an engine, a car is a a car and your truth is different from all tis.
OH.. so NOTHING which is 0 divides by NOTHING which is 0 LOGICALLY.. EQUALS WHAT ? U TELL ME.. tell me now. What does NOTHING divide by NOTHING logically. TELL ME ?AM I TALKING MATHEMATICS ? OR AM I TALKING LOGIC HERE. WHAT IS THE ANSWER LOGICALLY ?
Logically it means undefined. But u give the stupid answer of zero. Can u even tell me wat is division by zero ? U CANNOT EVEN GIVE ME THE LOGICAL MEANING OF IT. And u just keep ignoring tis question. Tis is just stupid.
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.
Tat is very strange, u spell truth as T.R.U.T.H and I spell it as T.R.U.T.H. If tat logic does not apply to your truth, then obviously u have to elaborate.
1)U said truth is “actual existence”.
2) If a statement is not based on “actual existence”, it is false.
3) If it is false, it is not true.
Then your stupid statement about wat is true may not be the truth is rubbish because if it is not the truth, it cannot be true as well
U could have just said NO. And tell me WHY. Thats it. U can say YES . Its not a trick question. The cross examination is just to see where u stand. How ur mind thinks. And we work out the differences and misunderstandings. Your intentions. Thats it. Its NOT A TRICK QUESTION. ITs a simple YES or NO question. No spin, no tricks , no part questions within a question.. NADA. All my questions are not even trick questions. They are just to discern what u believe and ur character thats all! And regards to the Crate of Good apples, isnt it OBVIOUS to me that my answer is NO.. i wont call it a crate of good apples ? U can accept rotten apples inside and still dub it as crate of good apples, i got no beef with it. It just shows me what u percieve as e.g Body of Truths. Simple. Not a trick question.
Just limiting the answer is assuming tat everything must be in black and white, and not grey. Is everything in black and white ? Could there be shades of grey ? In fact u r persisting and try to force me to just say yes or not WITHOUT elaboration. Isn’t these already trick questions ?
And again u made another fallacy here. How I treat a crate of apples doesn’t mean I treat the same to a body of truth. These r completely 2 different issues altogether. If I use your examples, a “crate f good apples” is like a Hyundai while “body of truth” is like Maserati. Could I put Hyundai engine into Maserati ?
What ? is that it ? Did i not clarify Science and Theologians and admit that there may be misunderstanding in the way i worded it ? Besides that, show me my errors.
U said tat the gravity is not truth before.
Your reply 26th Jan 1040
- OF COURSE. LIKED I SAID, IT DEPENDS ON CIRCUMSTANCES. Acceleration of Gravity is TRUE, but u cant say its LIKE THAT, as Gravity on Earth and Moon are different. Its TRUE, i dont think of it as.. THE TRUTH.
U claimed tat the laws of thermodynamics r wrong U claimed tat 0/0 is logically zero. U stated tat 1+1=2 is not truth. U claimed truth has no scope and could work in ALL circumstances. U claimed tat 1=2 from division of 0/0. U claimed real and true answers to questions r not truth. U said mathematical truth r not truth. U thought 10/0 and 0/0 actually give different answers. U claimed tat people who use the dictionary r just followers and not superior. U claimed tat I said Einstein is always right and wanna me to cut off my left ball.
What u talking about ? We agreed and disagreed in a few things. Whats wrong with that ? Didnt u explain and I explain ? I am fully aware of ur understanding, just that like “zero to infinity” it makes no sense ! So is it ZERO or is it NOT ? Because you have contradictory statements ! I am really scratching my head, wondering which is the one u mean!
I said, it is UNDEFINED. It could be ANYTHING. If u talk about contradictory statements, u said gravity is truth and not truth, u say 1+1 is a mathematical truth which is not truth. U said 0/0 is logically 0 but u show the graph yourself and say it cannot be zero.
The main point, is u say u are UNSURE about ur own subject matter. End of the day , u just cant tell me jack shit. All this rubbish u been spouting, now doesnt mean anything. The basic fundamental is “U just dont know ur subject” I asked u a simple question. YES or NO.. u even gave me UNSURE, I didnt even expect that. I admit. Being conservative pretty much means u are being chicken to answer. Means u dont even know. The sheer simple matter is, u dont know.
Shows your only argument here. Read above
By the way , let me make it clear.
U derive simple True = Truth
U think I dont know that ? U think all my accumulated knowledge till this point, i cannot differentiate TRUE/FALSE ?
Did I EVER say u are wrong ? NO.
Its because i can differentiate clearly, that i have been aware that it is much more complicated than that. True = True . truth = truth . Truth = Truth .
Dont forget, i said again n again, that i am fully capable of understanding ur conceptualisation of truth. Thats why i can understand your reasoning behind Science as Body of Truths. But after so much, u should be clear by now my True and Truth is not the same as ur True = Truth. Even when i was being specific, u just dont get it. Is it MY FAULT ?
MY crate of Good apples = Good apples ONLY (Unacceptable to have rotten apples in it. If there is , I will call it MOSTLY good apples)
How hard is it to understand ?
Hence its just simple. YOUR BODY OF TRUTHS = True = Truths + Falsitities. If u can accept that , no problem. I got no beef.
If u want me to Accept Body of Truths then it MUST be BODY OF TRUTHS! Is it so hard to understand ?
U noticed ? Our definition of Truth is already different. So of course its not going to work perfectly in eac of our belief system. Hence AGAIN, i am fully understanding to your concept. U dont see me challenging u on ur beliefs right ? I only challenge those I see as blatant mistakes or things that doesnt add up. Especially the Zero to Infinity. IN court, if ur affidavit is different from your testimony, its a contempt of court. We pretty much can throw the whole case out if u are the main witness. If u meant ..Could be ANYTHING BUT ZERO, I am more then willing to accept the omission. But until now, u still hang on to both. U CANT have TWO TRUTHS(True = Truth in your definition) , either one is TRUE or NOT.
And i explained to u why i do not think so.. theories, mistakes, man... true.. but not really the Truth. Like how u use the word "SOME TRUTHS" well, why didnt u read into my "MAY NOT be THE TRUTH" ?
While u were reading so into my supposedly u claim "Trick Questions" , why didnt u READ into my sentence of MAY NOT be THE TRUTH ?
All the articles i have shown u ALL SURPASSED THE SIMPLE NOTION of TRUE = TRUTH. Because the realisation that TRUE is TRUE. TRUTH is TRUTH. There IS the subtle differences and they try to explain that difference with thier superior intellectual minds. But as usual, u can only see and read it as True = Truth even after all those articles that TRY to define the subtlety of True and Truth.
