Why Darwinism isn't true.

BadzMaro

6 Feb 10, 14:59

Originally posted by Larryteo:

The theory that humans emerged from Africa instead of Eden has been proven.

So ? What u talking about ?

Has Theories been wrong before ?

dadeadman1337

6 Feb 10, 16:29

Originally posted by BadzMaro:

So ? What u talking about ?

Has Theories been wrong before ?

Jews claim that all humans came from the garden of eden (middle east)

They live in the middle east

So what are they trying to claim? Being the true people of the world? Seems a lot like china claiming to be the centre of the universe. Claims made solely for self pride

BadzMaro

6 Feb 10, 16:34

Originally posted by dadeadman1337:

Jews claim that all humans came from the garden of eden (middle east)

They live in the middle east

So what are they trying to claim? Being the true people of the world? Seems a lot like china claiming to be the centre of the universe. Claims made solely for self pride

Yes i know..

but its like telling me something i know, and not even answering the question. So why he quote ?Thats why i said.. "what u talking about?"

Has Theories been wrong before ?

Thats it . Yes , No or... UNSURE.. thats it. What does The theory of humans coming from africa has to do with the question ? Unless he is implying theories have not been wrong before. So, in case of misunderstanding, a simple YES/NO will suffice. IF unsure, unsure.

I hope u know what i mean.

dadeadman1337

6 Feb 10, 16:37

Originally posted by BadzMaro:

Yes i know..

but its like telling me something i know, and not even answering the question. So why he quote ?Thats why i said.. "what u talking about?"

Has Theories been wrong before ?

Thats it . Yes , No or... UNSURE.. thats it. What does The theory of humans coming from africa has to do with the question ? Unless he is implying theories have not been wrong before. So, in case of misunderstanding, a simple YES/NO will suffice. IF unsure, unsure.

I hope u know what i mean.

Actually its "Have" not "has", just to note.

BadzMaro

6 Feb 10, 16:48

Originally posted by dadeadman1337:

Actually its "Have" not "has", just to note.

Bravo. Another master in grammar.

Good for you. Thank you for showing me the mistake.

So anyway,

Have theories been wrong before ?

stupidissmart

7 Feb 10, 00:16

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,.

sci·ence

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

U clearly have refuse to comment on your definition of science now. 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.

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 ?

I am telling u saying things could be true and not the truth, is simply saying tat something has a negative and positive charge. The two expression r contradictory itself.

Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO

Unsure. U still has not given an example of a wrong scientific theory

Seems u really like to discuss tis topic in length. So no prob.

Frankly speaking, if u go around and ask people, how many people can really name a scientific theory tat is superceded ? It is likely tat 99% of the population couldn’t name one. Is it a surprise ? Most of the theories tat were listed often comes with some competitor (origin of universe) who give an alternative view and were not generally accepted or established by the scientific committee. A lot of your list r also not wrong but refined. And most of them have been deemed as wrong more than 100 years ago. And to really confirm whether is there such theories, one have to research into it. Your list is derived from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

On the 30^th Jan u stated

Some theories are just so totally different and totally wrong that doesnt relect the truth. Like the Universe rotates around the Earth. Or how the Earth was Flat.

but the above theories u stated r not really scientific theories. When asked u to name a scientific theory tat was obsolete, u cannot name a proper theory and gave off two wrong answers as well. So at tat time when u asked me whether there r scientific theories tat were obsolete, I leave it as unsure. If u think tat I saying a simple “unsure” is bad, u giving out the two wrong examples is WORSE. TWO WRONG EXAMPLES. And u claim your scientific standard is high ? Wat a joke ! I am not gonna say my scientific knowledge is the top 5% percentile but to deal with a person with a bad background of science like u, my standard is already adequate.

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..

Again trying to avoid answering question ? I paste the whole topic for u to answer here.

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 ?

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.

I am just using your lousy analogy against u. I think it is a bad example but u think it is brilliant. Since it make so much sense to u, I just use it back to u so u can think through it with your low standard

Hey, your Student body consist of MEEPOK and Kueh Tiaaw, can I use it too ?

Did I say the student body consist of meepok and kueh tiaaw ? Prove to me tat I said the student body r made of meepok and kueh tiaaw otherwise u r a fat lier !

YES I am a man.

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 ?

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 link of apples to science ?

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.?

Wat is the contradiction ? U said it is zero. U say the graph cannot cuts zero. I said it is anything. I say the graph shows zero could be from –ve infinity to +infinity. Who is the one contradicting now ?

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 ?

U did not explain the part on dividing by zero at all. Wat is the physical meaning of dividingby zero ? Can u give an example of the logical meaning of tat ? And u claim the answer should be zero. Says who ?

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.

See… u failed to become a man again by ignoring the question I posed. I given u ample evidence tat shows u contradict on your statements. So u r really a lier who is too chicken to answer question s as well. U should really just cut your balls

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 ?

As usual, u become a chicken and refuse to comment on the statement which I made countless times. “If an answer is true and real to any questions, it is the truth”. Why u failed to comment on tat ? If u think saying “unsure” is bad, avoiding the topic at hand is much worse

1 + 1 = 2 True and truth mathematically. But not.. THE TRUTH . Whats wrong ?

Wat is wrong ? U contradict yourself in tat statement again. U claimed it is the truth and then said it is not the truth simultaneously. Wat is wrong ? U r just plain stupid.

U better be PREPARED FOR SOME HEAVY READING. CLICK HERE Godels Incomplete Theorem

Tat is strange. To u, isn’t theorem not truth as well ? So why do u treat godels incomplete theorem as truth ? And wat is the relevance of tat theorem to our problem ? U just anyhow quote but did u really read it yourself ? I know u r really bird brained but I don’t know it is tat serious.

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.

See ? Failed to answer my points again. Wat a chicken and a bird brain. Did u respond to the point

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.

R u too chicken to respond directly to it ? If your definition is actual existence, then is something is not in actual existence, it is not true. U still have a stupid dilemma in your hand\

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.

Then u contradict yourself. U said tat science is never about truth then u said it can come out with truth. U said 1+1 is a mathematic truth but not truth. U say wat is not truth not true. R u stupid, a lier or fickle minded otherwise why u come out with so many contradictions ? U claimed gravity is not truth then u said it is truth. U said science is never about truth then u said it is about truth. Wow man… u claimed I am not versed in science, but wat r u ? U r not versed in science, maths, logics, English and is a lier with no balls to answer questions. U r real pathetic

As said before, the article did not claim tat truth is not true. U refuse to answer why a true question cannot be the truth. U even fail to give a logical explanation to it. And u dare to complain tat I said “unsure” ? U just have no integrity and ball less to answer other people’s question

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!.

DID I SAY HE IS POOR ? WHICH PART OF THE PASSAGE DID I SAY HE IS POOR ? DID I EVER CALL HIM POOR AT ALL ? PROVE IT TO ME OTHERWISE U R A LIER WHO FRAME PEOPLE

BadzMaro

7 Feb 10, 21:26

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

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,.

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.

U clearly have refuse to comment on your definition of science now. 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.

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 ?

I am telling u saying things could be true and not the truth, is simply saying tat something has a negative and positive charge. The two expression r contradictory itself.

Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO

Unsure. U still has not given an example of a wrong scientific theory

Seems u really like to discuss tis topic in length. So no prob.

Frankly speaking, if u go around and ask people, how many people can really name a scientific theory tat is superceded ? It is likely tat 99% of the population couldn’t name one. Is it a surprise ? Most of the theories tat were listed often comes with some competitor (origin of universe) who give an alternative view and were not generally accepted or established by the scientific committee. A lot of your list r also not wrong but refined. And most of them have been deemed as wrong more than 100 years ago. And to really confirm whether is there such theories, one have to research into it. Your list is derived from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

On the 30^th Jan u stated

Some theories are just so totally different and totally wrong that doesnt relect the truth. Like the Universe rotates around the Earth. Or how the Earth was Flat.

but the above theories u stated r not really scientific theories. When asked u to name a scientific theory tat was obsolete, u cannot name a proper theory and gave off two wrong answers as well. So at tat time when u asked me whether there r scientific theories tat were obsolete, I leave it as unsure. If u think tat I saying a simple “unsure” is bad, u giving out the two wrong examples is WORSE. TWO WRONG EXAMPLES. And u claim your scientific standard is high ? Wat a joke ! I am not gonna say my scientific knowledge is the top 5% percentile but to deal with a person with a bad background of science like u, my standard is already adequate.

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..

Again trying to avoid answering question ? I paste the whole topic for u to answer here.

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 ?

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.

I am just using your lousy analogy against u. I think it is a bad example but u think it is brilliant. Since it make so much sense to u, I just use it back to u so u can think through it with your low standard

Hey, your Student body consist of MEEPOK and Kueh Tiaaw, can I use it too ?

Did I say the student body consist of meepok and kueh tiaaw ? Prove to me tat I said the student body r made of meepok and kueh tiaaw otherwise u r a fat lier !

YES I am a man.

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 ?

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 link of apples to science ?

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.?

Wat is the contradiction ? U said it is zero. U say the graph cannot cuts zero. I said it is anything. I say the graph shows zero could be from –ve infinity to +infinity. Who is the one contradicting now ?

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 ?

U did not explain the part on dividing by zero at all. Wat is the physical meaning of dividingby zero ? Can u give an example of the logical meaning of tat ? And u claim the answer should be zero. Says who ?

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.

See… u failed to become a man again by ignoring the question I posed. I given u ample evidence tat shows u contradict on your statements. So u r really a lier who is too chicken to answer question s as well. U should really just cut your balls

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 ?

As usual, u become a chicken and refuse to comment on the statement which I made countless times. “If an answer is true and real to any questions, it is the truth”. Why u failed to comment on tat ? If u think saying “unsure” is bad, avoiding the topic at hand is much worse

1 + 1 = 2 True and truth mathematically. But not.. THE TRUTH . Whats wrong ?

Wat is wrong ? U contradict yourself in tat statement again. U claimed it is the truth and then said it is not the truth simultaneously. Wat is wrong ? U r just plain stupid.

U better be PREPARED FOR SOME HEAVY READING. CLICK HERE Godels Incomplete Theorem

Tat is strange. To u, isn’t theorem not truth as well ? So why do u treat godels incomplete theorem as truth ? And wat is the relevance of tat theorem to our problem ? U just anyhow quote but did u really read it yourself ? I know u r really bird brained but I don’t know it is tat serious.

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.

See ? Failed to answer my points again. Wat a chicken and a bird brain. Did u respond to the point

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.

R u too chicken to respond directly to it ? If your definition is actual existence, then is something is not in actual existence, it is not true. U still have a stupid dilemma in your hand\

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.

Then u contradict yourself. U said tat science is never about truth then u said it can come out with truth. U said 1+1 is a mathematic truth but not truth. U say wat is not truth not true. R u stupid, a lier or fickle minded otherwise why u come out with so many contradictions ? U claimed gravity is not truth then u said it is truth. U said science is never about truth then u said it is about truth. Wow man… u claimed I am not versed in science, but wat r u ? U r not versed in science, maths, logics, English and is a lier with no balls to answer questions. U r real pathetic

As said before, the article did not claim tat truth is not true. U refuse to answer why a true question cannot be the truth. U even fail to give a logical explanation to it. And u dare to complain tat I said “unsure” ? U just have no integrity and ball less to answer other people’s question

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!.

DID I SAY HE IS POOR ? WHICH PART OF THE PASSAGE DID I SAY HE IS POOR ? DID I EVER CALL HIM POOR AT ALL ? PROVE IT TO ME OTHERWISE U R A LIER WHO FRAME PEOPLE

And sorry for late reply.. was incapacitated till just now. fark.. still feeling tripping ass hell now.

anyways.. where were we.

Anything u say about science is pretty much null and void. U pretty much have nothing to say.

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 ?

YES or NO

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.

Unless u believe u can understand half-ass'dly(If there is such a word) on a subject matter and make such statements.

Pretty much means i shouldnt be bothered with anything to do with science. I told you already, I am not going to bother with you whenever u talk about science anymore. U want to embarrass urself ? Feel free to. But now that i know, i am not going to embarrass myself.

I am telling u saying things could be true and not the truth, is simply saying tat something has a negative and positive charge. The two expression r contradictory itself.

Fair enough, if u want to think of it that way. I really have no problem with your definition of truth. I told u a million times, i dont have a problem with your definition of truth. Dont forget, my truth and urs is different.

Your Truth and my Truth is different . YES or NO ?

Yes

If u were to tell me take a part of Hyundai in my Maserati engine, is it going to work ? YES or NO ?

If I try to fit my Maserati engine part into your Hyndai, is it going to work ? YES or NO ? Vice Versa

No.

So its obvious we cannot apply each other's definitions into each other's beliefs. I accept yours, and I understand. Thats it. Simple. But u dont want my understanding. U want my compliance.

U want me to fit your Hyundai engine part into my Maserati engine.

Seems u really like to discuss tis topic in length. So no prob.

Frankly speaking, if u go around and ask people, how many people can really name a scientific theory tat is superceded ? It is likely tat 99% of the population couldn’t name one. Is it a surprise ? Most of the theories tat were listed often comes with some competitor (origin of universe) who give an alternative view and were not generally accepted or established by the scientific committee. A lot of your list r also not wrong but refined. And most of them have been deemed as wrong more than 100 years ago. And to really confirm whether is there such theories, one have to research into it. Your list is derived from

Hey man.. i said THEORIES, U WERE THE ONE THAT SAID SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.. u notice ? check it out. And u requested scientific theories, so i SHOWED U SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. I gave u an easy ass question questio

Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO

Unsure. U still has not given an example of a wrong scientific theory

Hey, did u even READ the wiki link ? U know what the topic said ? SUPERSEDED or OBSOLETE , SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.

I think ur knowledge is way below par man... I should not even talk to u about science anymore. There is still Maths and Truth to deal with.

Scientific Theories, ACCEPTED SUPERSEDED or OBSOLETE SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. I guess u can not believe me, its better u read WIki again. Stop embarassing urself.

And why do u even quote 99% of the population ? Its got NOTHING to do with them. Are u just saying that because they are ignorant, we are supposed to forgive ur ignorance too ? I mean, after all this supposedly ur background knowledge in Science.

Unsure.

SO .. yeah.. i got nothing much to say.

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 ?

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..

If i accepted your UNSURE, obviously i already accepted your shades of grey.

Of course there are shades of grey. So ? Remember, i got NO problem with your answer. When u said unsure, i just came to the conclusion that u dont know ur subject matter . Thats it.

Did I say the student body consist of meepok and kueh tiaaw ? Prove to me tat I said the student body r made of meepok and kueh tiaaw otherwise u r a fat lier !

Hey, i am jsut showing u your exmaple of throwing in my crate of apples into the maserati engine. Now u agree with me how stupid it is right ? hahaha

I am just using your lousy analogy against u. I think it is a bad example but u think it is brilliant. Since it make so much sense to u, I just use it back to u so u can think through it with your low standard

Fair enough, we each entitled to our own opinion. If u think urs is better, by all means. I personally think mine is better.

Do u agree tat a collective collection of truth studied together can enhance the understanding of the subject ?

Is it YOUR definition of Truth or mine ?

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 ?

Because, like i said ,i believe mathematics numbers is a representation of quantities. And i just know that in reality, 1 + 1 does not always equal to 2. Thats why, to me, i do not view it as a truth. Mathematical Truth yes. But Truth to include representation of quantities , No.

Why can’t it be true in a certain snapshot make it truth ?

For most of the answers, i have already answered.

"One again, you are just stupid. All i am telling u is that 1+1 does NOT always EQUAL 2. If u read the words u will understand, and smart enough, to read between the lines you will understand. But u are too stupid. 1 apple + 1 orrange = 2 Fruits. U see it now ? It all depends on circumstances. You are just too stupid , and u cant link them . U cant understand the reality. 23 Jan 12.35pm"

Wat is the link of apples to science ?

