Is Fact Scientific?

[fritzd]

---

Anyway, I don't mean any disrespect. That is just what I think. For me, facts are ideas backed by scientific observation. It's a fact that a rock and paper fall at the same rate in vacuum. It is a fact that light can be both a wave and a particle. This is what I believe. You may be right in your own context. peace!
--- yes this is what i am pointing out. "WHAT IF EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM?" Can we still call it scientific?

Interesting point, but can you be more specific? Maybe a concrete example.

[vern]

An argument based on semantics is so, so useless and is a waste of brain power. Bottom line is ...

1. Scientific observations do not necessarily make things factual. Hence, evolution is a theory, not a fact. There are supporting observations that support evolution, but it is still a theory.
2. Contrary to what most people here seem to suggest, science does not claim to be factual, it just tells the world ... "here I am, this is how I got here, accept me or don't". Science is not always right. Science is the process to finding the truth, not the outcome.
3. I can and will disagree with rodsky. I picked this quote up from the internets ... and I believe it is very appropriate in this case ... "Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. QED isn’t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about that."
4. @atheista ... the quote under my name applies most of all to you for even starting this little debate. While you may be able to distract others about the semantics of science, there are others out there actually doing real science.

[kalanrakas]

i think those are facts ,.,.

dolphins are afraid of sharks .
tons of dust are actually falling to earth from space every year.
n more...

the second fact is fact. the first is completely the opposite. sharks are afraid of dolphins because dolphins and their cousin orcas hunt sharks.

[kalanrakas]

"God created the universe" is a fact unless disproved by science.

Oh? So it's now the burden of science to prove or disprove religious beliefs?

That "God created the universe" is a religious belief and is not a fact. A fact is what is generally accepted as reality.

What is fact is that some religions hold the belief that god created the universe. Whether or not they are correct is an entirely different thing.

[rodsky]

this is not fact rod. That is your claim.

Hold on just a sec. Did I say it was a fact? Magaling ka magsubo ng words into someone else's mouth.

Dili sila patas rod. Because billions of people believe in the existence of God/gods... I hope you are sticking with your sources...

Eh? Just because billions of people believe in something makes it true and the FINAL answer? 500 years ago billions of people believed that the Earth was the center of the solar system, now proven to be false. 1000 years ago millions of people believed that the Earth was FLAT, now proven to be false. Do you want me to go on?

rod, i give you good example of "EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM"

if the earth is Billions of Years Old. Our moon is moving farther away every year... scientist calculated, by millions of years before, moon kissed the earth.
* scientifically flawed.

If big bang occured, what made nothing explode?
* scientifically and logically impossible.

Elements are needed that create the Sun, sun produce these elements.
* chicken and egg problem. Not acceptable in scientific method.

If earth comes from a source of hot materials that cooldown...
*Earth is covered with 71% water. How in the world did water survive with heat.

Rod pst me, if you got answers...

How can you possibly understand my answers to your questions without having a solid background in the basic natural sciences and physics? For instance, your first question. If you can explain to me the fundamentals of celestial mechanics, I don't even need to answer your question, because you yourself can answer it--the only reason why you CAN'T answer it is because you lack the basic fundamentals of orbital mechanics. It's that simple--you can't cut wood without a saw. A saw is a tool, just as science is a tool--without the proper tool, you cannot answer your own questions.

-RODION

[YJOB]

perhaps in the year 3000 there could be a context saying:

A thousand years ago, millions of people believed that Darwin's theory of evolution is a fact, now proven to be false.

[athiesta]

Interesting point, but can you be more specific? Maybe a concrete example.

read here

https://www.istorya.net/forums/scienc...ml#post6703323

[athiesta]

Hold on just a sec. Did I say it was a fact? Magaling ka magsubo ng words into someone else's mouth.

Sorry rod, This statement implies your claim is EQUAL to facts.

Similarly, I can make this claim:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe is a fact, unless disproven by science.

Implication:
claim <> fact / claim != fact

Eh? Just because billions of people believe in something makes it true and the FINAL answer? 500 years ago billions of people believed that the Earth was the center of the solar system, now proven to be false. 1000 years ago millions of people believed that the Earth was FLAT, now proven to be false. Do you want me to go on?

That is why you cannot use science to serve your interest.

How can you possibly understand my answers to your questions without having a solid background in the basic natural sciences and physics? For instance, your first question. If you can explain to me the fundamentals of celestial mechanics, I don't even need to answer your question, because you yourself can answer it--the only reason why you CAN'T answer it is because you lack the basic fundamentals of orbital mechanics. It's that simple--you can't cut wood without a saw. A saw is a tool, just as science is a tool--without the proper tool, you cannot answer your own questions.
-RODION

aw, you have answers... lets present it on the scientific community... rod, i saw this episode and they just could not figure out in the past few decade what are the answers to those. Now, you here tell me you know the answer? Wheres the answer? orbital mechanics? Well I have my answer rod, but i consider understanding.

Rod this is science section. This is supposed to be a branch of knowledge. How can we share ideas if this science of yours is governed by one person?

Science is governed by humanity not dictated by one's belief or speculation.


because you lack the basic fundamentals of orbital mechanics.
* this is where it all falls, you know better than us... The thread never implies any orbital mechanics or astrophysics. Don't get too technical rod. Sometimes I do this to find my excuse...

Sorry I am new to this section. Is it ok to question a moderator. I just noticed, the moderator goes beyond the idea of MODERATION. I hope we have the same definition of this term.

[athiesta]

perhaps in the year 3000 there could be a context saying:

A thousand years ago, millions of people believed that Darwin's theory of evolution is a fact, now proven to be false.

This is why the jews were exterminated, because they are inferior. This claim is backed up by science... hitlers science...

[athiesta]

@atheista ... the quote under my name applies most of all to you for even starting this little debate. While you may be able to distract others about the semantics of science, there are others out there actually doing real science.

sorry vern, I am questioning his position as moderator. Science is about sharing and knowing. Not telling others you know better. I cannot even find a very good thread on this very interesting section. I did not want to start any debate I want to share my point. But somebody is telling me its fac! PERIOD.

He should explain why... rather than putting a bar without explaining why. Sometimes we get tired of what we do, sometimes reasonable people ask and sometimes good people go bad. Is there a way we can make consideration?