| Author |
|
Todd Hembrough
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 4172
|
| Posted: 21 September 2005 at 7:45pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Welcome back Mike, thought you checked out twice before!
A theory that holds true under all instances becomes a law.
Newton's Laws of Motion or Gravity, or the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics
start out as theories, and become established fact.
Science does say things are facts, and your assertion that it doesnt is simply not so.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian O'Neill
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 741
|
| Posted: 21 September 2005 at 9:29pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
JB:
It's certainly true that one of my earliest "battles" fought on the internet was with a seeming legion of people who had gotten it into their heads that "This is my opinion, and opinions can't be wrong!" Where this nonsense came from I cannot imagine. A further warping of "Everybody is entitled to their opinion"? Or just one more example, if any be needed, of how much the educational system in this country has failed those is is supposed to have served.
The 'warping' you spoke of has turned the phrase into 'Everyone is entitled to my opinion'(with the optional closing, 'and f*** them if they disagree').
The trouble with the 'right to speak one's mind', in the example you gave, is that there are times when the right to remain silent should be observed instead...and an increasing number of people can't tell the difference.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
|
| Posted: 21 September 2005 at 10:19pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
"Science does say things are facts, and your assertion that it doesnt is simply not so."
Still you got to give a guy who probably works the Quickie Mart some props for sounding actually edumuncated.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Mike Tishman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 July 2005
Posts: 229
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 12:32am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
A theory that holds true under all instances becomes a law.
"Law" here is more of a colloquial term. It just means that it's an
extraordinarily well-supported theory, one that's become so axiomatic
that if you don't assume it's true it becomes hard to make any progress
anywhere else. A "law" is not formally different from a theory.
Newton's Laws of Motion or Gravity, or the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics start out as theories, and become established fact.
No, they don't. These particular theories you're trying to use as
examples are especially comical, since Newtonian theory most definitely
does not hold up when you get into areas covered by Einsteinian
relativity.
Science does say things are facts, and your assertion that it doesnt is simply not so.
No, it doesn't, and you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Still you got to give a guy who probably works the Quickie Mart some props for sounding actually edumuncated.
I sound educated because I am educated. On this topic, I'm certainly
better educated than anyone else who's popped up in this thread.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Ian Evans
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 September 2004
Posts: 2433
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 1:17am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mike Tishman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 July 2005
Posts: 229
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 1:19am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Nuh-uh!! It's not like that at all... =P
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Simon Bucher-Jones
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 May 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 835
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 2:44am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Er Newtonian physics works fine as a subcase of Einsteinian physics. To say the later 'disproves' the former is like saying because it rains in the garden, its untrue that it won't rain in the living room.
While the terms 'law' , 'theory' etc are colloquially used even within science, a 'theory' or a 'law' has been bolstered by lots of observable *repeatable* objective facts.
Human interactions and opinions are *more* subjective but even there, there are *objective* facts.
Simon BJ
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Ian Evans
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 September 2004
Posts: 2433
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 3:12am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Of course there are - Mike is arguing that the word 'fact' is meaningless, that there are only degrees of uncertainty, which is a tenable hypothesis for philosophical debate but pretty meaningless when you are dealing with day to day reality
Ah, depends on your definition of reality...and the navel gazing continues....
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Darragh Greene
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 March 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1812
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 3:18am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Hey, I recommend everyone following this debate picks up Simon
Blackburn's Truth: A Guide for the Perplexed which covers this
ground with admirable good sense while avoiding goobleydegook jargon.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eugene Nylander
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 539
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 3:43am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
A good read - but still just an opinion.
....
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tom Melly
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 September 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 5:40am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
There seems to be a slight blurring of the distinction between "fact" and "opinion" in this thread.
Everyone is indeed entitled to an opinion. No opinion can be "wrong"
(since, by definition, an opinion is subjective). What can be wrong are
the facts used to justify an opinion (which, IMHO, would make the
opinion "wrong").
For example, IMHO the existence or non-existence of a god or gods is an
opinion - believers and non-believers may agree on the facts, but quite
legitimately disagree on their opinion in regard to a god or gods
existence. On a more pragmatic level, two programmers may agree on the
cause of a particular bug in a program, but disagree in their opinions
on the best way to resolve the issue.
<sidenote>
Hmm "M is a good person because he helped Z"
Incorrect, M helped Y, not Z.
Now, is the first opinion wrong "M is good" because the fact on which
it was based was wrong, even though it was true in the context of the
true facts?
</sidenote>
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133317
|
| Posted: 22 September 2005 at 5:48am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Tom Melly: No opinion can be "wrong"...**** In my opinion, anyone who thinks that is an idiot. Since "no opinion can be wrong" I guess that means you are an idiot. Right?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