Nothing, just an analogy. Whats yours with student and truth ? Just analogies right ? Why are u asking such a stupid question ?

Wat is the contradiction ? U said it is zero. U say the graph cannot cuts zero. I said it is anything. I say the graph shows zero could be from –ve infinity to +infinity. Who is the one contradicting now ?

O... O.. so what the fuck is this ? I said LOGICALLY u know ? LOGIC ? not MATHS ? is 0 ? as in NOTHING ? NADA.. ZILCH ?

Anyways u are NOT even answering.. let me cut n paste for u.

"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!

U did not explain the part on dividing by zero at all. Wat is the physical meaning of dividingby zero ? Can u give an example of the logical meaning of tat ? And u claim the answer should be zero. Says who ?

BEFORE I SAY ANYTHING, JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOVE. RIGHT NOW, IT Just feels like u are bullshitting me now. I'll tell u. Dont worry, i always answer your stupid questions.

See… u failed to become a man again by ignoring the question I posed. I given u ample evidence tat shows u contradict on your statements. So u r really a lier who is too chicken to answer question s as well. U should really just cut your balls

What ? WHERE.. SHOW ME.. or u mean THIS ONE

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 mean this ? Are u stupid ? What did i say that is contradictory ? Or are U trying to read it as contradictory ? Its obvious that i said acceleration of gravity on Earth and Moon are true, but not the TRUTH. But GRAVTY itself.. is TRUTH.

Come on, from the THEORY OF GRAVITY.. to this ? Come on.. u can do better.

As usual, u become a chicken and refuse to comment on the statement which I made countless times. “If an answer is true and real to any questions, it is the truth”. Why u failed to comment on tat ? If u think saying “unsure” is bad, avoiding the topic at hand is much worse

Well, thats YOUR definition. I already said, i got NO problem. U are making a statement. And i agree with your definition. What else u want ? My compliance ?

Wat is wrong ? U contradict yourself in tat statement again. U claimed it is the truth and then said it is not the truth simultaneously. Wat is wrong ? U r just plain stupid.

One is Mathematical Truth. The other is.. THE TRUTH. Yes, to me there IS a difference. But like i said ,u are to stupid to understand.

Tat is strange. To u, isn’t theorem not truth as well ? So why do u treat godels incomplete theorem as truth ? And wat is the relevance of tat theorem to our problem ? U just anyhow quote but did u really read it yourself ? I know u r really bird brained but I don’t know it is tat serious.

Since when i said its THE TRUTH ? I am just showing ur stupid ass that Maths, is NOT PERFECT. Hence, i said again, Maths not about to do its job properly, and that is quantiy, FAILED, TAHTS WHY I CANT SEE 1+1 = 2 as THE TRUTH.. only as Mathematical Truth.

Obviously, u are just too damn stupid ass.Alot of times u ask so much, I need to keep showing u what other people think. Because obviously my layman english is not understandable to you.

See ? Failed to answer my points again. Wat a chicken and a bird brain. Did u respond to the point

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.

R u too chicken to respond directly to it ? If your definition is actual existence, then is something is not in actual existence, it is not true. U still have a stupid dilemma in your hand\

Quite a while ago , ppl believed that the earth was flat was true, true is subjective. Where Truth is absolute. U see now ? Thats it. Simple. U understand now ? True, subjective, Truth to me is absolute.

If u cannot understand ? I will try to elaborate some more.

Then u contradict yourself. U said tat science is never about truth then u said it can come out with truth. U said 1+1 is a mathematic truth but not truth. U say wat is not truth not true. R u stupid, a lier or fickle minded otherwise why u come out with so many contradictions ? U claimed gravity is not truth then u said it is truth. U said science is never about truth then u said it is about truth. Wow man… u claimed I am not versed in science, but wat r u ? U r not versed in science, maths, logics, English and is a lier with no balls to answer questions. U r real pathetic

GRAVITY = TRUTH, ACCELERATION OF GRAVITY = TRUE only.. not TRUTH. Simple.

1+1 is mathematical truth. But not MY TRUTH. Thats why i seperate, MATHEMATICAL TRUTH and TRUTH ? U noticed ? lke LOGICAL TRUTH ?

There is NO CONTRADICTIONS. U just CANNOT SEE my differences. Thats all.

DID I SAY HE IS POOR ? WHICH PART OF THE PASSAGE DID I SAY HE IS POOR ? DID I EVER CALL HIM POOR AT ALL ? PROVE IT TO ME OTHERWISE U R A LIER WHO FRAME PEOPLE

O.k.. that one i read too fast, i read blogger to poor blogger. My bad. My mistake. I apologise.

See, its not every hard to admit mistakes.

So..

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 ?

YES or NO

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.

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!

SO WHICH STATEMENT IS TRUE ? And u say i have been chicken, u been avoiding this question from 23rd Jan till 7th Feb.

BadzMaro

7 Feb 10, 23:45

The starting point for this article was not obvious, at least to me. I began building it around the definitions of model, simulation and related terms but discovered that these depend upon an even deeper set of terms, those related to the notion of truth. Most models and simulations, even those used in entertainment, abstract their representations from some form of truth or reality and, in most cases, try to represent truth to some degree. Measurement of a simulation's fidelity depends significantly upon knowledge of the truth. Despite this reliance, the definitions of the term "truth" have all the properties of a riddle. They are both simple and complex, both obvious and subtle. The definitions used in the current draft glossary have two distinct flavors:

truth. 1. Reality; actuality. 2. Conformity to fact or actuality. 3. Faithful to an original or standard. 4. A statement proven to be or accepted as true. [1] 5. A property implicitly ascribed to a proposition by belief in or assertion of it; the denial is "falsity". 6. In the verification theory of truth, a correspondence between the proposition and the events, properties or objects to which it refers linguistically or operationally. 7. In the logical theory of truth, the coherence between that proposition and other propositions. 8. In the constructivist theory of truth, constructability implying the absence of paradox and contradiction. [2]

The first flavor, embodied by the first four definitions, comes from standard usage, that accessible to and, theoretically, controlled by we common people. I have taken the liberty to arrange these definitions in order of the strength of their commitment rather than that of their preferred usage (as is a common convention in dictionaries). The first definition equates truth to reality with no difference between them. The second suggests that truth need only conform to reality but not necessarily BE reality. The third more loosely ties truth to an original or standard that may or may not be real. The fourth only requires truth to be accepted as true. Clearly, no model's representation can be true by the first definition unless it only represents itself, an interesting circularity that may only appeal to those philosophers in dire need of entertainment. The fourth definition, on the other hand, permits the collective opinion of a group, subject matter experts for example, to license a model's representation as truth, a truly scary prospect to ardent truth seekers.(Me)

The second flavor, captured by the remaining four definitions, is philosophically mathematical and, while probably accessible to few, has far greater precision than those definitions implied by common usage. These definitions of truth, presented in no particular order, capture the more technical meanings that derive from different philosophical schools. (Mathematical Truth , Logical Truth etc)This list is by no means exhaustive as a formal meaning of truth has undoubtedly been pondered and debated widely by philosophers since its invention. The first essentially defines truth as the denial of its opposite, falsity. That seems clear cut but hardly useful. The second connects truth to its verifiability against actuality. The third equates truth to coherence with other propositions and the final, related definition demands that truth lack contradiction and paradox with other propositions. I submit that these definitions characterize essential properties of truth but are not, in themselves, complete definitions of it. They simply provide a set of potentially rigorous tests for the possibility of truth. Even the intersection of truth's formal definitions possesses a disquieting degree of interpretational wiggle room, a property that undoubtedly benefits lawyers handsomely while driving mathematicians absolutely crazy. I know of no provably complete set of tests for truth. Please let me know if you do.

Simulationists, possibly from the recognition of truth's impreciseness, have defined at least two special kinds of truth that deserve mention (and please send me any others about which you know):

ground truth. The actual facts of a situation, without errors introduced by sensors or human perception and judgement. See perceived truth, truth. [3, 4]
perceived truth. That subset of ground truth acquired and, possibly, distorted by sensors, human perception or judgement; the situation as perceived by an observer. See ground truth, perception, truth. [5]

Since the definition of perceived truth depends upon the notion of perception, I've included its definitions here for completeness:
perception. 1. An observer's awareness or appreciation of objects, processes or situations in his environment mediated through their sensory organs. 2. An observer's descriptions, hypotheses or constructs of the world of which they become thereby a part. [2] 3. To take notice of; observe. [1]
While this definition does not capture this subtlety, the term ground truth can mean either the actual situation being abstracted by the simulation (the real world) or the situation generated by the simulation itself (the simulated world). Fortunately, the difference between ground truth and perceived truth is more distinct. Perceived truth may be clouded by the effects of sensors, judgement or, from the definition of perception, the process of description. Considering the variations between different people's judgement, it seems funny to call this truth at all but that is the accepted definition.
The definition of truth, at least the first four given above, stands squarely upon the definition of reality. Ironically, the accepted definition of reality provides precious little substance upon which truth can stand:

reality. The quality or state of being actual or true. [1]
The concept of real-world, an often used term in modeling and simulation in the place of reality, actually provides somewhat more information and supplements reality nicely:

real-world. The set of real or hypothetical causes and effects that simulation technology attempts to replicate. [3] The real world defines one standard against which fidelity is measured that includes both imagined reality and material reality in order to accommodate assessment of simulation fidelity when future concepts and systems are involved. See fidelity, imagined reality, material reality, perceived truth. [5, 6]

This definition introduces two more terms in the cascade of definitions related to truth, material reality and imagined reality. Dale Pace has proposed these terms to distinguish realities that actually exist from those that we could imagine to exist:

material reality. The material universe (or those parts of it) pertinent to a particular purpose. [7]

imagined reality. A concept that has no exact counterpart in the material universe although parts of it may have counterparts in the material universe, e.g., a unicorn. Imagined reality may have a nonzero intersection with material reality, but can never be a proper subset of it. [5]

As I understand these terms, material reality comes from the universe that has been or can currently be observed. Imagined reality comes from the set of possible universes that could be observed. This distinction helps to deal with simulations that represent the range of future possible entities and situations that do not now exist in material form, for example, a new weapons system concept. Imagined reality could also apply to past or present situations that did not actually exist or about which we have insufficient knowledge from which to construct a representation of material reality.

The current glossary draft includes one more popular term describing reality, virtual reality:
virtual reality: 1. Also referred to as artificial reality or synthetic reality. Virtual reality perceives a participant's action in terms of the body's relationship to a graphic world and generates responses that maintain the illusion that his actions are taking place within that world. [8, 9] 2. The application of integrated technologies to enable a participant to sense that he or she is occupying, to some degree, an environment other than that which he or she physically occupies. [8, 10]

Virtual reality, like imagined reality, exists solely within a simulation and the effects that simulation generates to stimulate the observers' senses. Also like imagined reality, virtual reality need not correspond to any form of real reality or truth.

That elegantly pristine notion of truth that we were all taught as children has now become a tangled web of dependencies, inconsistencies and imprecise definitions. How could we start at a better place in building the definitive glossary of modeling and simulation terms? We simulationists have only contributed to this morass of complexity by creating worlds unconstrained by the physical universe with realities that depend upon the properties of the windows we use to perceive them. These capabilities permit us to create a situation when the perceived truth of a virtual reality representing an imagined reality might indeed fail all of the truth tests when compared to the real-world, an example of when a truth is not a truth, a true riddle revealing the vagaries of our language. Upon this foundation we will build a vocabulary through which to communicate unambiguously!

Red is me. Pink is you.

I hope this will gain you some insight to my understanding of Truth. Like I said, I understood your definition well, and the way u apply it in your beliefs. But please.. stop trying to tell me to put ur Hundai engine part into my Maserati. Its NOT going to work. All it takes is understanding. Is it so hard for you? Or are u incapable of understanding and accepting differences in opinions.

Just like how i believe "Hell is a truth known too late."

stupidissmart

8 Feb 10, 22:49

sci·ence

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

U clearly have refuse to comment on your definition of science now. 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.

Why u avoid answering tis point ? I thought u require everybody to answer all your questions otherwise they r not a man ?

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 !

Wat talking u here ? R u saying astrologers do not have peer review ?

Now u wanna talk about the point of definition of scientific method. Sure no problem. U just paste a definition there and plagarise without quoting the source. I do not know where u get tat idea so I said u could add peer review in. Is tat a problem ? Peer review has been seen as an important part of scientific method.

Hey man.. i said THEORIES, U WERE THE ONE THAT SAID SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.. u notice ? check it out. And u requested scientific theories, so i SHOWED U SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. I gave u an easy ass question questio

Your reply on 30 jan 1246

What happened to your superior logic ? If your previous statement is already wrong , science is wrong already , and even if u correct it , u cannot negate the fact that it was wrong . Some theories are just so totally different and totally wrong that doesnt relect the truth. Like the Universe rotates around the Earth. Or how the Earth was Flat. If this happens more then onec, there are probably theories right now that are probably wrong, so must accet the possibility of fallacy in thoeries now accepted as correct.

If that is the case, science CANT be body of truths , u have to accept possibilities that the theories may be wrong.

U r talking about science before and after and using your “theories” as examples of why science could be wrong. U R THE LOSER WHO GIVE THE WRONG EXAMPLES OF SCIENTIFIC THREORY AND YOUR SCIENCE SUCKS !. Face it don’t deny la ! I thought u love to say Human make mistakes ? Just face it tat u made mistakes as well and your science level is pretty much lower

Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO

Then u know wat is the whole problem ? it is with your question. For u, theories could be anything. So I answer unsure since I do not know wat is your definition of the word. I said u never prove any scientific theories to be wrong is just a statement.

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..

U don’t talk cock here la. Your questions asking people to answer things according to “yes” or “no”. U even refuse to let anyone elaborate on those points. Wat does tat show ? U see things as only black and white and ask silly unreasonable questions.

Hey, i am jsut showing u your exmaple of throwing in my crate of apples into the maserati engine. Now u agree with me how stupid it is right ? hahaha

I put these examples as separated. I used your maserati engine in the right context without distortion. U distort my example completely. U just mixed body of student with mee pok and kway teow and tat is unacceptable. The only thing u show is your stupidity and inability to comprehend examples

Is it YOUR definition of Truth or mine ?

If it is different, u surely have to elaborate more and not avoid the topic altogether. And I have asked repeatedly and u refuse to answer it. R u a man ? U r not because u refuse to answer simple questions

Because, like i said ,i believe mathematics numbers is a representation of quantities. And i just know that in reality, 1 + 1 does not always equal to 2. Thats why, to me, i do not view it as a truth. Mathematical Truth yes. But Truth to include representation of quantities , No

Why is mathematic truth not the truth ? U claimed u said gravity I truth too however it do have a scope. So wat is the truth to u ? Nothing right ?

One again, you are just stupid. All i am telling u is that 1+1 does NOT always EQUAL 2. If u read the words u will understand, and smart enough, to read between the lines you will understand. But u are too stupid. 1 apple + 1 orrange = 2 Fruits. U see it now ? It all depends on circumstances. You are just too stupid , and u cant link them . U cant understand the reality.

Again tat is rubbish. U r using the equation wrongly in the wrong context and tat is why u get garbage results. U r simply mixing chemistry/bio equation with maths

Nothing, just an analogy. Whats yours with student and truth ? Just analogies right ? Why are u asking such a stupid question ?

So it has complete no links with each other right ? So the whole question is simply rubbish and a waste of time. Wat is the link with my analogy ? I stated many times already. We r talking about usage of the word body. And u know where I get the example from ? From the dictionary

Body: a collective group: student body; corporate body

Tis is a dictionary example of how to use the word body for a collective group. So u wanna say the dictionary is wrong in using student body as an example ?