I can only come to a conclusion, did u even read them ? Or u just dont understand! Its o.k u know.. even when years ago i was studying it, it took me a damn good while just to seperate the relative terms and its meaning. Even the article cant even describe Truth till the point the auther is uncertain hence can only say the Truh in his article represents Impartial Truth. I admit, i may not be well versed in the english language to write it out the way they do, but hey... thats what examples, articles and analogies are for right ? But what astounds me is your supposedly superior english language and dictionary.com with so many meaning u cant even GRAAASP the idea that there are differences and differences of opinions.
Hence, before u even try to critique the articles, U better solve the "Zero to Infinity" part first. Your knowledge of Science is already proven you dont even know the subject matter, so dont even bother bringing up anything science in general. It will just look bad for you and me to even continue. The Maths part is suspect too. You have two true statements that apparently, only one can be true. I have given u time and time.. days n days to omitt the mistake, but u have chosen to ignore and causing this loop. The longer u ignore it, the more suspect your credibility in Maths becomes.
And another thing:
So please, before u even begin, at least take some time to understand the paradoxes. The articles. They are all different explainations to what Truth or the Truth is.
Read here too. <--- that is TRUTH in Silence. I admit, its not even mine or ur definition of truth, but it sure as hell is some form of Truth!
This article is really just religious and thus not relevant to scientific observations
It doesnt matter, all these articles of truth has nothing to do with science. Are u trying to say Truth is PURELY SCIENCE ? Is that what u are trying to say ? All i am saying is these people are trying to explain truth. I hope u do not discriminate religion, there is a line i draw somewhere.
"The Great Masters throughout history shared this understanding -- no matter how many words you use, words can never approximate the truth."
Have u been in 90 years of silence ? Even if u say its not scientific, how do u know he never did observation, hypothesise, experiments IN SILENCE about the Truth ? How do u know there is NO peer scrutiny ? I am sure, in that 90yrs of silence , his mind was busy with something... i dont know.
Anyways, thats besides the point, u have NO STANDING to talk to me anything about science now. Lets just focus on Maths and Truth.
Now, for Truth, your version of the truth is the simple correspondence theory.
As Aristotle claims in his Metaphysics: "To say that [either] that which is is not or that which is not is, is a falsehood; and to say that that which is is and that which is not is not, is true"
Thats why its perfectly understandable that u truly believe and equate true = truth in simple logic and terms.
Let me just to reitterate again, that U ARE NOT WRONG.
Once again, let me make it clear, that i am perfectly able to understand the way u do, from the cross examinations and ur definitions. It should be from the misunderstandings that one must see past it to allow understanding. And we have both acknowledged the difference in our definition and its application. .Now lets not try to apply our core.. which is the engine part of our respective vehicles into each other's vehicles.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
<!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]-->
Exactly. Doesnt say about truth , doesnt say science is about truth .
Which point r u answering n here ? If u r talking about your definition of science, it is as plain as day tat science record truth and facts. A lot of times, the dictionary just explain some ideas similar but in a different way. Or r u really dumb tat u refuse to see the underlying and physical meaning of the message but just look for key words ?
Are u sure it treats true to truth or does it treat true to truth as in impartial truth? ARE U VERY SURE ? YES OR NO. There is more excerpts then just that line, explaining the IDEA of truth.
Then r u sure then wat is true may not be the truth ? The message above explains tat the word truth is simply derived from “true”
surely there must be some truths. Of course. SOME truths. U notice SOME ?
Then can u explain why u emphasis tat science is NEVER about truth before ? So u agree u made a mistake before ? REPEAT AFTER ME… HUMAN MAKE MISTAKE… HUMAN MAKE MISTAKE
SO WHAT ?? Thats not the point, it just means u dont know about ur subject matter. If u want ur answer to be conservative and unsure, SAY SO. But the whole point, is YES or NO, its something u can discover yourself. U should know. I thought U really know. Because u talk of science as if u are very well versed. Hence if u are not sure, please dont say anything. And i dont have to do this to you.
Let me see… u expect me to answer yes or no, I answer unsure and u attack me for such a silly thing ? I don’t have to play your game. The reason why I said unsure is because I am conservative and wanna safeguard myself by giving a non committal answer. However u draw stupid conclusions from it and use it as though it is something remarkable. Is tat your best attack against me ? When I didn’t even commit to any particular stand ?
WOW... so what is Actually Exists ?What is Reality ? Is it not ACTUAL REALITY ?
something that actually exists; reality; truth
GRAVITY
something said to be true or supposed to have happened
GRAVITY
Need i say more ? Even before the word GRAVITY existed, has Gravity not existed already ? Tell me
Wat talking u ?
What points ? they are all answered.
Do u agree tat a collective collection of truth studied together can enhance the understanding of the subject ?
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 ?
Trick question ? HOW CAN IT BE A TRICK QUESTION. UR MEEPOK BULLSHIT IS MORE LIKE A TRICK QUESTION AND U GOT THE BALLS TO SAY MINE IS A TRICK QUESTION. Whats the problem with Yes or No ? I KNOW my subject matter well, thats why i can give a definite answer YES or NO in my own questions. Is it THAT indefinite ?I am SURE with your bold statements and convictions u can either answer YES or NO. You already claim science = Body of Truths, but yet u are UNSURE about the theories, so how the FUCK can u even think its Body of Truths ?That means u accept falsity in your body of Truths , thats why i CANNOT accept body of truths to contain Falsity. Simple.
Why should I play your stupid game ? I chose to answer “don’t know” is my freedom. And u r picking on it because I say “don’t know” ? Wow why must u force people to follow your rule ? Did u give me money ?
Second, your question is really stupid. It is like asking if I see a glass of water filled almost to the brim, will I say it is a full glass of water or not ? Now if I say yes, which is probably wat most people will say, u said I have bad standard and tat it is not full because it is not filled to the brim. If I say No, then u will say I am unreasonable and tat most people will call it full. So wat do u expect me to say ? If u think it is not a trick question, then u reply yes or no to the question
A glass of water is fill up 90% and almost to the brim. DO u call it a full glass of water ?
So.. they are still two different dish. Its no longer MEE pok.. and no longer KWAY TEOW if its not KWAY TEOW in it.So tell me. Does it NOT taste different ? IS IT NOT a different dish as i answered ? So whats the problem ? Unlike u, i dont READ into your trick question. And some of your questions are not EVEN questions.
