If you don’t understand the difference between saying that something is true, and saying that there is a possibility of something being true, you offer no value in scientific discourse.
Says the person who thinks a single data point with no control is a “test”, to someone who is a well published Doctor of Chemistry and has been practicing science for the last 15 years.
Yeah buddy, you go ahead and say I’m the one offering no value to scientific discourse. How many peer-reviewed papers have you published?
Since we’re doing appeal to authority, fewer than John von Neumann, who had the humility to believe as I do that “Truth… is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations”
I approximate that astrology is bullshit based on nothing. So far the data backs me up and no one has found any positive data in it’s favour. Astrology is conman crap, always has been.
Are you going to start telling me evolution doesn’t exist, because it’s just a theory next?
Buddy, I don’t believe in astrology. I do believe in evolution. These are personal beliefs based on an overwhelming mountain of evidence.
However, I would never say astrology is absolutely false, or evolution absolutely true because, as I’ve said, that’s brain rot. Absolute certainty is a poison. Sure, it seems justified with something like astrology, but once people get into the habit of declaring absolutes based on present evidence, that balloons into pernicious bullshit like astrology. It’s bad practice.
I don’t oppose tending towards the evidence, I overwhelming support it. I don’t make decisions in my life based on astrology. What I do oppose is promoting bad cognitive habits like absolute declarations about reality.
I’m sure you are an excellent chemist, and a successful scholarly author, but 100% fact is not attainable. 99.999%? Sure. But there’s always a fraction of a percent chance that you’re in a simulation, or hallucinating, or that some hyper-advanced entity is playing an elaborate trick on you. All vanishingly small, infinitesimal even, but non-zero.
Sorry to burst your bubble but science is just an explanation for our reality as we perceive it. It does not matter if we are in a simulation, or collectively hallucinating. In our perceived reality evolution is 100% fact. Gravity is 100% fact. Carbon having 6 protons is 100% fact. 2+2 = 4 is 100% fact. Hydrogen reacting with oxygen at high temperature to form water is 100% fact.
Dude, there are absolute facts in science, many of them.
2+2 = 4 is 100% fact because it’s just mathematics, purely conceptual, and defined as such. Math isn’t science. Carbon having 6 protons is a 100% fact because that’s the definition of carbon, so if it doesn’t have 6 protons we don’t call it carbon. Definitions, even definitions used in science, are not themselves science. Those are human concepts, you can certainly have 100% certainty with man-made concepts.
Reality itself is not a purely human concept, we did not invent it. Extremely likely theories to explain reality with mountains of consistent evidence are the closest we can get to 100% certainty. I’d bet my life on an extremely likely theory with mountains of consistent evidence, but it is still technically a bet.
Consult your peers, see what they think about claiming 100% certainty. This conversation is going nowhere. I’m sorry for your mindset, and I hope it doesn’t affect your work.
If you don’t understand the difference between saying that something is true, and saying that there is a possibility of something being true, you offer no value in scientific discourse.
Says the person who thinks a single data point with no control is a “test”, to someone who is a well published Doctor of Chemistry and has been practicing science for the last 15 years.
Yeah buddy, you go ahead and say I’m the one offering no value to scientific discourse. How many peer-reviewed papers have you published?
Since we’re doing appeal to authority, fewer than John von Neumann, who had the humility to believe as I do that “Truth… is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations”
I approximate that astrology is bullshit based on nothing. So far the data backs me up and no one has found any positive data in it’s favour. Astrology is conman crap, always has been.
Are you going to start telling me evolution doesn’t exist, because it’s just a theory next?
Buddy, I don’t believe in astrology. I do believe in evolution. These are personal beliefs based on an overwhelming mountain of evidence.
However, I would never say astrology is absolutely false, or evolution absolutely true because, as I’ve said, that’s brain rot. Absolute certainty is a poison. Sure, it seems justified with something like astrology, but once people get into the habit of declaring absolutes based on present evidence, that balloons into pernicious bullshit like astrology. It’s bad practice.
I don’t oppose tending towards the evidence, I overwhelming support it. I don’t make decisions in my life based on astrology. What I do oppose is promoting bad cognitive habits like absolute declarations about reality.
Except astrology is absolutely bullshit. It has been proven time and time again.
And evolution is actually scientific fact, the theory is just about how it occurs, but the fact it occurs is 100% fact.
There are truths in science, the fact you are unaware of that shows why you don’t know shit about science.
I’m sure you are an excellent chemist, and a successful scholarly author, but 100% fact is not attainable. 99.999%? Sure. But there’s always a fraction of a percent chance that you’re in a simulation, or hallucinating, or that some hyper-advanced entity is playing an elaborate trick on you. All vanishingly small, infinitesimal even, but non-zero.
100% certainty is incompatible with science.
It is.
Sorry to burst your bubble but science is just an explanation for our reality as we perceive it. It does not matter if we are in a simulation, or collectively hallucinating. In our perceived reality evolution is 100% fact. Gravity is 100% fact. Carbon having 6 protons is 100% fact. 2+2 = 4 is 100% fact. Hydrogen reacting with oxygen at high temperature to form water is 100% fact.
Dude, there are absolute facts in science, many of them.
2+2 = 4 is 100% fact because it’s just mathematics, purely conceptual, and defined as such. Math isn’t science. Carbon having 6 protons is a 100% fact because that’s the definition of carbon, so if it doesn’t have 6 protons we don’t call it carbon. Definitions, even definitions used in science, are not themselves science. Those are human concepts, you can certainly have 100% certainty with man-made concepts.
Reality itself is not a purely human concept, we did not invent it. Extremely likely theories to explain reality with mountains of consistent evidence are the closest we can get to 100% certainty. I’d bet my life on an extremely likely theory with mountains of consistent evidence, but it is still technically a bet.
Consult your peers, see what they think about claiming 100% certainty. This conversation is going nowhere. I’m sorry for your mindset, and I hope it doesn’t affect your work.