O... O.. so what the fuck is this ? I said LOGICALLY u know ? LOGIC ? not MATHS ? is 0 ? as in NOTHING ? NADA.. ZILCH ?

Wat is logical interpretation of dividing by zero ? U cannot come out with any answer at all except just repeat and repeat ! Elaborate ! Show why dividing by zero is nothing ! Prove the wiki article on dividing by zero is wrong when it said it has no logical meaning!

So .. i look at graph.. i scratch my head. I asked u.. YO! WHERE THE ZERO ?U can say all the bullshit +ve -ve infinity, SURE.. BUT WHERE IS ZERO? I am confused. U TELL ME!

I told u liao. U r interpreting it as though it is a VARIABLE. Is a variable = undefined ? U r again fitting a maserati engine to a hyundal car. Two different items and u used the same concept to understand. Stupid right ?

Ifu read the Wikipedia article, it said

But there is another way to explain the division: if we want to find out how many people, which are satisfied with half an apple, can we satisfy with 1 apple, we divide 1 by 0.5. The answer is, of course, 2. Similarly, if we want to know how many people, which are satisfied with nothing, can we satisfy with 1 apple, we divide 1 by 0. And the answer is any number; we can satisfy any number of people, that are satisfied with nothing, with 1 apple.

It followed my idea of 0/0 and tat is could be anything.

U mean this ? Are u stupid ? What did i say that is contradictory ? Or are U trying to read it as contradictory ? Its obvious that i said acceleration of gravity on Earth and Moon are true, but not the TRUTH. But GRAVTY itself.. is TRUTH.

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.

Tat is rubbish again. Acceleration of gravity is GRAVITY ! Wat is gravity ? Acceleration on objects ! If tat is not truth, gravity is not truth ! Do u even know wat is gravity ?

Well, thats YOUR definition. I already said, i got NO problem. U are making a statement. And i agree with your definition. What else u want ? My compliance ?

Then you, claiming tat science only states the WHY AND HOW r not truth, is wrong ! The how and why r TRUTH since it is a true and real answer. If u disagree, then u have to elaborate your answer instead of avoiding it

One is Mathematical Truth. The other is.. THE TRUTH. Yes, to me there IS a difference. But like i said ,u are to stupid to understand.

Again another rubbish statement. Mathematical is an adjective. The noun is “truth”. A mathematical truth is a truth. U r really too stupid to know how to use English

Since when i said its THE TRUTH ? I am just showing ur stupid ass that Maths, is NOT PERFECT. Hence, i said again, Maths not about to do its job properly, and that is quantiy, FAILED, TAHTS WHY I CANT SEE 1+1 = 2 as THE TRUTH.. only as Mathematical Truth.

It doesn’t failed. U just anyhow throw in the wrong idea into the equation.

Quite a while ago , ppl believed that the earth was flat was true, true is subjective. Where Truth is absolute. U see now ? Thats it. Simple. U understand now ? True, subjective, Truth to me is absolute.

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.

People believed it is true, but the fact is it is not. So your example shows tat the truth is earth is not flat, and the statement “earth was flat” was not true. SO it is again if it is not the truth, it could not be true.

GRAVITY = TRUTH, ACCELERATION OF GRAVITY = TRUE only.. not TRUTH. Simple.

1+1 is mathematical truth. But not MY TRUTH. Thats why i seperate, MATHEMATICAL TRUTH and TRUTH ? U noticed ? lke LOGICAL TRUTH ?

Gravity is in itself the acceleration. So rubbish

Your truth is “actual existence”. 1+1 is a mathematical truth and works. And a mathematical truth is a truth.

The starting point for this article was not obvious, at least to me. I began building it around the definitions of model, simulation and related terms but discovered that these depend upon an even deeper set of terms, those related to the notion of truth. Most models and simulations, even those used in entertainment, abstract their representations from some form of truth or reality and, in most cases, try to represent truth to some degree. Measurement of a simulation's fidelity depends significantly upon knowledge of the truth. Despite this reliance, the definitions of the term "truth" have all the properties of a riddle. They are both simple and complex, both obvious and subtle. The definitions used in the current draft glossary have two distinct flavors:

Why do u plagarise again ? Why do u always refuse to quote out where u get the source ? Do u know tat plagariser is no different from stealing and not giving due credit ? Furthermore, wat is the relevance of the quotation with respect to the discussion ? Why do u just stick and paste without elaborating and said which part of the article is relevant. The article is written by simulator, or in other words, for science. He also believe tat science is the exploration of truth and thus is still largely in line with my thinking.

There r differences in opinion. I agree with u. But u r the first tat goes around and scold people stupid when they do not agree with u. If u agree with difference in opinion, u wouldn’t scold people for your vague statement on science unable to discern truth.

BadzMaro

9 Feb 10, 00:58

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

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.

U clearly have refuse to comment on your definition of science now. 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.

Why u avoid answering tis point ? I thought u require everybody to answer all your questions otherwise they r not a man ?

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 !

Wat talking u here ? R u saying astrologers do not have peer review ?

Now u wanna talk about the point of definition of scientific method. Sure no problem. U just paste a definition there and plagarise without quoting the source. I do not know where u get tat idea so I said u could add peer review in. Is tat a problem ? Peer review has been seen as an important part of scientific method.

Hey man.. i said THEORIES, U WERE THE ONE THAT SAID SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.. u notice ? check it out. And u requested scientific theories, so i SHOWED U SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. I gave u an easy ass question questio

Your reply on 30 jan 1246

What happened to your superior logic ? If your previous statement is already wrong , science is wrong already , and even if u correct it , u cannot negate the fact that it was wrong . Some theories are just so totally different and totally wrong that doesnt relect the truth. Like the Universe rotates around the Earth. Or how the Earth was Flat. If this happens more then onec, there are probably theories right now that are probably wrong, so must accet the possibility of fallacy in thoeries now accepted as correct.

If that is the case, science CANT be body of truths , u have to accept possibilities that the theories may be wrong.

U r talking about science before and after and using your “theories” as examples of why science could be wrong. U R THE LOSER WHO GIVE THE WRONG EXAMPLES OF SCIENTIFIC THREORY AND YOUR SCIENCE SUCKS !. Face it don’t deny la ! I thought u love to say Human make mistakes ? Just face it tat u made mistakes as well and your science level is pretty much lower

Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO

Then u know wat is the whole problem ? it is with your question. For u, theories could be anything. So I answer unsure since I do not know wat is your definition of the word. I said u never prove any scientific theories to be wrong is just a statement.

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..

U don’t talk cock here la. Your questions asking people to answer things according to “yes” or “no”. U even refuse to let anyone elaborate on those points. Wat does tat show ? U see things as only black and white and ask silly unreasonable questions.

Hey, i am jsut showing u your exmaple of throwing in my crate of apples into the maserati engine. Now u agree with me how stupid it is right ? hahaha

I put these examples as separated. I used your maserati engine in the right context without distortion. U distort my example completely. U just mixed body of student with mee pok and kway teow and tat is unacceptable. The only thing u show is your stupidity and inability to comprehend examples

Is it YOUR definition of Truth or mine ?

If it is different, u surely have to elaborate more and not avoid the topic altogether. And I have asked repeatedly and u refuse to answer it. R u a man ? U r not because u refuse to answer simple questions

Because, like i said ,i believe mathematics numbers is a representation of quantities. And i just know that in reality, 1 + 1 does not always equal to 2. Thats why, to me, i do not view it as a truth. Mathematical Truth yes. But Truth to include representation of quantities , No

Why is mathematic truth not the truth ? U claimed u said gravity I truth too however it do have a scope. So wat is the truth to u ? Nothing right ?

One again, you are just stupid. All i am telling u is that 1+1 does NOT always EQUAL 2. If u read the words u will understand, and smart enough, to read between the lines you will understand. But u are too stupid. 1 apple + 1 orrange = 2 Fruits. U see it now ? It all depends on circumstances. You are just too stupid , and u cant link them . U cant understand the reality.

Again tat is rubbish. U r using the equation wrongly in the wrong context and tat is why u get garbage results. U r simply mixing chemistry/bio equation with maths

Nothing, just an analogy. Whats yours with student and truth ? Just analogies right ? Why are u asking such a stupid question ?

So it has complete no links with each other right ? So the whole question is simply rubbish and a waste of time. Wat is the link with my analogy ? I stated many times already. We r talking about usage of the word body. And u know where I get the example from ? From the dictionary

Body: a collective group: student body; corporate body

Tis is a dictionary example of how to use the word body for a collective group. So u wanna say the dictionary is wrong in using student body as an example ?

O... O.. so what the fuck is this ? I said LOGICALLY u know ? LOGIC ? not MATHS ? is 0 ? as in NOTHING ? NADA.. ZILCH ?

Wat is logical interpretation of dividing by zero ? U cannot come out with any answer at all except just repeat and repeat ! Elaborate ! Show why dividing by zero is nothing ! Prove the wiki article on dividing by zero is wrong when it said it has no logical meaning!

So .. i look at graph.. i scratch my head. I asked u.. YO! WHERE THE ZERO ?U can say all the bullshit +ve -ve infinity, SURE.. BUT WHERE IS ZERO? I am confused. U TELL ME!

I told u liao. U r interpreting it as though it is a VARIABLE. Is a variable = undefined ? U r again fitting a maserati engine to a hyundal car. Two different items and u used the same concept to understand. Stupid right ?

Ifu read the Wikipedia article, it said

But there is another way to explain the division: if we want to find out how many people, which are satisfied with half an apple, can we satisfy with 1 apple, we divide 1 by 0.5. The answer is, of course, 2. Similarly, if we want to know how many people, which are satisfied with nothing, can we satisfy with 1 apple, we divide 1 by 0. And the answer is any number; we can satisfy any number of people, that are satisfied with nothing, with 1 apple.

It followed my idea of 0/0 and tat is could be anything.

U mean this ? Are u stupid ? What did i say that is contradictory ? Or are U trying to read it as contradictory ? Its obvious that i said acceleration of gravity on Earth and Moon are true, but not the TRUTH. But GRAVTY itself.. is TRUTH.

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.

Tat is rubbish again. Acceleration of gravity is GRAVITY ! Wat is gravity ? Acceleration on objects ! If tat is not truth, gravity is not truth ! Do u even know wat is gravity ?

Well, thats YOUR definition. I already said, i got NO problem. U are making a statement. And i agree with your definition. What else u want ? My compliance ?

Then you, claiming tat science only states the WHY AND HOW r not truth, is wrong ! The how and why r TRUTH since it is a true and real answer. If u disagree, then u have to elaborate your answer instead of avoiding it

One is Mathematical Truth. The other is.. THE TRUTH. Yes, to me there IS a difference. But like i said ,u are to stupid to understand.

Again another rubbish statement. Mathematical is an adjective. The noun is “truth”. A mathematical truth is a truth. U r really too stupid to know how to use English

Since when i said its THE TRUTH ? I am just showing ur stupid ass that Maths, is NOT PERFECT. Hence, i said again, Maths not about to do its job properly, and that is quantiy, FAILED, TAHTS WHY I CANT SEE 1+1 = 2 as THE TRUTH.. only as Mathematical Truth.

It doesn’t failed. U just anyhow throw in the wrong idea into the equation.

Quite a while ago , ppl believed that the earth was flat was true, true is subjective. Where Truth is absolute. U see now ? Thats it. Simple. U understand now ? True, subjective, Truth to me is absolute.

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.

People believed it is true, but the fact is it is not. So your example shows tat the truth is earth is not flat, and the statement “earth was flat” was not true. SO it is again if it is not the truth, it could not be true.

GRAVITY = TRUTH, ACCELERATION OF GRAVITY = TRUE only.. not TRUTH. Simple.

1+1 is mathematical truth. But not MY TRUTH. Thats why i seperate, MATHEMATICAL TRUTH and TRUTH ? U noticed ? lke LOGICAL TRUTH ?

Gravity is in itself the acceleration. So rubbish

Your truth is “actual existence”. 1+1 is a mathematical truth and works. And a mathematical truth is a truth.

The starting point for this article was not obvious, at least to me. I began building it around the definitions of model, simulation and related terms but discovered that these depend upon an even deeper set of terms, those related to the notion of truth. Most models and simulations, even those used in entertainment, abstract their representations from some form of truth or reality and, in most cases, try to represent truth to some degree. Measurement of a simulation's fidelity depends significantly upon knowledge of the truth. Despite this reliance, the definitions of the term "truth" have all the properties of a riddle. They are both simple and complex, both obvious and subtle. The definitions used in the current draft glossary have two distinct flavors:

Why do u plagarise again ? Why do u always refuse to quote out where u get the source ? Do u know tat plagariser is no different from stealing and not giving due credit ? Furthermore, wat is the relevance of the quotation with respect to the discussion ? Why do u just stick and paste without elaborating and said which part of the article is relevant. The article is written by simulator, or in other words, for science. He also believe tat science is the exploration of truth and thus is still largely in line with my thinking.

There r differences in opinion. I agree with u. But u r the first tat goes around and scold people stupid when they do not agree with u. If u agree with difference in opinion, u wouldn’t scold people for your vague statement on science unable to discern truth.

Shit, can u like edit your damn post when u cut n paste over from whatever microsoft office or what nots ? Its kinda like pretty fudged. At least... ease my eyes from the junk.

Why u avoid answering tis point ? I thought u require everybody to answer all your questions otherwise they r not a man ?

Facts changes over time, depending on information we get... the TRUTH... which is Absolute.. is FOREVER. You see fact as YOUR truth, but to me , fact is fact. Its like the flat earth theory. People believe it as said it was the truth and a fact, but the point is, the earth will remain round even if ALL the people in the world says its flat.

Think of it this way. Its an analogy. Exmaple: If all believe in the theory of evolution, and God was actually the one that created everthing, it doesnt change the Truth that God was the one that created everything. Even if EVERYONE in the word thinks it so. Its not going to change that truth.

Wat talking u here ? R u saying astrologers do not have peer review ?

Now u wanna talk about the point of definition of scientific method. Sure no problem. U just paste a definition there and plagarise without quoting the source. I do not know where u get tat idea so I said u could add peer review in. Is tat a problem ? Peer review has been seen as an important part of scientific method.

No, u were the one that said, those theories are not scientific. I am just pointing out to you, that is. Like even astrologers, they all went through peer review. And if few hundred years ago, the astronomy today is still based on astrologers of the time. Like how Chemistry is still based upon Alchemy.

U just paste a definition there and plagarise without quoting the source. I do not know where u get tat idea so I said u could add peer review in.

Well, i am fully aware of the law, so, they can sue me, they can try. Hey man, i know the law man. I am not making a profit or benefiting myself personally for any kind of gain.

What u talking about adding peer review in it ? I got no problem with you saying u wanna add peer review in it ,i am just telling u that u seem to be able to add definitions, but not me.Another case of YOU CAN I CANT again.

Are scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses ?

YES or NO

No

Not fully. I believe tat peer review and scrutiny should be included as well

Its a direct cut and paste from SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Now u need to wiki ? When i wiki u say i pasting rubbish ? So, what are u trying to say ? Are u playing me ?

U r talking about science before and after and using your “theories” as examples of why science could be wrong. U R THE LOSER WHO GIVE THE WRONG EXAMPLES OF SCIENTIFIC THREORY AND YOUR SCIENCE SUCKS !. Face it don’t deny la ! I thought u love to say Human make mistakes ? Just face it tat u made mistakes as well and your science level is pretty much lower

Does science make mistakes ? YES or NO (2 Feb 12.48am)

Yes

Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO

Unsure. U still has not given an example of a wrong scientific theory

So, what did i say wrong ?

Yes i admit , humans man mistakes, but i clearly did NOT make a mistake here. Even after u admited that Science makes mistakes. Thats why my earlier point, is still correct. Just that u only admitted in Science can be wrong, as in make mistakes after.