U said most people will accept it as the same yourself. U really talk cock, talk about other stupid things like engine and expect it to link to your question about truth. Wat is the link ? No link. U r just talking rubbish all the way
Your definition of Truth and mine are different. That is the core of our beliefs. All the cosmetics sure, u can add the mirror , ur 4 spoke wheels into my 5 spoke wheel. But the ENGINE>. the CORE... is different. Hell its going to look wierd , but the engine wont run, and it will look like a bad piece of junk.
And so wat has it got to do with truth ? engine is an engine, a car is a a car and your truth is different from all tis.
OH.. so NOTHING which is 0 divides by NOTHING which is 0 LOGICALLY.. EQUALS WHAT ? U TELL ME.. tell me now. What does NOTHING divide by NOTHING logically. TELL ME ?AM I TALKING MATHEMATICS ? OR AM I TALKING LOGIC HERE. WHAT IS THE ANSWER LOGICALLY ?
Logically it means undefined. But u give the stupid answer of zero. Can u even tell me wat is division by zero ? U CANNOT EVEN GIVE ME THE LOGICAL MEANING OF IT. And u just keep ignoring tis question. Tis is just stupid.
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.
Tat is very strange, u spell truth as T.R.U.T.H and I spell it as T.R.U.T.H. If tat logic does not apply to your truth, then obviously u have to elaborate.
1)U said truth is “actual existence”.
2) If a statement is not based on “actual existence”, it is false.
3) If it is false, it is not true.
Then your stupid statement about wat is true may not be the truth is rubbish because if it is not the truth, it cannot be true as well
U could have just said NO. And tell me WHY. Thats it. U can say YES . Its not a trick question. The cross examination is just to see where u stand. How ur mind thinks. And we work out the differences and misunderstandings. Your intentions. Thats it. Its NOT A TRICK QUESTION. ITs a simple YES or NO question. No spin, no tricks , no part questions within a question.. NADA. All my questions are not even trick questions. They are just to discern what u believe and ur character thats all! And regards to the Crate of Good apples, isnt it OBVIOUS to me that my answer is NO.. i wont call it a crate of good apples ? U can accept rotten apples inside and still dub it as crate of good apples, i got no beef with it. It just shows me what u percieve as e.g Body of Truths. Simple. Not a trick question.
Just limiting the answer is assuming tat everything must be in black and white, and not grey. Is everything in black and white ? Could there be shades of grey ? In fact u r persisting and try to force me to just say yes or not WITHOUT elaboration. Isn’t these already trick questions ?
And again u made another fallacy here. How I treat a crate of apples doesn’t mean I treat the same to a body of truth. These r completely 2 different issues altogether. If I use your examples, a “crate f good apples” is like a Hyundai while “body of truth” is like Maserati. Could I put Hyundai engine into Maserati ?
What ? is that it ? Did i not clarify Science and Theologians and admit that there may be misunderstanding in the way i worded it ? Besides that, show me my errors.
U said tat the gravity is not truth before.
Your reply 26th Jan 1040
- OF COURSE. LIKED I SAID, IT DEPENDS ON CIRCUMSTANCES. Acceleration of Gravity is TRUE, but u cant say its LIKE THAT, as Gravity on Earth and Moon are different. Its TRUE, i dont think of it as.. THE TRUTH.
U claimed tat the laws of thermodynamics r wrong U claimed tat 0/0 is logically zero. U stated tat 1+1=2 is not truth. U claimed truth has no scope and could work in ALL circumstances. U claimed tat 1=2 from division of 0/0. U claimed real and true answers to questions r not truth. U said mathematical truth r not truth. U thought 10/0 and 0/0 actually give different answers. U claimed tat people who use the dictionary r just followers and not superior. U claimed tat I said Einstein is always right and wanna me to cut off my left ball.
What u talking about ? We agreed and disagreed in a few things. Whats wrong with that ? Didnt u explain and I explain ? I am fully aware of ur understanding, just that like “zero to infinity” it makes no sense ! So is it ZERO or is it NOT ? Because you have contradictory statements ! I am really scratching my head, wondering which is the one u mean!
I said, it is UNDEFINED. It could be ANYTHING. If u talk about contradictory statements, u said gravity is truth and not truth, u say 1+1 is a mathematical truth which is not truth. U said 0/0 is logically 0 but u show the graph yourself and say it cannot be zero.
The main point, is u say u are UNSURE about ur own subject matter. End of the day , u just cant tell me jack shit. All this rubbish u been spouting, now doesnt mean anything. The basic fundamental is “U just dont know ur subject” I asked u a simple question. YES or NO.. u even gave me UNSURE, I didnt even expect that. I admit. Being conservative pretty much means u are being chicken to answer. Means u dont even know. The sheer simple matter is, u dont know.
Shows your only argument here. Read above
Which point r u answering n here ? If u r talking about your definition of science, it is as plain as day tat science record truth and facts. A lot of times, the dictionary just explain some ideas similar but in a different way. Or r u really dumb tat u refuse to see the underlying and physical meaning of the message but just look for key words ?
Well, i am definately NOT dumb. For someone who doesnt know the subject matter well and that is science, i suggest u shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down. Move on to ur Maths and Truth.
Then r u sure then wat is true may not be the truth ? The message above explains tat the word truth is simply derived from “true”
Yes i am sure that what is true MAY NOT be the truth.
Then can u explain why u emphasis tat science is NEVER about truth before ? So u agree u made a mistake before ? REPEAT AFTER ME… HUMAN MAKE MISTAKE… HUMAN MAKE MISTAKE
YES..HUMANS MAN MISTAKES. I MAKE MISTAKES. LIKE U. U MAKE MISTAKES. ITs GOOd THAT U ARE REPEATING AFTER ME NOW.WELL DONE ! U UNDERSTAND HOW HUMAN U ARE. THE SAME WITH ME.
WHEN ? ALL I SAID WAS. SCIENCE IS ABOUT THE HOW AND WHY, ON THE WAY THEY FIND THE TRUTH BRAVO. I SAID , SCIENCE IS NOT THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH.
Let me see… u expect me to answer yes or no, I answer unsure and u attack me for such a silly thing ? I don’t have to play your game. The reason why I said unsure is because I am conservative and wanna safeguard myself by giving a non committal answer. However u draw stupid conclusions from it and use it as though it is something remarkable. Is tat your best attack against me ? When I didn’t even commit to any particular stand ?
YES OF COURSE!
ITs a very simple question!
HAS SCIENTIFIC THEORIES BEEN WRONG BEFORE ? How hard is that question ? U TELL ME ? HOW HARD. U talk of science with such convictions and make such damn bold statements , but the basics of science, in regards to theories and U CANT EVEN ANSWER YES OR NO. Anyone in the scientific community would have told u to shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down and let people who are SURE about thier subject matter make statements and opinions.
