I did think about it before I posted it.
If you have any objection to what I posted, just tell us what it is.
Imagination.
- Thread starter Beaconator
- Start date
If you have any objection to what I posted, just tell us what it is.
Science is not about a vote on what is ....consensus is bull shit science .
Science gets down to the facts and then lets the facts guide the thinking . The Universe is what it is . Figure out the Universe as it is .
I didn't say a word about voting and consensus is not about voting.
Science requires consensus because there is no absolute "truth". We have to agree on what is true and what is not.
Yes, that's the "interpretation of the evidence" that we were talking about. "Letting the facts" guide the thinking is forming a consensus about what the facts mean.
Last edited:
If you want an answer, you're going to have to say somethi8ng coherent.
Its clear to me .
Tell me specifically what you don't understand . Break it down to each question .
You said in post #184, "Now what forms the thinking on the facts ?" What does that mean?
What philosophy , are you bringing towards the understanding of the facts ?
Understanding of the facts requires a consensus, so no philosophy can dominate. If a philosophy, say creationism, can not accommodate, say the fact of evolution, then that philosophy can not have a place in the discussion.
Highlighted
Wrong . The understanding of the facts means finding the truth that the facts give(s) you . Whether this " consensus " think so or not . I don't care about any consensus . Just give the truth , that the facts give , objectively .
Philosophy is the essence of discussion . PHD , Doctorate in Philosophy , in any field , ology .
Wrong. The facts don't bring you individual "truth".
And the consensus doesn't care what you think.
The facts may be objective but interpretation of the facts is more complex. As Sherlock Holmes used to say, you can not reach a valid conclusion without enough facts.
For example:
There's a dead body on the floor. Objectively, there are no vital signs. Objectively, there's a hole where the heart would be. Objectively, there's a man standing over the body with a smoking gun in his hand.
What do you conclude?
You can not conclude that the standing man is the murderer. You can not conclude that the smoking gun was the murder weapon. You can not even conclude that the gun was the cause of death or that the death was murder. There are not enough objective facts.
You need to interpret the objective facts in order to decide which direction your further investigation will take - e.g. - you need an autopsy to find the actual cause of death.
What do you conclude?
You can not conclude that the standing man is the murderer. You can not conclude that the smoking gun was the murder weapon. You can not even conclude that the gun was the cause of death or that the death was murder. There are not enough objective facts.
You need to interpret the objective facts in order to decide which direction your further investigation will take - e.g. - you need an autopsy to find the actual cause of death.
And as a general rule, you can not be objective all by yourself. You need somebody to point out your biases. (As Jesus said, to take the beam out of your eye so you can see the speck of dust clearly.)
So even if you don't care about consensus, it is a vital part of science.
Nonsense. Discussion began long before philosophy.
Considering all the facts you've been given over the years and yet you persist in posting unmitigated bullshit, then it's obviously you that's wrong. Again.
Not to me . And wrong about what exactly ?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I conclude that the truth is that there's a dead body, no vital signs, and a hole where the heart would be. Those are absolute truths!
Just because you can't prove the man standing there did the killing doesn't mean there isn't absolute truths. You just explained what the truths are. That you can't prove the ice-cream man did it does not take away from the truths.
"Science" as in the practicing scientists, is corrupt! Religion and politics has infiltrated science. Combine that with people who would do or say anything to keep their job and cash rolling in, and what you have on your hands is a bunch of corrupt people publishing BS in order to further their personal, political, and religious agendas. Sprinkle all that with a dash of fake experimental evidence to desired taste! Fudge Factor for dessert!
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
In your head you can have whatever opinions you wish, but if you say them out loud, you'll be expected to defend them.