Should we believe what scientists say? (Page 13)

AchillesSinatra: "Are you an imbecile? "

Yes, will you please take over?

I always feel safer being driven by a chauffeur with experience only in pogo sticks.

AchillesSinatra: Are we agreed yet, Zeffur, that your knowledge of the philosophy of science amounts to Jack Shit?

Or may I see your library?

zeffur: Choose whatever delusion suits you. It's irrelevant to me.

AchillesSinatra: Just answer the question, please.

We could swap books

AchillesSinatra: May I have your books on organic chemistry?

I know absolutely nothing about it.

I'd feel so inadequate lecturing on it.

AchillesSinatra: Know the feeling?

Thought not.

zeffur: In the end all that matters is the position that I've articulated & the confusion that you've revealed in not comprehending such plainly written thoughts/opinions.

Whatever other game you think you've got...it's nothing imo.
Play as you will...my words will remain as they are written--unless you delete them to hide your confusion.

AchillesSinatra: You'e been very clear that science involves itself only in the real, true & provable.

All the rest is pseudoscience and speculation and assumptions.

Now, with regards your accusations of my imbecility.... which category does this fall under?

Enkidu2017: do you have proof of this imbecile claim ?

zeffur: The chief goal of science should be defining the truth. That doesn't mean well researched unproven things can't be documented in another section for others to consider--it just isn't equal to what is proven to be true. Your inability to synthesize all that I've written is your limitation--not mine.

On that note, I'm out of patience today for any more of your limited thinking & feeble tactics.

AchillesSinatra: Does it have derivable consequences?

AchillesSinatra: "The chief goal of science should be defining the truth." - Zeffur

FFS, dude. That's the philosopher's job.


"What is truth?

AchillesSinatra: What do YOU think it is?

zeffur: FFS.. Truth is just what is true. geez..
Bye.

AchillesSinatra: "Truth is just what is true"

Well, yes, and lemurs are lemurs.

True, but kinda uninformative.

"Lemurs are lemurs" isn't gonna help me distinguish a lemur from a wombat, say.

And I don't imagine your own insight "Truth is just what is true" will help you distinguish truth from untruth.

zeffur:
1=1=true
0=1=untrue

If you can't understand & apply that basic logic to lemurs, wombats, & science, then I'm pretty sure no one in here will be able to help you with your mental deficiency...

Your apparent dilemma seems to fit a biblical verse quite well:
"...always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth..." 2 Tim 3:7 KJV

AchillesSinatra: Thought you went to bed, Zeff?

Anyway, I'm going there now.

zeffur: No. I did something else for a bit.

AchillesSinatra: Zeffur

Even after a good night's sleep here, you're still not making much sense.

I wholeheartedly agree with your:

1=1=true
0=1=untrue

(even if somewhat carelessly phrased)

Why, I daresay you could train a parrot to say what you just said.

What you have done is merely provide one example of a true statement and one example of an untrue statement.

What you have not done -- what I asked you to do -- is provide criteria to discriminate between that which is true and that which is untrue.

You might try asking a scientist. After all, on your own account, "science defines truth".



My own guess is that you'll do a little googling, on the grounds you are -- once again -- lecturing on topics you know diddly-squat about.

zeffur: You do the math:

lemur=lemur=true or false??
lemur=wombat=true or false??
science proposition=proven true or proven false or unproven??

e.g.: "All life on earth evolved from a single original organism."
Obviously it is unproven & as close to false as is possible since there is no compelling & convincing evidence to support such a claim & many reasons to indicate it is false.

So easy ^^ everyone except for most evolutionists should be able answer those correctly.

AchillesSinatra: Yes, so easy! Any fool could do it.

Strawberries are strawberries.
Pigeons are pigeons.
A kiss is still a kiss
A sigh is just a sigh.

Alas, you've still done absolutely nothing to help us distinguish that which is true from that which is not.

You just don't get it, dude.

zeffur: See edits above to see if you can understand. If not, sorry, I won't likely be able to help you with your dysfunction.

Enkidu2017: dysfunction junction .......... whats your function .... working out problems and cognitive dissonance ............

zeffur: I learned about parts of speech from Schoolhouse Rock!
Also about the process a bill takes to become a law in the US!

zeffur: re: "Achilles942: ...provide criteria to discriminate between that which is true and that which is untrue."

Obviously, to make a determination about what is proven true, proven false, or unproven, the available facts must be honestly considered & logic & reason applied properly to arrive at a final honest conclusion. You playing dumb about such steps is disingenuous & frankly, quite a tedious tactic in this forum. Why is it that you don't understand the obvious?

The problem in science today is that there are too many dishonest schmucks misinterpreting & misrepresenting the facts to promote their shite beliefs & pretending what they believe is true. That IS what needs to be rooted out of science or as a minimum corralled into a separate section for unproven rubbish (because--yes, some of it is just that--rubbish). Those other ideas that have merit but are currently unprovable, unfortunately have to dwell in that same section as the likes of evolution idiocy--but, that's just the way it has to be if we can't root out the support biases that atheists bring to the evolution game.