The reason why I said unsure is because I am conservative and wanna safeguard myself by giving a non committal answer
Unsure is pretty much a chicken answer of NOT COMMITTING. And means you dont even know ur subject matter ! I DONT SEE U CONSERVATIVE ON OTHER ISSUES OF SCIENCE, ARE THEY NOT RELATED TO THEORIES? If u are unsure, about the subject matter, HOW DARE U GOT THE BALLS TO EVEN TALK ABOUT SCIENCE IN GENERAL ?
However u draw stupid conclusions from it and use it as though it is something remarkable.
OF COURSE ITS A BIG DEAL! What are u talking about! Its not like u need a PHD in Quantumn Physics to answer ? Its not like u need a PHD in Maths to do a calculation first then come up with your own answers right ?
Just limiting the answer is assuming tat everything must be in black and white, and not grey. Is everything in black and white ? Could there be shades of grey ? In fact u r persisting and try to force me to just say yes or not WITHOUT elaboration. Isn’t these already trick questions ?
And again u made another fallacy here. How I treat a crate of apples doesn’t mean I treat the same to a body of truth. These r completely 2 different issues altogether. If I use your examples, a “crate f good apples” is like a Hyundai while “body of truth” is like Maserati. Could I put Hyundai engine into Maserati ?
Whoa.. didnt i accept ur elabrotations even though i didnt want them ? I accepted. DIDNT I ? Its a simple question of YES or NO. How hard are the questions ?
ARE U A MAN ? YES OR NO ? Or are u going to read into it in What a man is... what is it like to be a man.. do i mean Man as in Man ? or what ? And i can just imagine u answering an UNSURE.
These r completely 2 different issues altogether. If I use your examples, a “crate f good apples” is like a Hyundai while “body of truth” is like Maserati. Could I put Hyundai engine into Maserati ?
SO HOW ABOUT UR STUDENT UNION BODY ? UR MEEPOK ? SO YOURS CAN MINE CANT AGAIN IS THAT WHAT U ARE TRYING TO SAY ? Should i just ignore ? I dont. I didnt. I accepted. I SHOW U MY ANALOGY. IF U HAVE PROBLEMS ACCEPTING OTHER PEOPLES VIEWPOINTS, SAY SO. IT APPEAR THAT U DO. SO SAY IT. DO U HAVE PROBLEM ACCEPTING OTHER PEOPLES VIEWPOINTS ?
I use your examples, a “crate f good apples” is like a Hyundai while “body of truth” is like Maserati. Could I put Hyundai engine into Maserati ?
I already said, U CANT PUT A HYUNDAI ENGINE PART INTO A MASERATI ENGINE PART. U wanna try ? The reference here on the Hyundai is regarding ur personal beliefs and fundamentals. Thats its.
Crate of good apples, is in regards to science= body of truths
Then... can I put ur kuey tiaw and ur meepok into ur student body ? I can do that too. How fucked up is that.
U ARE SO DESPERATE NOW, TRYING TO PUT TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT SUBJECTS INTO A STUPID ANALOGY.
What else u want to say ?
WHAT !SAY IT . I WILL CRUSH U. THIS SMELLS OF DESPERATION. EVEN I UNDERSTOOD UR ANALOGIES IN THIER OWN SUBJECT N CONTEXT. U DONT SEE ME CHUCKING STUPID IDEAS ANALOGIES LIKE THIS TO U RIGHT ? This takes the cake man... MAN UP!
I said, it is UNDEFINED. It could be ANYTHING. If u talk about contradictory statements, u said gravity is truth and not truth, u say 1+1 is a mathematical truth which is not truth. U said 0/0 is logically 0 but u show the graph yourself and say it cannot be zero.
WHEN DID I SAY GRAVITY IS TRUTH N NOT TRUTH. SHOW ME... SHOW MEEEE... OR DO U MEAN I SAYD THEORY OF GRAVITY. IS THAT IT ? Thats pathetic n lame man..
- OF COURSE. LIKED I SAID, IT DEPENDS ON CIRCUMSTANCES. Acceleration of Gravity is TRUE, but u cant say its LIKE THAT, as Gravity on Earth and Moon are different. Its TRUE, i dont think of it as.. THE TRUTH.
YES.. ACCELERATION OF GRAVITY IS TRUE. GRAVITY IS TRUTH. CAN U EVEN SEPRATE TRUE and TRUTH ? OBVIOUSLY NOT !
Is that it ? Is THAT the only thing u assumingly said i claim Gravity to NOT be truth ? What an Idiot!
U said 0/0 is logically 0 but u show the graph yourself and say it cannot be zero.
YES . I SAID IT CANNOT BE ZERO . MATHEMATICALLY. LOGICALL NOTHING DIVIDES BY NOTHING = NOTHING 0. NADA. BUT MATHS CANT 0 WHY ?
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 ?
SO TELL ME
"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!
TELL ME. IS IT ZERO TO INFINITY ?YES OR NO (NOT TRICK QUESTION. EVEN COMES WITH ANSWERS)
You have supposedly two true statements that apparently, only one can be true. I have given u time and time.. days n days to omitt the mistake, but u have chosen to ignore and causing this loop. The longer u ignore it, the more suspect your credibility in Maths becomes.
And again regarding science,
For someone who is UNSURE of a simple question of Whether Scientific Theories have been wrong before, SURELY has NO STANDING, or ANY knowledge to the subject matter and that is Science. Should just SHUT THE FUCK UP, AND SIT THE FUCK DOWN.
U better solve the Mathematics first... soon, U are going to have to shut the fuck up about Maths too, and that will just leave the issue fo Truth. And I am ready for that one. I am going to break ur ass up.
-
没完没了
-
Well, i am definately NOT dumb. For someone who doesnt know the subject matter well and that is science, i suggest u shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down. Move on to ur Maths and Truth.
R u avoiding the question here ? Why the vulgarities ? U state your definition of science and the underlying message is still the same ! In your definition, science is still a body of truth ! And u have nothing to say so just hurl abuses over ? Tat really shows your standard
Yes i am sure that what is true MAY NOT be the truth.
So there r things tat are true but not the truth ? It is like saying there r charges tat r positive and negative at the same time
WHEN ? ALL I SAID WAS. SCIENCE IS ABOUT THE HOW AND WHY, ON THE WAY THEY FIND THE TRUTH BRAVO. I SAID , SCIENCE IS NOT THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH.