Then u know wat is the whole problem ? it is with your question. For u, theories could be anything. So I answer unsure since I do not know wat is your definition of the word. I said u never prove any scientific theories to be wrong is just a statement.

So, yeah, didnt i tell u what theories were ? They are... Theories . I even showed u in wiki,

"Theory of Gravity. Science explains with theories that can be proven wrong! Please.. CLICK HERE<------------- Yes.. its WIKI.. something simple for you, even tho i hardly trust wiki because it can be changed, but hopefully, u get it. Like.. finally.. READ.. and GRAAAAAASP... the concept." (18 Jan 12.33pm)

Is it my fault that u are too stupid ? Theories is an even MORE EASY question then scientific theories. U even asked for scientific theories. So NOW another U CAN I CANT, even when u asked for it, now u say i cant. * BRAVO !! BRAAAVO !!*

Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO

Unsure. U still has not given an example of a wrong scientific theory.

U don’t talk cock here la. Your questions asking people to answer things according to “yes” or “no”. U even refuse to let anyone elaborate on those points. Wat does tat show ? U see things as only black and white and ask silly unreasonable questions.

I accepted your elaborations didnt I ? DID I ? So , u yourself answered an UNSURE for the easiest question regarding science and theories, and now u blame me, for asking u a simple question u cant answer. Thats why i came to the conclusion that u just DONT KNOW UR SUBJECT MATTER AT ALL. What happened to all that BIG TALK and DAMN SURE COMMITMENT and that "I AM WRONG U ARE RIGHT" and all that BLUSTERY ? So should understand, why u cant really blame me for coming to that conclusion after all that tough talk right ?

I put these examples as separated. I used your maserati engine in the right context without distortion. U distort my example completely. U just mixed body of student with mee pok and kway teow and tat is unacceptable. The only thing u show is your stupidity and inability to comprehend examples

*CLAP CLAP CLAP* so now I DISTORT your examples.. wow... WOW... again , YOU CAN.. I CANT... "I AM WRONG U ARE RIGHT" BRAVO.. *clap clap clap* BRAVO !!! Oh.. so now I am stupid ? lol..

If it is different, u surely have to elaborate more and not avoid the topic altogether. And I have asked repeatedly and u refuse to answer it. R u a man ? U r not because u refuse to answer simple questions

Why should i even avoid or elaborate ? If u are already so stupid, what else can i say ?

Just to entertain you, like i said , your definition ? or Mine ? because i know ur bullshit, so, I have to be sure, which defintion ? tell me. Is it collection of knowledge ? Ur truth ? my truth ? which one ? Its not about being chicken, I was never the one with the trick questions. Dont forget. Its you.

Why is mathematic truth not the truth ? U claimed u said gravity I truth too however it do have a scope. So wat is the truth to u ? Nothing right ?

Mathemematical Truth , in case u dont understand. My truth is absolute. I am talking in terms you can understand, do u understand ? I am hoping, that u do. Its very simple, its not that i dont understand any other definition of the truth. I am trying to talk YOUR language. But u keep thinking i am trying to trick your ass. Because u seem to have a problem grasping my truth ? Truth to me.. is Absolute Existence. I already highligheted to you. Things that are Absolute. Thats it. So simple. U see.. things, that exist regardless of our comprehension, our belief or our perception. LIke.. GRAVITY. The simples example.

Example: Earth is round, regardless if ALL the people think its flat. Doesnt matter. It doesnt have to do with our beliefs, perception etc. Where else Maths, changes over time. The example was Godel's Theorem. Admitted that it was incomplete. Maths changes over time. Like science. These things i do not consider absolute, because, they are NOT ABSOLUTE. Kapish ?

Again tat is rubbish. U r using the equation wrongly in the wrong context and tat is why u get garbage results. U r simply mixing chemistry/bio equation with maths

Thats my point. Do u get it now ? U KEEP answering the question urself . I dont get it. U seem to answer urself, but u dont get it ? Thats why i came to the conclusion that u are stupid.

So it has complete no links with each other right ? So the whole question is simply rubbish and a waste of time. Wat is the link with my analogy ? I stated many times already. We r talking about usage of the word body. And u know where I get the example from ? From the dictionary

Body: a collective group: student body; corporate body

Tis is a dictionary example of how to use the word body for a collective group. So u wanna say the dictionary is wrong in using student body as an example ?

Crate of apples = ur body of truths. If u dont agree, u dont have to. Different engine part = differences in defintion of truth. The core belief. The core issue, like the heart of the engine. Do u own a car ? If u own a sports car before, u should be well aware of cars and thier engines.

I am just using analogies too. Are u trying to say , that analogies can only come out from dictionary ? So, ur meepok ? whats that ? ur milk ? Isnt that analogies too ?

Again, i told u ,I dont always follow dictionary.com. I have a brain. If u want to, its up to you.

Wat is logical interpretation of dividing by zero ? U cannot come out with any answer at all except just repeat and repeat ! Elaborate ! Show why dividing by zero is nothing ! Prove the wiki article on dividing by zero is wrong when it said it has no logical meaning!

logical interpretation of dividing by zero ?

0 = Nothing divides by 0 = nothing equals Nothing logically. Can u understand that ? I have NOTHING ... and i want to divide by NOTHING... so obviously, u get NOTHING. So do u understand now ?

Prove the wiki article on dividing by zero is wrong when it said it has no logical meaning!

Well done !!, to me it has NO logical meaning. U are the one who gave me 2 answers let me show u.

U said (I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter. 23rd Jan 1.03pm )

&

Does the graph ever reaches 0 ? YES or NO

You said : No

SO

SO which answer IS IT ?

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!

SO WHICH STATEMENT IS TRUE ? And u say i have been chicken, u been avoiding this question from 23rd Jan till 7th Feb.

I told u liao. U r interpreting it as though it is a VARIABLE. Is a variable = undefined ? U r again fitting a maserati engine to a hyundal car. Two different items and u used the same concept to understand. Stupid right ?

Again, u have two different answers to the same question. I am trying to find out which answer it is.

SO IS IT

1) Zero to Infinity ?

Or

2) The graph doesnt touch 0 at all ?

All i am trying to figure out is, is Zero in the answer. Thats it. Yes or No. IT seems to me u are just trying to avoid the question. Remember, these are the things said by u. Unless u are UNSURE again ? I can accept that. And i will treat it as you dont know ur subject. Thats all.

But there is another way to explain the division: if we want to find out how many people, which are satisfied with half an apple, can we satisfy with 1 apple, we divide 1 by 0.5. The answer is, of course, 2. Similarly, if we want to know how many people, which are satisfied with nothing, can we satisfy with 1 apple, we divide 1 by 0. And the answer is any number; we can satisfy any number of people, that are satisfied with nothing, with 1 apple.

It followed my idea of 0/0 and tat is could be anything.

I got no problem with the statements. Right now, this is NOT the point. My point is, plesae, tell me.

1) Zero to Infinity ?

Or

2) Does the graph touch Zero ? No .

ZERO or NO ZERO? Thats it.

Tat is rubbish again. Acceleration of gravity is GRAVITY ! Wat is gravity ? Acceleration on objects ! If tat is not truth, gravity is not truth ! Do u even know wat is gravity ?

I told you already. Gravity to me.. is what goes UP must come DOWN. The acceleration is the part of the HOW and WHY. Thats all.

And yes, i know what is gravity. Once again, u are basing gravity in YOUR definition of truth, not mine. Thats all.

Again another rubbish statement. Mathematical is an adjective. The noun is “truth”. A mathematical truth is a truth. U r really too stupid to know how to use English

Hey, if u want to use ur almighty grammar to talk like that, go ahead. Once again, i NEVER have any problem with YOUR beliefs. If u want to drive a hyundai, drive a hyundai. I personally, prefer to drive my Maserati. Thats all.

It doesn’t failed. U just anyhow throw in the wrong idea into the equation.

Well, i explained again and again, if philosophers and intellectuals understood the subtle differences, I dont really have to persuade you. You dont accept my explaination, its up to you. Thats all.

People believed it is true, but the fact is it is not. So your example shows tat the truth is earth is not flat, and the statement “earth was flat” was not true. SO it is again if it is not the truth, it could not be true.

TELL IT TO THE PEOPLE BACK IN THE DAY. RIght now, u are basing all your judgement and knowledge you have, at THIS TIME. 100 years later, things might be different. We dont know. Thats why, i personally dont believe, True = Truth.

To me, True is subjective, Truth is Absolute . Regardless of what people think.

Why do u plagarise again ? Why do u always refuse to quote out where u get the source ? Do u know tat plagariser is no different from stealing and not giving due credit ? Furthermore, wat is the relevance of the quotation with respect to the discussion ? Why do u just stick and paste without elaborating and said which part of the article is relevant. The article is written by simulator, or in other words, for science. He also believe tat science is the exploration of truth and thus is still largely in line with my thinking.

Hey man, no plagirising, i am just cutting and pasting. I already said, its an article. So how do i plagarise ? I am NOT trying to pass it off as my own. I guess, Mr Dictionary should check on the word PLAGARISE. hahahaha

The article is written by simulator, or in other words, for science. He also believe tat science is the exploration of truth and thus is still largely in line with my thinking.

Hey, GOOD FOR HIM.. GOOD FOR YOU. Its someone's idea, its a good read for you.

And once more, please check on the definition of Plagarise.

Read again the excerpts from the article. And UNDERSTAND. Realise the subtle differences.

Truth. 1. Reality; actuality (MINE). 2. Conformity to fact or actuality. 3. Faithful to an original or standard. 4. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.(YOURS) [1] 5. A property implicitly ascribed to a proposition by belief in or assertion of it; the denial is "falsity". 6. In the verification theory of truth, a correspondence between the proposition and the events, properties or objects to which it refers linguistically or operationally. 7. In the logical theory of truth, the coherence between that proposition and other propositions. 8. In the constructivist theory of truth, constructability implying the absence of paradox and contradiction. [2]

The first flavor, embodied by the first four definitions, comes from standard usage, that accessible to and, theoretically, controlled by we common people. I have taken the liberty to arrange these definitions in order of the strength of their commitment rather than that of their preferred usage (as is a common convention in dictionaries). The first definition equates truth to reality with no difference between them. The second suggests that truth need only conform to reality but not necessarily BE reality. The third more loosely ties truth to an original or standard that may or may not be real. The fourth only requires truth to be accepted as true. Clearly, no model's representation can be true by the first definition(My truth) unless it only represents itself, an interesting circularity that may only appeal to those philosophers in dire need of entertainment. The fourth definition(Your truth), on the other hand, permits the collective opinion of a group, subject matter experts for example, to license a model's representation as truth, a truly scary prospect to ardent truth seekers.(Me) (U can see why we clash, mine is Definition 1 , Absolute Reality, YOURS is Definition 4) True statements = Truth. Like i said, i totally understand yours, but u cant undestand mine. Not my fault now right ?)

The second flavor, captured by the remaining four definitions, is philosophically mathematical and, while probably accessible to few, has far greater precision than those definitions implied by common usage. These definitions of truth, presented in no particular order, capture the more technical meanings that derive from different philosophical schools. (Mathematical Truth , Logical Truth etc.. instead of the word TRUTH in general. Can u understand now stupid?)This list is by no means exhaustive as a formal meaning of truth has undoubtedly been pondered and debated widely by philosophers since its invention(Yes.. debated SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME THE MEANING OF TRUTH thats why so many different definitions). The first essentially defines truth as the denial of its opposite, falsity. That seems clear cut but hardly useful.

That elegantly pristine notion of truth that we were all taught as children has now become a tangled web of dependencies, inconsistencies and imprecise definitions.

There r differences in opinion. I agree with u. But u r the first tat goes around and scold people stupid when they do not agree with u. If u agree with difference in opinion, u wouldn’t scold people for your vague statement on science unable to discern truth.

Hey, ur name is stupid right ? And calling the others stupid, is it my fault if they appear to be stupid to me ?

So its my fault that there are stupid people like you around ? Like i said, its true that u are stupid, based on evidence supporting my theory of your stupidity, but that doesnt make it the TRUTH right ? I mean, its like... poor people, is it my fault they are poor ? I mean, i can HELP THEM,I CAN TRY, but if they want to remain poor, its not MY fault right ?

So.. here i go again.

Anything u say about science is pretty much null and void. U pretty much have nothing to say.

Once u STOP talking to me ANYTHING that has to do with science, i will stop Cut n Paste this one to let u know why i dun want to talk to u about the subject matter anymore. It looks bad for me and you.

Just focus on Maths and Truth.

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 ?

YES or NO

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.

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!

SO WHICH STATEMENT IS TRUE ?

Larryteo

9 Feb 10, 16:34

Why are both of you here speaking nonsense.

SingaporeTyrannosaur

9 Feb 10, 22:08

they stopped being interesting to anybody from any side a long time ago.

this is why i find such debates mostly pointless.

stupidissmart

10 Feb 10, 01:03

...

stupidissmart

10 Feb 10, 01:10

Let me summarise your exchange so far…

1) Problem of your definition of science

After many exchanges, finally u define science as

sci·ence

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

However it was pointed out to u many times tat the meaning u quote is the same as a collection of truth. Natural phenomena is a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable. And fact is still truth. All these r from the dictionary, which u quote “science” and “truth”. SO after all the hogwash about defining science, u still go back to the same definition. We could substitute the words in your example with the words and have no loss in meaning

If all believe in the theory of evolution, and God was actually the one that created everthing, it doesnt change the FACT that God was the one that created everything. Even if EVERYONE in the word thinks it so. Its not going to change that FACT

Now tell me why is the difference between your definition and the dictionary definition of the science ? U said the dictionary definition of “truth” is wrong yet u use their definition. U claimed tat people r shallow in following dictionary strictly yet u use the dictionary definition of “science”. U r just having double standards isn’t it ?

2) The definition of the scientific method

Are scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses ?

YES or NO

No

Not fully. I believe tat peer review and scrutiny should be included as well

U make a big hoo haa over such a stupid thing and claimed tat I added in definition to the word scientific method. Why don’t u look at wiki on scientific method and see wat it says ?

Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

Tat is why I believe peer review and scrutiny should be included.

Then u said I treat u unfairly and refuse to let u add in definition. Wat do u really wanna add ? Truth must work for EVERYTHING ? TRUTH IS PERFECT ? If u wanna add those definitions in, simple. U have to explain and elaborate why they should be added. If the reason is satisfactory, it could be added. If u just wanna add because u wanna add, then obviously no oneis gonna entertain u.

3) Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO

Lets see your earlier usage of “theory”.

What happened to your superior logic ? If your previous statement is already wrong , science is wrong already , and even if u correct it , u cannot negate the fact that it was wrong . Some theories are just so totally different and totally wrong that doesnt relect the truth. Like the Universe rotates around the Earth. Or how the Earth was Flat. If this happens more then onec, there are probably theories right now that are probably wrong, so must accet the possibility of fallacy in thoeries now accepted as correct.

If that is the case, science CANT be body of truths , u have to accept possibilities that the theories may be wrong.

U know wat ? YOUR EXAMPLES R WRONG. THEY r not scientific theories at all. And u cannot pretend and say u r not talking about scientific theories. U states science is wrong, and give examples of “theories” tat went wrong and conclude tat because of your examples, science can’t be body of truth. Tis shows how bad your standard of science is because u cannot tell pseudoscience from science.