And aren’t all true answers to any questions the truth ? Why r u so chicken to answer tis point ? U claimed science find answers to why and how, and these questions r true and real, then these r already truth isn’t it ?
HAS SCIENTIFIC THEORIES BEEN WRONG BEFORE ? How hard is that question ? U TELL ME ? HOW HARD. U talk of science with such convictions and make such damn bold statements , but the basics of science, in regards to theories and U CANT EVEN ANSWER YES OR NO. Anyone in the scientific community would have told u to shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down and let people who are SURE about thier subject matter make statements and opinions.
Did I ever said scientific organization had never been wrong ? And again your argument is just on a word “unsure”. If anybody else is reading tis, they would have know tis is a very weak line of attack
Unsure is pretty much a chicken answer of NOT COMMITTING. And means you dont even know ur subject matter ! I DONT SEE U CONSERVATIVE ON OTHER ISSUES OF SCIENCE, ARE THEY NOT RELATED TO THEORIES? If u are unsure, about the subject matter, HOW DARE U GOT THE BALLS TO EVEN TALK ABOUT SCIENCE IN GENERAL ?
Bla bla bla… stupid argument made by u here.
Whoa.. didnt i accept ur elabrotations even though i didnt want them ? I accepted. DIDNT I ? Its a simple question of YES or NO. How hard are the questions ?
ARE U A MAN ? YES OR NO ? Or are u going to read into it in What a man is... what is it like to be a man.. do i mean Man as in Man ? or what ? And i can just imagine u answering an UNSURE.
U r not reading, so I am pasting here again. U just refuse to answer my points
Just limiting the answer is assuming tat everything must be in black and white, and not grey. Is everything in black and white ? Could there be shades of grey ? In fact u r persisting and try to force me to just say yes or not WITHOUT elaboration. Isn’t these already trick questions ?
And again u made another fallacy here. How I treat a crate of apples doesn’t mean I treat the same to a body of truth. These r completely 2 different issues altogether. If I use your examples, a “crate of good apples” is like a Hyundai while “body of truth” is like Maserati. Could I put Hyundai engine into Maserati ?
If u talk about being a man, u refuse to answer my questions and u dare to talk about tat. R u a man ?
SO HOW ABOUT UR STUDENT UNION BODY ? UR MEEPOK ? SO YOURS CAN MINE CANT AGAIN IS THAT WHAT U ARE TRYING TO SAY ? Should i just ignore ? I dont. I didnt. I accepted. I SHOW U MY ANALOGY. IF U HAVE PROBLEMS ACCEPTING OTHER PEOPLES VIEWPOINTS, SAY SO. IT APPEAR THAT U DO. SO SAY IT. DO U HAVE PROBLEM ACCEPTING OTHER PEOPLES VIEWPOINTS ?
I am talking about the usage of the word “body”. And u r having problem with the word “:body”. Tat is why I used “student body” as an example.
I already said, U CANT PUT A HYUNDAI ENGINE PART INTO A MASERATI ENGINE PART. U wanna try ? The reference here on the Hyundai is regarding ur personal beliefs and fundamentals. Thats its.
Crate of good apples, is in regards to science= body of truths
Then... can I put ur kuey tiaw and ur meepok into ur student body ? I can do that too. How fucked up is that.
U ARE SO DESPERATE NOW, TRYING TO PUT TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT SUBJECTS INTO A STUPID ANALOGY.
What else u want to say ?
WHAT !SAY IT . I WILL CRUSH U. THIS SMELLS OF DESPERATION. EVEN I UNDERSTOOD UR ANALOGIES IN THIER OWN SUBJECT N CONTEXT. U DONT SEE ME CHUCKING STUPID IDEAS ANALOGIES LIKE THIS TO U RIGHT ? This takes the cake man... MAN UP!
U try lor ? Wat is your argument against me ? Tat I said unsure for theory ? I am simply using my analogy against u. U use a totally out of point analogy of engines, I use back your own argument against yourself. “Crates of apples” and wat is “body of truth” are completely different issues. Much like your stupid example of hyundal engines and maserati cars. As usual, u just hurl abuses while avoiding answering the question at all.
OF COURSE. LIKED I SAID, IT DEPENDS ON CIRCUMSTANCES. Acceleration of Gravity is TRUE, but u cant say its LIKE THAT, as Gravity on Earth and Moon are different. Its TRUE, i dont think of it as.. THE TRUTH.
YES.. ACCELERATION OF GRAVITY IS TRUE. GRAVITY IS TRUTH. CAN U EVEN SEPRATE TRUE and TRUTH ? OBVIOUSLY NOT !
Is that it ? Is THAT the only thing u assumingly said i claim Gravity to NOT be truth ? What an Idiot!
The idiot is u. U said they r not the truth, as plain as day here. And I thought u said “true= true”, truth = truth” and tat wat is true may not be the truth ? U really just practice scoundrel tactics now
YES . I SAID IT CANNOT BE ZERO . MATHEMATICALLY. LOGICALL NOTHING DIVIDES BY NOTHING = NOTHING 0. NADA. BUT MATHS CANT 0 WHY ?
Another stupid sentence which u avoid answering. Wat is the logical meaning of dividing by zero ?
You have supposedly two true statements that apparently, only one can be true. I have given u time and time.. days n days to omitt the mistake, but u have chosen to ignore and causing this loop. The longer u ignore it, the more suspect your credibility in Maths becomes.
Wat is the mistake ? I said it could be anything and u cannot see a undefined value as a variable. U treat tham as same. Worse still u r the one who said it is zero in the first place
The beginning of the topic is really about the earlier few statements u had made before. At first, u claimed tat science cannot discern wat is true and false. U claimed tat science can never state any truth and tat only thelogist could. U also said many examples like 1+1=2 r not truth at all (yet u also claimed it is a mathematical truth, but not truth) and provide an unconvincing application of it. For a long time u even refuse to state your definition of truth and science. And those who do not share the same understanding or views r labelled as stupid and ignorant.
My belief of truth is simply tat it has to be an objective true. U claimed "wat may be true may not be the truth" doesn't really make sense because in your definition, there r things that exhibit dual properties,. It is being true and yet not the truth. Tat doesn't make sense since if it is not the truth in the first place, it could not be true at all. Tat perhaps is the crux of the problem. U do not treat true statements as truth, or true answers to any question as truth. In fact it is unclear to me wat is truth to u. Maybe u would like to state clearly wat is truth to u and how u reconciled with all your previous statements on truth
And indeed there r many articles on truth, but all of them do not run away from the idea tat truth is an objective true. The difference is not on the definition of the word, but on the idea on how do we know wat is truth or not. And none of them says tat science is never about truth. And saying tat, doesn't make it equal tat all truth must be science. Science is a subset of truth. The problem is u claimed before tat science is not a subset of truth.