Thus when u write an unexplained word theory in the question, I simply answer “Unsure”. And I ask u to quote a scientific theory tat went wrong. Is tat wrong ? Who know wat is your definition of theory ? U change the definition of the words “truth”, “science” “fact” and give off wrong examples of scientific theories. What is wrong with saying “unsure” in tis case ? However again u exaggerate and make a big hoo haa over nothing

4) Scientific Level

Unlike someone, I admit tat I do not know everything about science. However compared to u, it is adequate. First u give wrong scientific theories. Next u claim tat the laws of thermodynamics r wrong in the reply on 4^th Feb 531pm

U know anything about Thermodynamics ? When we were in primary and secondary schools, what did the teachers teach us. Compare it to what UNI taught us. First thing the lecturer said was "WHAT U KNOW ABOUT THERMODYNAMICS.. IS WRONG.. THIS IS THE REAL STUFF"

Transition State Theory.

Tis is wrong. Thermodynamics is still relevant today. In fact there is a whole field of people doing on thermodynamics. U also claimed tat the acceleration of gravity is different from gravity. They r actually the same

5) Avoiding of issues

A lot of questions had went unanswered.

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 ?

Isn’t true and real answer to a question the truth ? I ask u if u have an sgforum nick Badzmaro and u said yes, tat answer is the truth already isn’t it ? U state tat science can only answer Why and How but they r not truth. However if the answers are, according to u correct, then the answers itself r truth

U claim things could be true, but not the truth. Tat means u r proposing there r things in the world tat is true but not truth at the same time. Tat is a contradictory idea since things tat were not truth, will not be true. Again u refuse to answer to tis

And how u avoid the question, u just say your definition of truth in different. It is precisely tat it is different, then u should elaborate why it should elaborate and answer. U said “truth” = actual existence right ? Then reconcile with the above statements otherwise u r just a person with no balls and run away from topics

6) Problem with examples

I stated the following examples.

A body of student compared with a body of truth. The usage of the words are the same and it is the dictionary example of how to use the word body

Some things could be tolerated while other cannot. Most people would accept changes like HL mlik over daisy low fat milk without problem at all. Tis is in contrast with your example of motors

U state the following examples:

Maserati engine could not be fitted to a Hyundai engine. U r trying to highlight different things/people could not be fitted to one another

A crate of apples with some bad one in it. U wanna refer it to science and their body of truth.

Since u r so familiar with your example of the engines, I used it to exaplain some of my points to u. A crate of apples and science r completely different things, like Hyundai engine and Maserati engine. Your example is forcing two different things together which is wrong.

And if u r also comparing engines with people values of truth. Using your example, it also highlight tat the engine and truth r also different topics as well and forcing them together is out of point

Then u said tat TWIST my example of Student body consist of MEEPOK and Kueh Tiaaw and completely said I practice unfair standard. U can use my examples, no problem. Of course u have to use it wisely. If u cannot use it wisely, u shouldn’t resort to twisting people example by combining them together. Tat is just shameless

7) Contradictory statements

U claimed tat gravity is truth, and not truth during different time phrase. U claim tat theory of gravity is a theory and thus u cannot accept it as truth. U claimed tat gravity is truth afterwards. Later u claim again tat acceleration of gravity is not truth again and said acceleration of gravity is not gravity. Tat shows how terrible your science standard is again. The acceleration of gravity is the effect of gravity. Why r they different ? Again u avoid the topic altogether.

Then u claimed tat 1+1 is a mathematical truth then later say it is not truth. Isn’t a mathematical truth, truth ? U said tat truth to u is absolute. Then “mathematical truth” should be absolute to u too since u use it after “mathematical”. If u say they r different, then it means one thing. Your definition of “truth” changes whenever u pleased. There is no consistency in your language

U also claimed tat science can never come out with the truth. Later u amend and say tat science could come out with truth. U just keep changing your stand repeatedly throughout the whole thread

8) 0/0

Tis is again another joke u created. U claimed tat 0/0 shows tat maths is not truth. However it is labeled as a fallacy and it is nonetheless truth to the physical world. U claimed tat 0 divide by zero is nothing. Tat is again rubbish because there is no logical meaning in dividing by zero. Even if u use zero, nothing, NIL, ZILCH, to divide by zero, there is still no logical meaning to it BECAUSE THERE IS NO LOGICAL INTERPRETATION WITH DIVIDING BY ZERO. U create a big boo boo and disgrace yourself again.

After which u start to attack me with the graph. I told u repeatedly tat it is undefined, and tat it could be anything. Then u claimed it is wrong because anything means “anything” u know or I know. Tat is rubbish. U claimed it never cut the graph at zero. I told u repeatedly tat u r treating it as a variableand expect it to cut the graph. Fact is it shouldn’t. The graph at 0 is really at –ve infinity to infinity. And again the idea of “anything” comes from Wikipedia itself

But there is another way to explain the division: if we want to find out how many people, which are satisfied with half an apple, can we satisfy with 1 apple, we divide 1 by 0.5. The answer is, of course, 2. Similarly, if we want to know how many people, which are satisfied with nothing, can we satisfy with 1 apple, we divide 1 by 0. And the answer is any number; we can satisfy any number of people, that are satisfied with nothing, with 1 apple.

However again u void the point and repeat. It really shows your desperation

9) Definition of truth

U paste and stick many many articles on truth and I have been asking u repeatedly tis question. Wat is the relevance with the topic here ? Wat is your definition ? U CANNOT EVEN PUT IT CONCISELY IN WORDS. And whenever u have something u cannot answer, u just barrow your head in and say your definition of truth differs. In your last article, u claim tat my truth is

the fourth definition(Your truth), on the other hand, permits the collective opinion of a group, subject matter experts for example, to license a model's representation as truth, a truly scary prospect to ardent truth seekers.

Says who ? U don't even know wat is my definition of truth after all tis while ! My definition is tat truth is simply a noun for “true” or an objective true. And tat it is basically something tat is not shown to be false. Your idea of truth and mine may be very similar, it is just tat u refuse to define or state it out and u keep adding in your own ideas.

10) U claimed tat science is wrong before and thus not truth

Tis is an old problem with your logic before. We may believe the same “truth” but to u, if science is ever wrong, then science is never about truth. To me, if it is not proven wrong, then it remains as truth. We could hold the same definition of “truth” here (it is an objective true) but we reached different conclusions. U stereotype and condemn all the theories and laws in it just because it had been proven wrong before. If some theories had been wrong, u treat everything in the scientific organization like Einstein and Newton as wrong and thus not the truth.

I however believe each is based on its own observation and evidences and tat it is logical, make things worked, it is repeatable etc give me enough grounds to believe it is the TRUTH, the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. If it turns out to be wrong in the end, it is okay. As wat u said, human errs. I just simply erred in trusting it to be truth. But nevertheless, I still treat it as truth unless it is proven wrong.

And yeah u can keep sticking and pasting the same arguments. Because it is obvious tat u r avoiding the topic and refuse to answer my point despite repeat attempts. Watever I said, u just cover your ears and refuse to answer anything. I think there is no point in talking with such a person now. U wanna say I am stupid, or whatever, is up to u. Maybe u had obtained final victory now as I find debating with a person who does not answer people’s point as fruitful as talking to a brick wall and thus give up.

To the others, iIf I have hijacked the thread, I apologize

SingaporeTyrannosaur

10 Feb 10, 11:50

You are wasting minutes and seconds of your irreplacable life typing lengthy posts that most people do not read, and certainly even more time arguing with a person that will not see your point.

Given you do not believe in an afterlife, isn't there a better use of your one and only life then wasting it on people who cannot be convinced otherwise?

BadzMaro

10 Feb 10, 13:07

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

Let me summarise your exchange so far…

1) Problem of your definition of science

After many exchanges, finally u define science as

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.

However it was pointed out to u many times tat the meaning u quote is the same as a collection of truth. Natural phenomena is a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable. And fact is still truth. All these r from the dictionary, which u quote “science” and “truth”. SO after all the hogwash about defining science, u still go back to the same definition. We could substitute the words in your example with the words and have no loss in meaning

If all believe in the theory of evolution, and God was actually the one that created everthing, it doesnt change the FACT that God was the one that created everything. Even if EVERYONE in the word thinks it so. Its not going to change that FACT

Now tell me why is the difference between your definition and the dictionary definition of the science ? U said the dictionary definition of “truth” is wrong yet u use their definition. U claimed tat people r shallow in following dictionary strictly yet u use the dictionary definition of “science”. U r just having double standards isn’t it ?

2) The definition of the scientific method

Are scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses ?

YES or NO

No

Not fully. I believe tat peer review and scrutiny should be included as well

U make a big hoo haa over such a stupid thing and claimed tat I added in definition to the word scientific method. Why don’t u look at wiki on scientific method and see wat it says ?

Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

Tat is why I believe peer review and scrutiny should be included.

Then u said I treat u unfairly and refuse to let u add in definition. Wat do u really wanna add ? Truth must work for EVERYTHING ? TRUTH IS PERFECT ? If u wanna add those definitions in, simple. U have to explain and elaborate why they should be added. If the reason is satisfactory, it could be added. If u just wanna add because u wanna add, then obviously no oneis gonna entertain u.

3)     Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO

Lets see your earlier usage of “theory”.

What happened to your superior logic ? If your previous statement is already wrong , science is wrong already , and even if u correct it , u cannot negate the fact that it was wrong . Some theories are just so totally different and totally wrong that doesnt relect the truth. Like the Universe rotates around the Earth. Or how the Earth was Flat. If this happens more then onec, there are probably theories right now that are probably wrong, so must accet the possibility of fallacy in thoeries now accepted as correct.

If that is the case, science CANT be body of truths , u have to accept possibilities that the theories may be wrong.

U know wat ? YOUR EXAMPLES R WRONG. THEY r not scientific theories at all. And u cannot pretend and say u r not talking about scientific theories. U states science is wrong, and give examples of “theories” tat went wrong and conclude tat because of your examples, science can’t be body of truth. Tis shows how bad your standard of science is because u cannot tell pseudoscience from science.

Thus when u write an unexplained word theory in the question, I simply answer “Unsure”. And I ask u to quote a scientific theory tat went wrong. Is tat wrong ? Who know wat is your definition of theory ? U change the definition of the words “truth”, “science” “fact” and give off wrong examples of scientific theories. What is wrong with saying “unsure” in tis case ? However again u exaggerate and make a big hoo haa over nothing

4)   Scientific Level

Unlike someone, I admit tat I do not know everything about science. However compared to u, it is adequate. First u give wrong scientific theories. Next u claim tat the laws of thermodynamics r wrong in the reply on 4^th Feb 531pm

U know anything about Thermodynamics ? When we were in primary and secondary schools, what did the teachers teach us. Compare it to what UNI taught us. First thing the lecturer said was "WHAT U KNOW ABOUT THERMODYNAMICS.. IS WRONG.. THIS IS THE REAL STUFF"

Transition State Theory.

Tis is wrong. Thermodynamics is still relevant today. In fact there is a whole field of people doing on thermodynamics. U also claimed tat the acceleration of gravity is different from gravity. They r actually the same

5)   Avoiding of issues

A lot of questions had went unanswered.

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 ?

Isn’t true and real answer to a question the truth ? I ask u if u have an sgforum nick Badzmaro and u said yes, tat answer is the truth already isn’t it ? U state tat science can only answer Why and How but they r not truth. However if the answers are, according to u correct, then the answers itself r truth

U claim things could be true, but not the truth. Tat means u r proposing there r things in the world tat is true but not truth at the same time. Tat is a contradictory idea since things tat were not truth, will not be true. Again u refuse to answer to tis

And how u avoid the question, u just say your definition of truth in different. It is precisely tat it is different, then u should elaborate why it should elaborate and answer. U said “truth” = actual existence right ? Then reconcile with the above statements otherwise u r just a person with no balls and run away from topics

6)   Problem with examples

I stated the following examples.

A body of student compared with a body of truth. The usage of the words are the same and it is the dictionary example of how to use the word body

Some things could be tolerated while other cannot. Most people would accept changes like HL mlik over daisy low fat milk without problem at all. Tis is in contrast with your example of motors

U state the following examples:

Maserati engine could not be fitted to a Hyundai engine. U r trying to highlight different things/people could not be fitted to one another

A crate of apples with some bad one in it. U wanna refer it to science and their body of truth.

Since u r so familiar with your example of the engines, I used it to exaplain some of my points to u. A crate of apples and science r completely different things, like Hyundai engine and Maserati engine. Your example is forcing two different things together which is wrong.

And if u r also comparing engines with people values of truth. Using your example, it also highlight tat the engine and truth r also different topics as well and forcing them together is out of point

Then u said tat TWIST my example of Student body consist of MEEPOK and Kueh Tiaaw and completely said I practice unfair standard. U can use my examples, no problem. Of course u have to use it wisely. If u cannot use it wisely, u shouldn’t resort to twisting people example by combining them together. Tat is just shameless

7)   Contradictory statements

U claimed tat gravity is truth, and not truth during different time phrase. U claim tat theory of gravity is a theory and thus u cannot accept it as truth. U claimed tat gravity is truth afterwards. Later u claim again tat acceleration of gravity is not truth again and said acceleration of gravity is not gravity. Tat shows how terrible your science standard is again. The acceleration of gravity is the effect of gravity. Why r they different ? Again u avoid the topic altogether.

Then u claimed tat 1+1 is a mathematical truth then later say it is not truth. Isn’t a mathematical truth, truth ? U said tat truth to u is absolute. Then “mathematical truth” should be absolute to u too since u use it after “mathematical”. If u say they r different, then it means one thing. Your definition of “truth” changes whenever u pleased. There is no consistency in your language

U also claimed tat science can never come out with the truth. Later u amend and say tat science could come out with truth. U just keep changing your stand repeatedly throughout the whole thread

8) 0/0

Tis is again another joke u created. U claimed tat 0/0 shows tat maths is not truth. However it is labeled as a fallacy and it is nonetheless truth to the physical world. U claimed tat 0 divide by zero is nothing. Tat is again rubbish because there is no logical meaning in dividing by zero. Even if u use zero, nothing, NIL, ZILCH, to divide by zero, there is still no logical meaning to it BECAUSE THERE IS NO LOGICAL INTERPRETATION WITH DIVIDING BY ZERO. U create a big boo boo and disgrace yourself again.

After which u start to attack me with the graph. I told u repeatedly tat it is undefined, and tat it could be anything. Then u claimed it is wrong because anything means “anything” u know or I know. Tat is rubbish. U claimed it never cut the graph at zero. I told u repeatedly tat u r treating it as a variableand expect it to cut the graph. Fact is it shouldn’t. The graph at 0 is really at –ve infinity to infinity. And again the idea of “anything” comes from Wikipedia itself

But there is another way to explain the division: if we want to find out how many people, which are satisfied with half an apple, can we satisfy with 1 apple, we divide 1 by 0.5. The answer is, of course, 2. Similarly, if we want to know how many people, which are satisfied with nothing, can we satisfy with 1 apple, we divide 1 by 0. And the answer is any number; we can satisfy any number of people, that are satisfied with nothing, with 1 apple.

However again u void the point and repeat. It really shows your desperation

9)      Definition of truth

U paste and stick many many articles on truth and I have been asking u repeatedly tis question. Wat is the relevance with the topic here ? Wat is your definition ? U CANNOT EVEN PUT IT CONCISELY IN WORDS. And whenever u have something u cannot answer, u just barrow your head in and say your definition of truth differs. In your last article, u claim tat my truth is

the fourth definition(Your truth), on the other hand, permits the collective opinion of a group, subject matter experts for example, to license a model's representation as truth, a truly scary prospect to ardent truth seekers.

Says who ? U don't even know wat is my definition of truth after all tis while ! My definition is tat truth is simply a noun for “true” or an objective true. And tat it is basically something tat is not shown to be false. Your idea of truth and mine may be very similar, it is just tat u refuse to define or state it out and u keep adding in your own ideas.

10)   U claimed tat science is wrong before and thus not truth

Tis is an old problem with your logic before. We may believe the same “truth” but to u, if science is ever wrong, then science is never about truth. To me, if it is not proven wrong, then it remains as truth. We could hold the same definition of “truth” here (it is an objective true) but we reached different conclusions. U stereotype and condemn all the theories and laws in it just because it had been proven wrong before. If some theories had been wrong, u treat everything in the scientific organization like Einstein and Newton as wrong and thus not the truth.

I however believe each is based on its own observation and evidences and tat it is logical, make things worked, it is repeatable etc give me enough grounds to believe it is the TRUTH, the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. If it turns out to be wrong in the end, it is okay. As wat u said, human errs. I just simply erred in trusting it to be truth. But nevertheless, I still treat it as truth unless it is proven wrong.

And yeah u can keep sticking and pasting the same arguments. Because it is obvious tat u r avoiding the topic and refuse to answer my point despite repeat attempts. Watever I said, u just cover your ears and refuse to answer anything. I think there is no point in talking with such a person now. U wanna say I am stupid, or whatever, is up to u. Maybe u had obtained final victory now as I find debating with a person who does not answer people’s point as fruitful as talking to a brick wall and thus give up.

To the others, iIf I have hijacked the thread, I apologize

Let me summarise your exchange so far…

Let ME make it clear of your summary and exchanges so far...

1) Problem of your definition of science

After many exchanges, finally u define science as

sci·ence

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

However it was pointed out to u many times tat the meaning u quote is the same as a collection of truth. Natural phenomena is a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable. And fact is still truth. All these r from the dictionary, which u quote “science” and “truth”. SO after all the hogwash about defining science, u still go back to the same definition. We could substitute the words in your example with the words and have no loss in meaning

Very simple. Again, Fact to me is Fact. True is True. True and Facts are subjectives and subject to change over time. Subject to our knowledge and perception. However, Truth on the other hand, is absolute. Regardless of our preception, regardless of our knowledge, regardless of anything, Truth is out there, it is absolute. Dont forget, I am not aiming for your truth and that is true = truth. I am aiming for a higher truth.

If all believe in the theory of evolution, and God was actually the one that created everthing, it doesnt change the FACT that God was the one that created everything. Even if EVERYONE in the word thinks it so. Its not going to change that FACT

Now tell me why is the difference between your definition and the dictionary definition of the science ? U said the dictionary definition of “truth” is wrong yet u use their definition. U claimed tat people r shallow in following dictionary strictly yet u use the dictionary definition of “science”. U r just having double standards isn’t it ?

Its very simple really. I question everything, I learn and read, I reasearch and study.My degrees in different fields showed me the inconsistencies of Truth, hence my belief in the meaning of science. So, to me, I have come to a realisation that sometimes, the dictionary doesnt explain everything. Hence, I categorise my things as u will see as I explain further. So , some I will accept in the dictionary, but some I dont, then comes the issue of Truth. Now truth has been a very interesting topic since my philosophy years. If u accuse me of double standard, I dont blame you, because you are having double standards too. As I reply, u will notice ur double standard and pot calling kettle black.

2) The definition of the scientific method

Are scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses ?

YES or NO

No

Not fully. I believe tat peer review and scrutiny should be included as well

U make a big hoo haa over such a stupid thing and claimed tat I added in definition to the word scientific method. Why don’t u look at wiki on scientific method and see wat it says ?

Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

Tat is why I believe peer review and scrutiny should be included.

Then u said I treat u unfairly and refuse to let u add in definition. Wat do u really wanna add ? Truth must work for EVERYTHING ? TRUTH IS PERFECT ? If u wanna add those definitions in, simple. U have to explain and elaborate why they should be added. If the reason is satisfactory, it could be added. If u just wanna add because u wanna add, then obviously no oneis gonna entertain u.

Like I said, I never said u cannot add peer review and scrutiny. Did I ? I accepted. You seem to be able to add definitions too, so why cant I add mine to make it clearer to my belief in my opinion ? Another case of Pot calling Kettle Black. Another case of YOU CAN I CANT.

3) Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO

Lets see your earlier usage of “theory”.

What happened to your superior logic ? If your previous statement is already wrong , science is wrong already , and even if u correct it , u cannot negate the fact that it was wrong . Some theories are just so totally different and totally wrong that doesnt relect the truth. Like the Universe rotates around the Earth. Or how the Earth was Flat. If this happens more then onec, there are probably theories right now that are probably wrong, so must accet the possibility of fallacy in thoeries now accepted as correct.

If that is the case, science CANT be body of truths , u have to accept possibilities that the theories may be wrong.

U know wat ? YOUR EXAMPLES R WRONG. THEY r not scientific theories at all. And u cannot pretend and say u r not talking about scientific theories. U states science is wrong, and give examples of “theories” tat went wrong and conclude tat because of your examples, science can’t be body of truth. Tis shows how bad your standard of science is because u cannot tell pseudoscience from science.

Thus when u write an unexplained word theory in the question, I simply answer “Unsure”. And I ask u to quote a scientific theory tat went wrong. Is tat wrong ? Who know wat is your definition of theory ? U change the definition of the words “truth”, “science” “fact” and give off wrong examples of scientific theories. What is wrong with saying “unsure” in tis case ? However again u exaggerate and make a big hoo haa over nothing

Even if they are not scientific theories to you, even though I regard it as theories nevertheless, The pre-Socratic philosophers rejected traditional mythological explanations of the phenomena they saw around them in favor of more rational explanations. These philosophers asked questions about "the essence of things , so they agreed between scholars and intellectuals at the time of the flat earth theory. Back in the day, did it not go through peer review and scrutiny ?

Regardless of it, u requested scientific theories, I showed u a list of Superceded Scientific Theories(4 Feb )

I make a big HOO HAA.. because, u talk so much about how right u are in science, accepting it as a body of truths, but u are not even sure whether theories have been wrong before, so I came to the conclusion that you really dont know ur subject matter well at all.

4) Scientific Level

Unlike someone, I admit tat I do not know everything about science. However compared to u, it is adequate. First u give wrong scientific theories. Next u claim tat the laws of thermodynamics r wrong in the reply on 4^th Feb 531pm

U know anything about Thermodynamics ? When we were in primary and secondary schools, what did the teachers teach us. Compare it to what UNI taught us. First thing the lecturer said was "WHAT U KNOW ABOUT THERMODYNAMICS.. IS WRONG.. THIS IS THE REAL STUFF"

Transition State Theory.

Tis is wrong. Thermodynamics is still relevant today. In fact there is a whole field of people doing on thermodynamics. U also claimed tat the acceleration of gravity is different from gravity. They r actually the same

When did I say wrong theories are not useful anymore ? Being wrong doesnt mean they will cease all utility function right ? Wrong just means its not the Truth. It may still work in a controlled environment or within its scope. But it can still be applied within the boundries of its given rules. Like Newtons law, wrong, but it still serves a useful utility function in the given context. It doesnt mean it was discarded and totally not used. U get it now ?

5) Avoiding of issues

A lot of questions had went unanswered.

A lot of questions U have left unanswered as well. But u have not answered them for a long time, so I just overlook them, and focus on the core questions.

Do u agree tat a collective collection of truth studied together can enhance the understanding of the subject ?

ANS

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 ?

ANS

Isn’t true and real answer to a question the truth ? I ask u if u have an sgforum nick Badzmaro and u said yes, tat answer is the truth already isn’t it ? U state tat science can only answer Why and How but they r not truth. However if the answers are, according to u correct, then the answers itself r truth

Nope. Science is the why and how, unravelling the mysteries of the universe. Because the How and Why can be wrong, hence I do not see it as the Truth. For something that can have possibilities of being wrong, I can never see it as a higher standard of Truth, and that is Truth in its absolute terms.

U claim things could be true, but not the truth. Tat means u r proposing there r things in the world tat is true but not truth at the same time. Tat is a contradictory idea since things tat were not truth, will not be true. Again u refuse to answer to tis

Yes, things could be true, but NOT the Truth. Yes. Facts and True things changes. They are subjective. What we base on now may be wrong in the future, hence I am not so fast as to jump to the conclusion that it is the Truth! Simple. Like it is True that u are stupid, given the evidence to support my theory of your stupidity, but it may NOT be the Truth. Get it ? Things that are Truth may not be true. e.g again, Truth that earth is round, true that is is flat and everyone believes it so and thinks and says its true. But Truth doesnt change. It is absolute regardless of perception , belief and knowledge.

And how u avoid the question, u just say your definition of truth in different. It is precisely tat it is different, then u should elaborate why it should elaborate and answer. U said “truth” = actual existence right ? Then reconcile with the above statements otherwise u r just a person with no balls and run away from topics

Yes, I have a higher standard ot Truth. If u cannot grasp it and see the separation, its up to you. U can believe in your true = truth. I am a person with plenty of big balls. I can equally say you are the one with no balls if u want to talk about avoiding questions and not answering them.

6) Problem with examples

I stated the following examples.

A body of student compared with a body of truth. The usage of the words are the same and it is the dictionary example of how to use the word body

I personally think crate of a good apples is better due to the differences of definitions of truth. Because like I said, your definition of science consists of body of truths. To me, if truths are wrong, it can never be truths. So I simply gave u an example of an analogy to see things in my perspective. But u cant. U cant see why I cannot accept it. I already said, crate of good apples must consists of crate of good apples. Body of Truths, MUST consists of body of my definition of Truths. If it says Mostly body of truths, I may accept. However it fails, hence I cannot accept science as Body of Truths. But if u can , good for you. Did I say u cant ?

Another case of U CAN I CANT. Bravo.. bravo!

Some things could be tolerated while other cannot. Most people would accept changes like HL mlik over daisy low fat milk without problem at all. Tis is in contrast with your example of motors

Oh, so, u can tolerate my maserati engine part into your hyundai engine part resulting in your car not even working at all. If thats what u meant, I got no problem. I personally cant. I need my engine, my car to be functioning according to specifications.

It seems to u to say MOST people. Am I MOST people ? If I eat my Kobe beef, I wanted rare, and u gave me wagynu rare, or I requested NO sauce and u added me some sauce, its NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ME. Like ur Meepok example, if there is NO kueh tiaw, or Meepok, I will NOT eat the meepok or kuehtiaw, unless I am desperate and nothing to eat, I may accept it. But I will NOT consider myself eating meepok or kueh tiaw, its two different dish, two kinds of taste. And yes, even if particular milk brands and low fat, I am still particular. Thats why, this again shows that you can easily accept what it is. I personally have my own beliefs, my own set of principles , my own understanding, and most importablty I know what I want.

U state the following examples:

Maserati engine could not be fitted to a Hyundai engine. U r trying to highlight different things/people could not be fitted to one another

I am trying to highlight differences in beliefs. The core belief and that is Truth. Because the main issue of contention here is the meaning and application of Truth. While the engine, is the integral component of the car. The particular engine part is what that makes the engine run, and resulting in the entire car running according to its specifications.

A crate of apples with some bad one in it. U wanna refer it to science and their body of truth.

Yes. Crate of apples is like a body of truths to me. Hence I gave u an example. U can accept crate of apples with some rotten apples in it and still deem it as a crate of good apples. I cant, I can only accept it as a crate of MOSTLY good apples. I gave u another example. I expected a delivery of 27300 litres of AGO product to my station, however, they cannot gurantee me 27300litres, and they know it, hence the order comes with a +- variance of 0.05% with the given ullage marker for calculation of condensation during discharge from depot to the respective stations. Because I KNOW I cannot gurantee them 27300, I gave them a differences of of variance. Yes. So what if I am specific and down to the detail ? Because if I said 27300, they will sue me, sue Shell.

Thats why I said, if he says Crate of Mostly Good apples, in relation to Body of Truths. If its Mostly body of truths, yes.. I can accept.

Since u r so familiar with your example of the engines, I used it to exaplain some of my points to u. A crate of apples and science r completely different things, like Hyundai engine and Maserati engine. Your example is forcing two different things together which is wrong.

U said

“f 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 ?(6 Feb)

So I used your meepok kueh tiaw INTO your body of truths, showing you that its stupid right ? U agree ? You were the one adding it together. Not me, I am showing you how stupid it is.

And if u r also comparing engines with people values of truth. Using your example, it also highlight tat the engine and truth r also different topics as well and forcing them together is out of point

Then u said tat TWIST my example of Student body consist of MEEPOK and Kueh Tiaaw and completely said I practice unfair standard. U can use my examples, no problem. Of course u have to use it wisely. If u cannot use it wisely, u shouldn’t resort to twisting people example by combining them together. Tat is just shameless

Like I said, if u cannot get my analogy trying to explain to you what I personally think, its not my fault that u cannot use it wisely too regarding my engine and crate of apples, I also suggest in YOUR words “ u shouldn’t resort to twisting people example by combining them together. Tat is just shameless”

7) Contradictory statements

U have contradictory statements yourself.

"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 tell me, which is it ? U still havent answered me until to day.

U claimed tat gravity is truth, and not truth during different time phrase. U claim tat theory of gravity is a theory and thus u cannot accept it as truth. U claimed tat gravity is truth afterwards. Later u claim again tat acceleration of gravity is not truth again and said acceleration of gravity is not gravity. Tat shows how terrible your science standard is again. The acceleration of gravity is the effect of gravity. Why r they different ? Again u avoid the topic altogether.

Very simple. Again, I shall explain.

Theory OF gravity is True. However Gravity is Truth.

The acceleration of gravity is the effect of gravity

BRAVO! EFFECT of GRAVITY. Thats NOT gravity.. its the effect right ?Acceleration OF gravity is True. However Gravity is Truth. Do u get it now ?

What goes UP must come DOWN = Gravity = Truth

But to question WHY and HOW FAST the UP corresponds with the DOWN is calculated and explained by the Theory OF gravity using the acceleration OF gravity to come up with a scientific value. Accelerations of Gravity differs from planets to planets and is true.

But Gravity, the natural phenomenon EXISTS on each of those planets and is Truth. Gravity itself EXISTS in the universe. It is ABSOLUTE. Its a Truth that regardless of human perception, knowledge and all that stuff, will remain, constant, there , absolute.

Get it ? I really hope u do. If u dont, and continue to equate your definition of Truth into mine, u will NEVER understand.

Then u claimed tat 1+1 is a mathematical truth then later say it is not truth. Isn’t a mathematical truth, truth ? U said tat truth to u is absolute. Then “mathematical truth” should be absolute to u too since u use it after “mathematical”. If u say they r different, then it means one thing. Your definition of “truth” changes whenever u pleased. There is no consistency in your language

U also claimed tat science can never come out with the truth. Later u amend and say tat science could come out with truth. U just keep changing your stand repeatedly throughout the whole thread

Yes, 1+1 is true and a mathematical Truth. A mathematical truth is NOT the Truth. Simple. I am simply talking in YOUR terms. Hoping that you can understand the subtle differences. Mathematical truth is a categorical truth. Thats why I categorise them. E.g Mathematical Truth, Logical Truth.. etc. But for it to be THE TRUTH, that is absolute and work in all conditions and that is quantities in maths, it has failed. I showed u again why, Godel's Theorem. 0/0 = undefined. Those are just but a few.

TO me, science is NOT truth. Science is the How and Why to unravel the mysteries of the universe. If they happen to chance upon a truth, well, good for them. Truth , is already out there. To me, science dont NEED to find that truth. The natural phenomenon is there. Regardless if science discovers it or not.

8) 0/0

Tis is again another joke u created. U claimed tat 0/0 shows tat maths is not truth. However it is labeled as a fallacy and it is nonetheless truth to the physical world. U claimed tat 0 divide by zero is nothing. Tat is again rubbish because there is no logical meaning in dividing by zero. Even if u use zero, nothing, NIL, ZILCH, to divide by zero, there is still no logical meaning to it BECAUSE THERE IS NO LOGICAL INTERPRETATION WITH DIVIDING BY ZERO. U create a big boo boo and disgrace yourself again.

Its very simple. Logically, if u have nothing to divide with nothing, u get nothing. If u cant understand such a simple logic, what else can I say ?