For your article by Stacey Lawson, he is basically just a blogger. And the way he support his stand is simply from religious scriptures tat states the people being silent about explaining wat is truth. And the truth is perhaps spiritual attainment in tat article.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Well, i am definately NOT dumb. For someone who doesnt know the subject matter well and that is science, i suggest u shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down. Move on to ur Maths and Truth.
R u avoiding the question here ? Why the vulgarities ? U state your definition of science and the underlying message is still the same ! In your definition, science is still a body of truth ! And u have nothing to say so just hurl abuses over ? Tat really shows your standard
Yes i am sure that what is true MAY NOT be the truth.
So there r things tat are true but not the truth ? It is like saying there r charges tat r positive and negative at the same time
WHEN ? ALL I SAID WAS. SCIENCE IS ABOUT THE HOW AND WHY, ON THE WAY THEY FIND THE TRUTH BRAVO. I SAID , SCIENCE IS NOT THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH.
And aren’t all true answers to any questions the truth ? Why r u so chicken to answer tis point ? U claimed science find answers to why and how, and these questions r true and real, then these r already truth isn’t it ?
HAS SCIENTIFIC THEORIES BEEN WRONG BEFORE ? How hard is that question ? U TELL ME ? HOW HARD. U talk of science with such convictions and make such damn bold statements , but the basics of science, in regards to theories and U CANT EVEN ANSWER YES OR NO. Anyone in the scientific community would have told u to shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down and let people who are SURE about thier subject matter make statements and opinions.
Did I ever said scientific organization had never been wrong ? And again your argument is just on a word “unsure”. If anybody else is reading tis, they would have know tis is a very weak line of attack
Unsure is pretty much a chicken answer of NOT COMMITTING. And means you dont even know ur subject matter ! I DONT SEE U CONSERVATIVE ON OTHER ISSUES OF SCIENCE, ARE THEY NOT RELATED TO THEORIES? If u are unsure, about the subject matter, HOW DARE U GOT THE BALLS TO EVEN TALK ABOUT SCIENCE IN GENERAL ?
Bla bla bla… stupid argument made by u here.
Whoa.. didnt i accept ur elabrotations even though i didnt want them ? I accepted. DIDNT I ? Its a simple question of YES or NO. How hard are the questions ?
ARE U A MAN ? YES OR NO ? Or are u going to read into it in What a man is... what is it like to be a man.. do i mean Man as in Man ? or what ? And i can just imagine u answering an UNSURE.
U r not reading, so I am pasting here again. U just refuse to answer my points
Just limiting the answer is assuming tat everything must be in black and white, and not grey. Is everything in black and white ? Could there be shades of grey ? In fact u r persisting and try to force me to just say yes or not WITHOUT elaboration. Isn’t these already trick questions ?
And again u made another fallacy here. How I treat a crate of apples doesn’t mean I treat the same to a body of truth. These r completely 2 different issues altogether. If I use your examples, a “crate of good apples” is like a Hyundai while “body of truth” is like Maserati. Could I put Hyundai engine into Maserati ?
If u talk about being a man, u refuse to answer my questions and u dare to talk about tat. R u a man ?
SO HOW ABOUT UR STUDENT UNION BODY ? UR MEEPOK ? SO YOURS CAN MINE CANT AGAIN IS THAT WHAT U ARE TRYING TO SAY ? Should i just ignore ? I dont. I didnt. I accepted. I SHOW U MY ANALOGY. IF U HAVE PROBLEMS ACCEPTING OTHER PEOPLES VIEWPOINTS, SAY SO. IT APPEAR THAT U DO. SO SAY IT. DO U HAVE PROBLEM ACCEPTING OTHER PEOPLES VIEWPOINTS ?
I am talking about the usage of the word “body”. And u r having problem with the word “:body”. Tat is why I used “student body” as an example.
I already said, U CANT PUT A HYUNDAI ENGINE PART INTO A MASERATI ENGINE PART. U wanna try ? The reference here on the Hyundai is regarding ur personal beliefs and fundamentals. Thats its.
Crate of good apples, is in regards to science= body of truths
Then... can I put ur kuey tiaw and ur meepok into ur student body ? I can do that too. How fucked up is that.
U ARE SO DESPERATE NOW, TRYING TO PUT TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT SUBJECTS INTO A STUPID ANALOGY.
What else u want to say ?
WHAT !SAY IT . I WILL CRUSH U. THIS SMELLS OF DESPERATION. EVEN I UNDERSTOOD UR ANALOGIES IN THIER OWN SUBJECT N CONTEXT. U DONT SEE ME CHUCKING STUPID IDEAS ANALOGIES LIKE THIS TO U RIGHT ? This takes the cake man... MAN UP!
U try lor ? Wat is your argument against me ? Tat I said unsure for theory ? I am simply using my analogy against u. U use a totally out of point analogy of engines, I use back your own argument against yourself. “Crates of apples” and wat is “body of truth” are completely different issues. Much like your stupid example of hyundal engines and maserati cars. As usual, u just hurl abuses while avoiding answering the question at all.
OF COURSE. LIKED I SAID, IT DEPENDS ON CIRCUMSTANCES. Acceleration of Gravity is TRUE, but u cant say its LIKE THAT, as Gravity on Earth and Moon are different. Its TRUE, i dont think of it as.. THE TRUTH.
YES.. ACCELERATION OF GRAVITY IS TRUE. GRAVITY IS TRUTH. CAN U EVEN SEPRATE TRUE and TRUTH ? OBVIOUSLY NOT !
Is that it ? Is THAT the only thing u assumingly said i claim Gravity to NOT be truth ? What an Idiot!
The idiot is u. U said they r not the truth, as plain as day here. And I thought u said “true= true”, truth = truth” and tat wat is true may not be the truth ? U really just practice scoundrel tactics now
YES . I SAID IT CANNOT BE ZERO . MATHEMATICALLY. LOGICALL NOTHING DIVIDES BY NOTHING = NOTHING 0. NADA. BUT MATHS CANT 0 WHY ?
Another stupid sentence which u avoid answering. Wat is the logical meaning of dividing by zero ?
You have supposedly two true statements that apparently, only one can be true. I have given u time and time.. days n days to omitt the mistake, but u have chosen to ignore and causing this loop. The longer u ignore it, the more suspect your credibility in Maths becomes.
Wat is the mistake ? I said it could be anything and u cannot see a undefined value as a variable. U treat tham as same. Worse still u r the one who said it is zero in the first place
The beginning of the topic is really about the earlier few statements u had made before. At first, u claimed tat science cannot discern wat is true and false. U claimed tat science can never state any truth and tat only thelogist could. U also said many examples like 1+1=2 r not truth at all (yet u also claimed it is a mathematical truth, but not truth) and provide an unconvincing application of it. For a long time u even refuse to state your definition of truth and science. And those who do not share the same understanding or views r labelled as stupid and ignorant.
My belief of truth is simply tat it has to be an objective true. U claimed "wat may be true may not be the truth" doesn't really make sense because in your definition, there r things that exhibit dual properties,. It is being true and yet not the truth. Tat doesn't make sense since if it is not the truth in the first place, it could not be true at all. Tat perhaps is the crux of the problem. U do not treat true statements as truth, or true answers to any question as truth. In fact it is unclear to me wat is truth to u. Maybe u would like to state clearly wat is truth to u and how u reconciled with all your previous statements on truth
And indeed there r many articles on truth, but all of them do not run away from the idea tat truth is an objective true. The difference is not on the definition of the word, but on the idea on how do we know wat is truth or not. And none of them says tat science is never about truth. And saying tat, doesn't make it equal tat all truth must be science. Science is a subset of truth. The problem is u claimed before tat science is not a subset of truth.
For your article by Stacey Lawson, he is basically just a blogger. And the way he support his stand is simply from religious scriptures tat states the people being silent about explaining wat is truth. And the truth is perhaps spiritual attainment in tat article.
Can u like.. EDIT away ur document ?
R u avoiding the question here ? Why the vulgarities ? U state your definition of science and the underlying message is still the same ! In your definition, science is still a body of truth ! And u have nothing to say so just hurl abuses over ? Tat really shows your standard
Who said i say science is a body of truths ? U are the one. NOT ME. The abuses are to amplify ur stupidity. Which personally, i find it very entertaining,.
So there r things tat are true but not the truth ? It is like saying there r charges tat r positive and negative at the same time
So are u agreeing with me or what ? Is that a statement ? or a question ?
There ARE charges that are positive and negative at the same time. What u talking about ?
Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO
Unsure. U still has not given an example of a wrong scientific theory
The main point, is u say u are UNSURE about ur own subject matter. End of the day , u just cant tell me jack shit. All this rubbish u been spouting, now doesnt mean anything. The basic fundamental is “U just dont know ur subject” I asked u a simple question. YES or NO.. u even gave me UNSURE, I didnt even expect that. I admit. Being conservative pretty much means u are being chicken to answer. Means u dont even know. The sheer simple matter is, u dont know.
Its like u coming telling me u are mechanic,then I ask u, can cars run on petrol ? U say unsure. If u dont know, n u tell me all about cars, I will think u are all about cock n bull. U gottta stand my shoes and try to understand why I just felt... insulted this whole time, thinking I was talking to someone who knows the subject matter!
Hence there is even a possibility that you are spewing rubbish out of ur ass!
I am speechless. Really.. I feel insulted. I think in the end of the day, whatever u say is useless ,unless u really know what u are talking about , u better keep your mouth shut. It just looks bad for U …. and ME too ! DAMNIT!
Did I ever said scientific organization had never been wrong ? And again your argument is just on a word “unsure”. If anybody else is reading tis, they would have know tis is a very weak line of attack
U ARE UNSURE. TO ME. WHY DO I EVEN BOTHER TALKING TO U ABOUT SCIENCE ANYMORE ?
Bla bla bla… stupid argument made by u here.
Unsure is pretty much a chicken answer of NOT COMMITTING. And means you dont even know ur subject matter ! I DONT SEE U CONSERVATIVE ON OTHER ISSUES OF SCIENCE, ARE THEY NOT RELATED TO THEORIES? If u are unsure, about the subject matter, HOW DARE U GOT THE BALLS TO EVEN TALK ABOUT SCIENCE IN GENERAL ?
Just limiting the answer is assuming tat everything must be in black and white, and not grey. Is everything in black and white ? Could there be shades of grey ? In fact u r persisting and try to force me to just say yes or not WITHOUT elaboration. Isn’t these already trick questions ?
"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. 4 Feb 3.30pm"
Yes there is black, there is white , there is shades of grey. To me, when u say UNSURE, it just means u dont know ur subject matter. Did i tell u that u CANT choose unsure ? DID I ? I accept it! IT just shocked me with your convictions that u could come up with UNSURE..
DID I NOT ACCEPT YOUR UNSURE ANSWER?
And again u made another fallacy here. How I treat a crate of apples doesn’t mean I treat the same to a body of truth. These r completely 2 different issues altogether. If I use your examples, a “crate of good apples” is like a Hyundai while “body of truth” is like Maserati. Could I put Hyundai engine into Maserati ?
OOOH... OOOOH>. So how u treat a crate of apples doesnt mean u treat the same to a body of truth. So U are being selective now ? Double standard ? Your analogy can work , MINE cant ? Anyways , its MY analogy of your body of truths. If u dun want, its up to you.
Hey, your Student body consist of MEEPOK and Kueh Tiaaw, can I use it too ? Or to me cant.. u can again ?
BRAVO.. BRAVO!! As i said, these analogies are used in different subject. If i use them in the same subject, fair enough. But they are not. One is talking about body of truths, the other one is about ur beliefs, u trying to impose ur definition into mine. Two seperate subjects
See.. like u trying to fit your hyundai engine part.. into my maserati engine AGAIN!
If u talk about being a man, u refuse to answer my questions and u dare to talk about tat. R u a man ?
YES I am a man.
So what question ? Where ? How about U answering MINE ? Answer it like a man. Instead of trying to use THIS n THAT.. like 0. DOES IT TOUCHES ZERO ? AND IF IT DOESNT TOUCHES ZERO, WHY DID U SAY ZERO TO INFINITY ? Answer me like a man. Thats all. Answer it like a man
I am talking about the usage of the word “body”. And u r having problem with the word “:body”. Tat is why I used “student body” as an example.
I got no problem with that. I dont think its a very good one. I personally think crate of good apples is better. If u think Body of students is best, so be it. I accept it. I personally treat crate of apples more similiar. U believe urs, i believe mine. In the end of the day, its the same. U can accept some truths, i cant. I need to accept ALL TRUTHS.
Wat is the mistake ? I said it could be anything and u cannot see a undefined value as a variable. U treat tham as same. Worse still u r the one who said it is zero in the first place
U said ANYTHING.. thats why u are giving me contradictions from your other satements. SO right now, i am trying to find out, THIS ONE.. or THAT ONE. BE A MAN! ANSWER IT! IS IT ZERO TO INFINITY ? OR NO.. THE GRAPH DOES NOT TOUCH ZERO.?