After which u start to attack me with the graph. I told u repeatedly tat it is undefined, and tat it could be anything.

You see, this is also where you have contradictory statement. When I asked u 0/0, u told me if could be:

"STUPIDISMART on the 23rd Jan 1.03pm

I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter."

So I asked u,

Does the graph ever reaches 0 ? YES or NO

You said : No

Beside the point, I am again showing u an OBVIOUS mistake u made. And I have given u time and time again to ommit to it so we can move on. Whatever answer u give, will show u the gravity of your mistake. And from here, I will show that u also dont know your subject matter in science and maths as well.

Then u claimed it is wrong because anything means “anything” u know or I know. Tat is rubbish. U claimed it never cut the graph at zero. I told u repeatedly tat u r treating it as a variableand expect it to cut the graph. Fact is it shouldn’t. The graph at 0 is really at –ve infinity to infinity. And again the idea of “anything” comes from Wikipedia itself

This is where u and I come to disagreement again.

0/0 is undefined. For it to be ANYTHING, u are defining it. And defining something is the exact opposite of undefined. But if u wish to believe undefined = anything , its really up to you.

I told u repeatedly tat u r treating it as a variableand expect it to cut the graph.

When did I say that ? U better be sure. I explicitly said, 0/0 is not a legitimate operation = undefined. And that means definately, it will NOT cut the graph. What are u talking about ? Are u adding words into my mouth again ? Want me to cut n paste out ur previous response ?

But there is another way to explain the division: if we want to find out how many people, which are satisfied with half an apple, can we satisfy with 1 apple, we divide 1 by 0.5. The answer is, of course, 2. Similarly, if we want to know how many people, which are satisfied with nothing, can we satisfy with 1 apple, we divide 1 by 0. And the answer is any number; we can satisfy any number of people, that are satisfied with nothing, with 1 apple.

However again u void the point and repeat. It really shows your desperation

I got no problem with the statements. Right now, this is NOT the point. My point is, plesae, tell me.

1) Zero to Infinity ?

Or

2) Does the graph touch Zero ? No .

ZERO or NO ZERO? Thats it.

And u accuse me of avoiding to answer ur questions. U have avoided a lot, but I am specifically focusing on this one . U will soon understand why. Regardless of it, I will show u the error of your ways.

9) Definition of truth

U paste and stick many many articles on truth and I have been asking u repeatedly tis question. Wat is the relevance with the topic here ? Wat is your definition ? U CANNOT EVEN PUT IT

Truth = Absolute Existence. I said it AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN. If this is not as short and as concise for you, there is no other way I can explain the definition to you anymore.

CONCISELY IN WORDS. And whenever u have something u cannot answer, u just barrow your head in and say your definition of truth differs. In your last article, u claim tat my truth is

the fourth definition(Your truth), on the other hand, permits the collective opinion of a group, subject matter experts for example, to license a model's representation as truth, a truly scary prospect to ardent truth seekers.

Says who ? U don't even know wat is my definition of truth after all tis while ! My definition is tat truth is simply a noun for “true” or an objective true. And tat it is basically something tat is not shown to be false.

I already said I understood. Yours is simple True = Truth. Noun and Adjective. True propositions to be Truth. Thats it.

Again, you see , very similar doesnt make it THE SAME right ? So why keep using UR definition of Truth in MY BELIEFS ?

I already told you. It cannot work, until u can understand the subtle differences and acknowledge that there is that difference resulting in the way I percieve things as it is, the misunderstandings will continue.

BadzMaro

10 Feb 10, 13:11

10) U claimed tat science is wrong before and thus not truth

Tis is an old problem with your logic before. We may believe the same “truth” but to u, if science is ever wrong, then science is never about truth. To me, if it is not proven wrong, then it remains as truth. We could hold the same definition of “truth” here (it is an objective true) but we reached different conclusions. U stereotype and condemn all the theories and laws in it just because it had been proven wrong before.

True and facts are subjective again like I said. Truth to me is absolute. I do NOT simply use the word Truth. I am extremely careful especially when it comes to the meaning of Truth and usingof the word Truth. However, I am more then capable of understanding the different definitions. Hence I wil use it correctly with the different people under the different context and circumstances for thier sake. As long as they do no get into the philosophical debate of truth, I will not bother. In normal common usage of truth, I accept it as it is, as true, but I will have my doubts still, and believe in the possibilities. When my client tells me he is telling the truth, I take it as true, not necessarily as the truth. As truth is there already, whether or not he says it is, is up to the judge to admit the facts, up to the jury to decide on the subjective true statements and facts during the trial. The Truth then, is out there, its there, and if during the course of litigation, discovers the truth.. BRAVO.

Same with business, I have a higher standard of truth, thats why, when it comes to business, I am specific, I am particular and I also accept explainations and possibilities. As long as u state the true nature of things, I will not really accept it as the truth but only something true.

If some theories had been wrong, u treat everything in the scientific organization like Einstein and Newton as wrong and thus not the truth.

Yes, Exactly. Einsten and Newton being not truth, and wrong, does not mean they dispose of their utility in their theories. Are we not still using their theories ? However, it is true that it can be applied to its limited scope, but unfortunately, it is not the truth. Like I said, again, because they are theories, theories can be wrong. Man makes mistakes. Again, I reitterate that I do not simply use the word truth.

I however believe each is based on its own observation and evidences and tat it is logical, make things worked, it is repeatable etc give me enough grounds to believe it is the TRUTH, the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. If it turns out to be wrong in the end, it is okay.

Like I said, I got NO PROBLEM with your belief. I only have a problem when u start adding ur definitiong into my belief and claiming that it cant work. OF COURSE it cant work. U believe on enough grounds to constitute as a Truth, its all good. But not for me because of that higher standard to truth as I explained.

As wat u said, human errs. I just simply erred in trusting it to be truth. But nevertheless, I still treat it as truth unless it is proven wrong.

U erred in trusting it to be the truth, I simply cannot afford to err in trusting it to be the truth. I canot treat it as truth if it has a possibility of being proven wrong. Simple.

it is repeatable etc give me enough grounds to believe it is the TRUTH, the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. If it turns out to be wrong in the end, it is okay.

An another stupid statement by you, u seem to claim i am stupid and contradict my own statements. For someone who supposely have superior grammar and worships the dictionary, have a look at the meaning ABSOLUTE. If it turned out to be wrong, how the FUCK can it be ABSOLUTE TRUTH ? How can something absolute be wrong ? Maybe to you. But I sure as hell dont dare to say something absolute and be wrong later. U got some balls man.

Can u believe the ramifications of such a statement ? It just says alot about the person u know. U can believe something/someone to be absolute and be wrong and u think its "okay". To me i dont even DARE to make such claims. And to say its abosolute truth and be wrong, i would stone the S.O.B! I only dare to say its true. Truth.. and Absolute Truth is another matter!

Are u a sheep ? Or an enlightened sheep ?

And yeah u can keep sticking and pasting the same arguments. Because it is obvious tat u r avoiding the topic and refuse to answer my point despite repeat attempts. Watever I said, u just cover your ears and refuse to answer anything. I think there is no point in talking with such a person now. U wanna say I am stupid, or whatever, is up to u. Maybe u had obtained final victory now as I find debating with a person who does not answer people’s point as fruitful as talking to a brick wall and thus give up.

Again, I did not avoid. You notice that many times, it seems your analogies and examples can work. But not mine. And when I give u mine, u say its rubbish, so I say YOURS is rubbish, and u start to bitch and moan. My advice to you is, if u cannot handle people calling ur examples and analogies as rubbish, I suggest u shut the fuck up, and sit the fuck down when it comes to commenting other peoples examples and analogies as rubbish. Man U CAN.. I CANT. Many instances of POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK.

This is not about final victory or not, I have already 2 times offered a neutral ground to “Agree in disagreement” but u just had to push it, I even offered to retract all statements regarding your stupidity , but u refused and again think that I meant u are stupid. U must realise, your first name is stupid(stupidissmart) . U can call me whatever name u want, u dont see me going all angry and stuff.

Maybe u had obtained final victory now as I find debating with a person who does not answer people’s point as fruitful as talking to a brick wall and

Its never about victory. U should know that by now. I even let it slide few threads ago when u said u wanted to stop. I just kept quiet after that, but u just had to add another long post the next day. All I asked for was understanding, is that so hard ? Is it so hard to have differences of opinions? I am just but one of the differing opinions, if u cant handle mine, how can u handle the masses ? All I asked was to sit in the Maserati and feel whats it like to drive a maserati, know its limitations, its specifications, its performance. I sat in your Hyundai. I understood. I understood its performance, its limitations, its specifications. But you dont seem to be able to comprehend mine. Its not my fault to come to the conclusion right ?

And speaking of bricks:

I said : “Once again, am i talking to rocks ? I am just saying the simple concept of Science. I do not say Theory is wrong or hold it in disgust. Are u guys so dense ? All i am saying is Science is not TRUTH. Whats so hard to understand ?” (16 Jan)

Now u can understand whats it like.. talking to rocks and bricks right ? For me, I will just hammer the rock.. hammer and hammer it until the rock breaks.

To the others, iIf I have hijacked the thread, I apologize

Dont worry, there is no mod here anyways, besides, not many people that post here, Its should be a good insight into differences of opinion anyways.

(Sorry , somehow it just wont show all the text i wanted to type and keep editing. Stupid, maybe u should edit your post of all the GIBBERISH before posting)

Larryteo

10 Feb 10, 18:47

Why not I give both of you idiots a brief summary :

SCIENCE

-There are 2 types of science

1. Theory

2. Fact and study+experiment.

THEORIES OF SCIENCE-

- Biological evolution

-The origin of modern humans

-Kinetic Particle Theory

-Big bang Theory

-Stellar evolution theory

FACTS OF SCIENCE -

-The current universe and how it works

- Reproduction system of humans and animals

-Living cells

-The Spherical shape of the Earth

- the fact that the Earth stands on nothing

-The fact that planets revolve around the Sun.

These simple little summary will make BOTH OF YOUR LIVES MUCH EASIER.

eagle

3 Mar 10, 14:26

oooh

Stupidissmart is back. How's life since our last Speaker's Corner exchange? You are still so on about long posts... really a lot of free time leh

TrueSon

4 Mar 10, 00:09

Originally posted by Larryteo:

The theory that humans emerged from Africa instead of Eden has been proven.

Yes, human originated from Eden. This is a fact.

If they came from Africa or anywhere else, it could be the work of God. We, human, do not have the power to understand God's power. Anyway, African story cannot be prove 100%. So we have to accept God's word.

Spread the good news. We can be saved. Come join us, hand-in-hand, why bother about darwin guy. We will be eternally happy.

laurence82

4 Mar 10, 00:26

Wrong, it is well known that human originated from the Flying Spaghetti Monster

If they came from Africa or anywhere else, it could be the work of FSM. We, human, do not have the power to understand FSM's power. Anyway, African story cannot be prove 100%. So we have to accept FSM's word.

Spread the good news. We can be saved. Come join us, hand-in-hand, why bother about jesus guy. We will be eternally happy.

Rooney9

4 Mar 10, 01:37

Originally posted by TrueSon:

Yes, human originated from Eden. This is a fact.

If they came from Africa or anywhere else, it could be the work of God. We, human, do not have the power to understand God's power. Anyway, African story cannot be prove 100%. So we have to accept God's word.

Spread the good news. We can be saved. Come join us, hand-in-hand, why bother about darwin guy. We will be eternally happy.

hello that is fact to christians, but not to science. science never accepted this as facts.

As romanista2001

5 Mar 10, 14:07

Originally posted by TrueSon:

Yes, human originated from Eden. This is a fact.

If they came from Africa or anywhere else, it could be the work of God. We, human, do not have the power to understand God's power. Anyway, African story cannot be prove 100%. So we have to accept God's word.

Spread the good news. We can be saved. Come join us, hand-in-hand, why bother about darwin guy. We will be eternally happy.

then there must be many many gods ...............since there are so many races of people............not to mention colors of their skin.............

DOESN'T MATTER WHERE MAN CAME FROM......................

but the most important thing to know is............MAN CREATED GOD..................

Larryteo

5 Mar 10, 22:56

Originally posted by BadzMaro:

Let me summarise your exchange so far…

Let ME make it clear of your summary and exchanges so far...

1) Problem of your definition of science

After many exchanges, finally u define science as

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.

However it was pointed out to u many times tat the meaning u quote is the same as a collection of truth. Natural phenomena is a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable. And fact is still truth. All these r from the dictionary, which u quote “science” and “truth”. SO after all the hogwash about defining science, u still go back to the same definition. We could substitute the words in your example with the words and have no loss in meaning

Very simple. Again, Fact to me is Fact. True is True. True and Facts are subjectives and subject to change over time. Subject to our knowledge and perception. However, Truth on the other hand, is absolute. Regardless of our preception, regardless of our knowledge, regardless of anything, Truth is out there, it is absolute. Dont forget, I am not aiming for your truth and that is true = truth. I am aiming for a higher truth.

If all believe in the theory of evolution, and God was actually the one that created everthing, it doesnt change the FACT that God was the one that created everything. Even if EVERYONE in the word thinks it so. Its not going to change that FACT

Now tell me why is the difference between your definition and the dictionary definition of the science ? U said the dictionary definition of “truth” is wrong yet u use their definition. U claimed tat people r shallow in following dictionary strictly yet u use the dictionary definition of “science”. U r just having double standards isn’t it ?

Its very simple really. I question everything, I learn and read, I reasearch and study.My degrees in different fields showed me the inconsistencies of Truth, hence my belief in the meaning of science. So, to me, I have come to a realisation that sometimes, the dictionary doesnt explain everything. Hence, I categorise my things as u will see as I explain further. So , some I will accept in the dictionary, but some I dont, then comes the issue of Truth. Now truth has been a very interesting topic since my philosophy years. If u accuse me of double standard, I dont blame you, because you are having double standards too. As I reply, u will notice ur double standard and pot calling kettle black.

2) The definition of the scientific method

Are scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses ?

YES or NO

No

Not fully. I believe tat peer review and scrutiny should be included as well

U make a big hoo haa over such a stupid thing and claimed tat I added in definition to the word scientific method. Why don’t u look at wiki on scientific method and see wat it says ?

Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

Tat is why I believe peer review and scrutiny should be included.

Then u said I treat u unfairly and refuse to let u add in definition. Wat do u really wanna add ? Truth must work for EVERYTHING ? TRUTH IS PERFECT ? If u wanna add those definitions in, simple. U have to explain and elaborate why they should be added. If the reason is satisfactory, it could be added. If u just wanna add because u wanna add, then obviously no oneis gonna entertain u.

Like I said, I never said u cannot add peer review and scrutiny. Did I ? I accepted. You seem to be able to add definitions too, so why cant I add mine to make it clearer to my belief in my opinion ? Another case of Pot calling Kettle Black. Another case of YOU CAN I CANT.

3)     Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO

Lets see your earlier usage of “theory”.

What happened to your superior logic ? If your previous statement is already wrong , science is wrong already , and even if u correct it , u cannot negate the fact that it was wrong . Some theories are just so totally different and totally wrong that doesnt relect the truth. Like the Universe rotates around the Earth. Or how the Earth was Flat. If this happens more then onec, there are probably theories right now that are probably wrong, so must accet the possibility of fallacy in thoeries now accepted as correct.

If that is the case, science CANT be body of truths , u have to accept possibilities that the theories may be wrong.

U know wat ? YOUR EXAMPLES R WRONG. THEY r not scientific theories at all. And u cannot pretend and say u r not talking about scientific theories. U states science is wrong, and give examples of “theories” tat went wrong and conclude tat because of your examples, science can’t be body of truth. Tis shows how bad your standard of science is because u cannot tell pseudoscience from science.

Thus when u write an unexplained word theory in the question, I simply answer “Unsure”. And I ask u to quote a scientific theory tat went wrong. Is tat wrong ? Who know wat is your definition of theory ? U change the definition of the words “truth”, “science” “fact” and give off wrong examples of scientific theories. What is wrong with saying “unsure” in tis case ? However again u exaggerate and make a big hoo haa over nothing

Even if they are not scientific theories to you, even though I regard it as theories nevertheless, The pre-Socratic philosophers rejected traditional mythological explanations of the phenomena they saw around them in favor of more rational explanations. These philosophers asked questions about "the essence of things , so they agreed between scholars and intellectuals at the time of the flat earth theory. Back in the day, did it not go through peer review and scrutiny ?

Regardless of it, u requested scientific theories, I showed u a list of Superceded Scientific Theories(4 Feb )

I make a big HOO HAA.. because, u talk so much about how right u are in science, accepting it as a body of truths, but u are not even sure whether theories have been wrong before, so I came to the conclusion that you really dont know ur subject matter well at all.

4)   Scientific Level

Unlike someone, I admit tat I do not know everything about science. However compared to u, it is adequate. First u give wrong scientific theories. Next u claim tat the laws of thermodynamics r wrong in the reply on 4^th Feb 531pm

U know anything about Thermodynamics ? When we were in primary and secondary schools, what did the teachers teach us. Compare it to what UNI taught us. First thing the lecturer said was "WHAT U KNOW ABOUT THERMODYNAMICS.. IS WRONG.. THIS IS THE REAL STUFF"

Transition State Theory.

Tis is wrong. Thermodynamics is still relevant today. In fact there is a whole field of people doing on thermodynamics. U also claimed tat the acceleration of gravity is different from gravity. They r actually the same

When did I say wrong theories are not useful anymore ? Being wrong doesnt mean they will cease all utility function right ? Wrong just means its not the Truth. It may still work in a controlled environment or within its scope. But it can still be applied within the boundries of its given rules. Like Newtons law, wrong, but it still serves a useful utility function in the given context. It doesnt mean it was discarded and totally not used. U get it now ?

5)   Avoiding of issues

A lot of questions had went unanswered.

A lot of questions U have left unanswered as well. But u have not answered them for a long time, so I just overlook them, and focus on the core questions.

Do u agree tat a collective collection of truth studied together can enhance the understanding of the subject ?

ANS

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 ?

ANS

Isn’t true and real answer to a question the truth ? I ask u if u have an sgforum nick Badzmaro and u said yes, tat answer is the truth already isn’t it ? U state tat science can only answer Why and How but they r not truth. However if the answers are, according to u correct, then the answers itself r truth

Nope. Science is the why and how, unravelling the mysteries of the universe. Because the How and Why can be wrong, hence I do not see it as the Truth. For something that can have possibilities of being wrong, I can never see it as a higher standard of Truth, and that is Truth in its absolute terms.

U claim things could be true, but not the truth. Tat means u r proposing there r things in the world tat is true but not truth at the same time. Tat is a contradictory idea since things tat were not truth, will not be true. Again u refuse to answer to tis

Yes, things could be true, but NOT the Truth. Yes. Facts and True things changes. They are subjective. What we base on now may be wrong in the future, hence I am not so fast as to jump to the conclusion that it is the Truth! Simple. Like it is True that u are stupid, given the evidence to support my theory of your stupidity, but it may NOT be the Truth. Get it ? Things that are Truth may not be true. e.g again, Truth that earth is round, true that is is flat and everyone believes it so and thinks and says its true. But Truth doesnt change. It is absolute regardless of perception , belief and knowledge.

And how u avoid the question, u just say your definition of truth in different. It is precisely tat it is different, then u should elaborate why it should elaborate and answer. U said “truth” = actual existence right ? Then reconcile with the above statements otherwise u r just a person with no balls and run away from topics

Yes, I have a higher standard ot Truth. If u cannot grasp it and see the separation, its up to you. U can believe in your true = truth. I am a person with plenty of big balls. I can equally say you are the one with no balls if u want to talk about avoiding questions and not answering them.

6)   Problem with examples

I stated the following examples.

A body of student compared with a body of truth. The usage of the words are the same and it is the dictionary example of how to use the word body

I personally think crate of a good apples is better due to the differences of definitions of truth. Because like I said, your definition of science consists of body of truths. To me, if truths are wrong, it can never be truths. So I simply gave u an example of an analogy to see things in my perspective. But u cant. U cant see why I cannot accept it. I already said, crate of good apples must consists of crate of good apples. Body of Truths, MUST consists of body of my definition of Truths. If it says Mostly body of truths, I may accept. However it fails, hence I cannot accept science as Body of Truths. But if u can , good for you. Did I say u cant ?

Another case of U CAN I CANT. Bravo.. bravo!

Some things could be tolerated while other cannot. Most people would accept changes like HL mlik over daisy low fat milk without problem at all. Tis is in contrast with your example of motors

Oh, so, u can tolerate my maserati engine part into your hyundai engine part resulting in your car not even working at all. If thats what u meant, I got no problem. I personally cant. I need my engine, my car to be functioning according to specifications.

It seems to u to say MOST people. Am I MOST people ? If I eat my Kobe beef, I wanted rare, and u gave me wagynu rare, or I requested NO sauce and u added me some sauce, its NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ME. Like ur Meepok example, if there is NO kueh tiaw, or Meepok, I will NOT eat the meepok or kuehtiaw, unless I am desperate and nothing to eat, I may accept it. But I will NOT consider myself eating meepok or kueh tiaw, its two different dish, two kinds of taste. And yes, even if particular milk brands and low fat, I am still particular. Thats why, this again shows that you can easily accept what it is. I personally have my own beliefs, my own set of principles , my own understanding, and most importablty I know what I want.

U state the following examples:

Maserati engine could not be fitted to a Hyundai engine. U r trying to highlight different things/people could not be fitted to one another

I am trying to highlight differences in beliefs. The core belief and that is Truth. Because the main issue of contention here is the meaning and application of Truth. While the engine, is the integral component of the car. The particular engine part is what that makes the engine run, and resulting in the entire car running according to its specifications.

A crate of apples with some bad one in it. U wanna refer it to science and their body of truth.

Yes. Crate of apples is like a body of truths to me. Hence I gave u an example. U can accept crate of apples with some rotten apples in it and still deem it as a crate of good apples. I cant, I can only accept it as a crate of MOSTLY good apples. I gave u another example. I expected a delivery of 27300 litres of AGO product to my station, however, they cannot gurantee me 27300litres, and they know it, hence the order comes with a +- variance of 0.05% with the given ullage marker for calculation of condensation during discharge from depot to the respective stations. Because I KNOW I cannot gurantee them 27300, I gave them a differences of of variance. Yes. So what if I am specific and down to the detail ? Because if I said 27300, they will sue me, sue Shell.

Thats why I said, if he says Crate of Mostly Good apples, in relation to Body of Truths. If its Mostly body of truths, yes.. I can accept.

Since u r so familiar with your example of the engines, I used it to exaplain some of my points to u. A crate of apples and science r completely different things, like Hyundai engine and Maserati engine. Your example is forcing two different things together which is wrong.

U said

“f 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 ?(6 Feb)

So I used your meepok kueh tiaw INTO your body of truths, showing you that its stupid right ? U agree ? You were the one adding it together. Not me, I am showing you how stupid it is.

And if u r also comparing engines with people values of truth. Using your example, it also highlight tat the engine and truth r also different topics as well and forcing them together is out of point

Then u said tat TWIST my example of Student body consist of MEEPOK and Kueh Tiaaw and completely said I practice unfair standard. U can use my examples, no problem. Of course u have to use it wisely. If u cannot use it wisely, u shouldn’t resort to twisting people example by combining them together. Tat is just shameless

Like I said, if u cannot get my analogy trying to explain to you what I personally think, its not my fault that u cannot use it wisely too regarding my engine and crate of apples, I also suggest in YOUR words “ u shouldn’t resort to twisting people example by combining them together. Tat is just shameless”

7)   Contradictory statements

U have contradictory statements yourself.

"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 tell me, which is it ? U still havent answered me until to day.

U claimed tat gravity is truth, and not truth during different time phrase. U claim tat theory of gravity is a theory and thus u cannot accept it as truth. U claimed tat gravity is truth afterwards. Later u claim again tat acceleration of gravity is not truth again and said acceleration of gravity is not gravity. Tat shows how terrible your science standard is again. The acceleration of gravity is the effect of gravity. Why r they different ? Again u avoid the topic altogether.

Very simple. Again, I shall explain.

Theory OF gravity is True. However Gravity is Truth.

The acceleration of gravity is the effect of gravity

BRAVO! EFFECT of GRAVITY. Thats NOT gravity.. its the effect right ?Acceleration OF gravity is True. However Gravity is Truth. Do u get it now ?

What goes UP must come DOWN = Gravity = Truth

But to question WHY and HOW FAST the UP corresponds with the DOWN is calculated and explained by the Theory OF gravity using the acceleration OF gravity to come up with a scientific value. Accelerations of Gravity differs from planets to planets and is true.

But Gravity, the natural phenomenon EXISTS on each of those planets and is Truth. Gravity itself EXISTS in the universe. It is ABSOLUTE. Its a Truth that regardless of human perception, knowledge and all that stuff, will remain, constant, there , absolute.

Get it ? I really hope u do. If u dont, and continue to equate your definition of Truth into mine, u will NEVER understand.

Then u claimed tat 1+1 is a mathematical truth then later say it is not truth. Isn’t a mathematical truth, truth ? U said tat truth to u is absolute. Then “mathematical truth” should be absolute to u too since u use it after “mathematical”. If u say they r different, then it means one thing. Your definition of “truth” changes whenever u pleased. There is no consistency in your language

U also claimed tat science can never come out with the truth. Later u amend and say tat science could come out with truth. U just keep changing your stand repeatedly throughout the whole thread

Yes, 1+1 is true and a mathematical Truth. A mathematical truth is NOT the Truth. Simple. I am simply talking in YOUR terms. Hoping that you can understand the subtle differences. Mathematical truth is a categorical truth. Thats why I categorise them. E.g Mathematical Truth, Logical Truth.. etc. But for it to be THE TRUTH, that is absolute and work in all conditions and that is quantities in maths, it has failed. I showed u again why, Godel's Theorem. 0/0 = undefined. Those are just but a few.

TO me, science is NOT truth. Science is the How and Why to unravel the mysteries of the universe. If they happen to chance upon a truth, well, good for them. Truth , is already out there. To me, science dont NEED to find that truth. The natural phenomenon is there. Regardless if science discovers it or not.

8) 0/0

Tis is again another joke u created. U claimed tat 0/0 shows tat maths is not truth. However it is labeled as a fallacy and it is nonetheless truth to the physical world. U claimed tat 0 divide by zero is nothing. Tat is again rubbish because there is no logical meaning in dividing by zero. Even if u use zero, nothing, NIL, ZILCH, to divide by zero, there is still no logical meaning to it BECAUSE THERE IS NO LOGICAL INTERPRETATION WITH DIVIDING BY ZERO. U create a big boo boo and disgrace yourself again.

Its very simple. Logically, if u have nothing to divide with nothing, u get nothing. If u cant understand such a simple logic, what else can I say ?

After which u start to attack me with the graph. I told u repeatedly tat it is undefined, and tat it could be anything.

You see, this is also where you have contradictory statement. When I asked u 0/0, u told me if could be:

"STUPIDISMART on the 23rd Jan 1.03pm

I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter."

So I asked u,

Does the graph ever reaches 0 ? YES or NO

You said : No

Beside the point, I am again showing u an OBVIOUS mistake u made. And I have given u time and time again to ommit to it so we can move on. Whatever answer u give, will show u the gravity of your mistake. And from here, I will show that u also dont know your subject matter in science and maths as well.

Then u claimed it is wrong because anything means “anything” u know or I know. Tat is rubbish. U claimed it never cut the graph at zero. I told u repeatedly tat u r treating it as a variableand expect it to cut the graph. Fact is it shouldn’t. The graph at 0 is really at –ve infinity to infinity. And again the idea of “anything” comes from Wikipedia itself

This is where u and I come to disagreement again.

0/0 is undefined. For it to be ANYTHING, u are defining it. And defining something is the exact opposite of undefined. But if u wish to believe undefined = anything , its really up to you.

I told u repeatedly tat u r treating it as a variableand expect it to cut the graph.

When did I say that ? U better be sure. I explicitly said, 0/0 is not a legitimate operation = undefined. And that means definately, it will NOT cut the graph. What are u talking about ? Are u adding words into my mouth again ? Want me to cut n paste out ur previous response ?

But there is another way to explain the division: if we want to find out how many people, which are satisfied with half an apple, can we satisfy with 1 apple, we divide 1 by 0.5. The answer is, of course, 2. Similarly, if we want to know how many people, which are satisfied with nothing, can we satisfy with 1 apple, we divide 1 by 0. And the answer is any number; we can satisfy any number of people, that are satisfied with nothing, with 1 apple.

However again u void the point and repeat. It really shows your desperation

I got no problem with the statements. Right now, this is NOT the point. My point is, plesae, tell me.

1) Zero to Infinity ?

Or

2) Does the graph touch Zero ? No .

ZERO or NO ZERO? Thats it.

And u accuse me of avoiding to answer ur questions. U have avoided a lot, but I am specifically focusing on this one . U will soon understand why. Regardless of it, I will show u the error of your ways.

9)      Definition of truth

U paste and stick many many articles on truth and I have been asking u repeatedly tis question. Wat is the relevance with the topic here ? Wat is your definition ? U CANNOT EVEN PUT IT

Truth = Absolute Existence. I said it AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN. If this is not as short and as concise for you, there is no other way I can explain the definition to you anymore.

CONCISELY IN WORDS. And whenever u have something u cannot answer, u just barrow your head in and say your definition of truth differs. In your last article, u claim tat my truth is

the fourth definition(Your truth), on the other hand, permits the collective opinion of a group, subject matter experts for example, to license a model's representation as truth, a truly scary prospect to ardent truth seekers.

Says who ? U don't even know wat is my definition of truth after all tis while ! My definition is tat truth is simply a noun for “true” or an objective true. And tat it is basically something tat is not shown to be false.

I already said I understood. Yours is simple True = Truth. Noun and Adjective. True propositions to be Truth. Thats it.

Again, you see , very similar doesnt make it THE SAME right ? So why keep using UR definition of Truth in MY BELIEFS ?

I already told you. It cannot work, until u can understand the subtle differences and acknowledge that there is that difference resulting in the way I percieve things as it is, the misunderstandings will continue.

By rejecting thermodynamics, he is actually saying Albert Einstein made a mistake. Even though I am not on your side, I would have to say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is very observable. For example, when something grows older after being made, it will eventually become run down, and not go up into a better state. Animals need to die after living a lifetime, cars get so old they go beyond repair, and to repair the car sometimes you have to replace almost everything and the car will become another car. Hence how can the law of thermodynamics be false if everything regarding it can be observed even without an experiment.

eagle

6 Mar 10, 01:28

Don't you all realise stupidissmart just like to have the last post? He hasn't changed a bit since the last time; he just want to win, even at the expense of looking dumb and not answering to the point, or even avoiding questions.

To the stubborn minded him, what all major scientific bodies says must be the absolute truth, and nothing but the truth. E.g. to him, wikipedia represents the ultimate truth in his internet world when it can be edited by anyone on the net

Moral of the story: Don't waste your time with him la. Time is better spent maintaining and growing a salary which is already twice of what he told me his was last time.

To be fair, scientific theories have been proven wrong before, which is why the advent of a new branch of physics called modern physics. There were other instances like how it was believed that the Earth was square, or how it was believed earlier that nothing can travel faster than sound.