Another stupid sentence which u avoid answering. Wat is the logical meaning of dividing by zero ?
Nothing. Logically, 0 which is Nothing divides by 0 which is Nothing = Logically equals zero nothing. Unfortunately, Maths cant solve it. Thats it. How many times have i told u ? U want me to cut n pate with dates ?
Which is it ? TELL ME. IF u say either one, i will assume either one is wrong. Then move on. All it shows that u make mistakes. THATS IT.
Are u scared to be proven that u make mistakes ? Scared to lose some face ? Are u trying to tell me that ?
Say it again with me. We are Humans , we make mistakes. Say it again.. and again.. AND AGAIN!
The idiot is u. U said they r not the truth, as plain as day here. And I thought u said “true= true”, truth = truth” and tat wat is true may not be the truth ? U really just practice scoundrel tactics now
Acceleration fo Gravity on earth is true , on moon is true. Gravity is Truth.
Gravity = Truth
Acceleration = True
What u talking about ? Are u stuipid ? are u dumb ?
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.
The beginning of the topic is really about the earlier few statements u had made before. At first, u claimed tat science cannot discern wat is true and false. U claimed tat science can never state any truth and tat only thelogist could. U also said many examples like 1+1=2 r not truth at all (yet u also claimed it is a mathematical truth, but not truth) and provide an unconvincing application of it. For a long time u even refuse to state your definition of truth and science. And those who do not share the same understanding or views r labelled as stupid and ignorant.
SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT THE SEAARCH FOR TRUTH. OMMITTED statemtent 16th Jan.But as usual, u keep using an ommitted statement. U want me to use ur ommitted statements too ?
Theologist, already know the Truth and that is God, Now they are just searching for the Truth of the evidence of God.
1 + 1 = 2 True and truth mathematically. But not.. THE TRUTH . Whats wrong ? U better be PREPARED FOR SOME HEAVY READING. CLICK HERE Godels Incomplete Theorem. Are u going to cut of ur right nut this time ?U know u only got one nut left. U will notice the subtlety of Mathematical Truth and Logical Truth. READ.. and prepare to cut your last nut off.
The reason i call u stupid is not because u dont share my views, its because I keep explaining and u REFUSE to understand. And KEEP trying to put UR definition into MINE. Thats all.
My belief of truth is simply tat it has to be an objective true. U claimed "wat may be true may not be the truth" doesn't really make sense because in your definition, there r things that exhibit dual properties,. It is being true and yet not the truth. Tat doesn't make sense since if it is not the truth in the first place, it could not be true at all. Tat perhaps is the crux of the problem. U do not treat true statements as truth, or true answers to any question as truth. In fact it is unclear to me wat is truth to u. Maybe u would like to state clearly wat is truth to u and how u reconciled with all your previous statements on truth
I got NO beef with your TRUTH.I only got a problem when u TRY to put it into MINE. And telling me I AM WRONG.
U gotta use MY definitions and my concepts to understand. But U JUST DONT WANT TO. U keep putting urs in. I already said COUNTLESS TIMES, I understand yours, but PLEASE.. DONT PUT URS INTO MINE. IT AINT GOING TO WORK.
ABSOLUTE EXISTENCE. I RECONCILED. I GOT NO PROBLEM. I DONT SEE ANY PROBLEMS.
U do not treat true statements as truth, or true answers to any question as truth. In fact it is unclear to me wat is truth to u.
OBVIOSULY. I STATED IT SINCE THE BEGINNING. HOW MANY TIMES ? COUNTLESS!!! Now i am glad u FINALLY GOT IT.
TRUTH.. to me.. is Absolute Existence. Thats all. Thats it. Mmmmm.
And indeed there r many articles on truth, but all of them do not run away from the idea tat truth is an objective true. The difference is not on the definition of the word, but on the idea on how do we know wat is truth or not. And none of them says tat science is never about truth. And saying tat, doesn't make it equal tat all truth must be science. Science is a subset of truth. The problem is u claimed before tat science is not a subset of truth.
THIS AINT ABOUT SCIENCE. I SHOWED U WIKI. TO SHOW U MANY TRUTHS of IDEAS of TRUTHS DIFFERENT FROM DICTIONARY. U were the one who says MUST be from DICTIONARY.COM
I said NO. U should look at what other intellectuals, scholars. philosophers have to say about it. Thats it. Thats all. Yeah. Tell u that, NOT everything is defined in Dictionary.com
TO ME SCIENCE IS NOT THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH. SIMPLE. ALL I SAY IS SCIENCE IS THE HOW AND WHY. THATS IT.
If they find truth along the way. GOOD FOR THEM. THATS IT. If u think How and Why are Truths, GO AHEAD. I dont have a problem! Thats it.
For your article by Stacey Lawson, he is basically just a blogger. And the way he support his stand is simply from religious scriptures tat states the people being silent about explaining wat is truth. And the truth is perhaps spiritual attainment in tat article.
Poor blogger or not, he is jsut talking about his views. Thats it . Like you right now, u are talking abut UR views. So its o.k for u to call someone poor, n not ok for me to call u stupid. BRAVO... DOUBLE STANDARD IN ACTION AGAIN!.
-
SO TELL ME
"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!
TELL ME. IS IT ZERO TO INFINITY ?YES OR NO (NOT TRICK QUESTION. EVEN COMES WITH ANSWERS)
You have supposedly two true statements that apparently, only one can be true. I have given u time and time.. days n days to omitt the mistake, but u have chosen to ignore and causing this loop. The longer u ignore it, the more suspect your credibility in Maths becomes.
And again regarding science,
For someone who is UNSURE of a simple question of Whether Scientific Theories have been wrong before, SURELY has NO STANDING, or ANY knowledge to the subject matter and that is Science. Should just SHUT THE FUCK UP, AND SIT THE FUCK DOWN.
U better solve the Mathematics first... soon, U are going to have to shut the fuck up about Maths too, and that will just leave the issue fo Truth. And I am ready for that one. I am going to break ur ass up.
&
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.
I am waiting on you to cut off ur other gronad for the Maths question.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
He wants to go on till 2017 ah. I dont mind. lol
I ask u ah..
Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO
U think that is like a super hard question ? Trick question ? or just a simple question?
Just a thought. I not starting anything with you. Just want to see what is your opinion on this matter thats all.
The theory that humans emerged from Africa instead of Eden has been proven.