Horse wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 12:40 pm
OK, so - typically, for any 'thing', at a point in time, at the then current state off that process - how many trues are there?
None (probably). Many can usefully be assumed to be true. I.e. they convincingly explain natural events and/or can be used to predict future events. Until some better theory comes along and shows them to be false and they take their places on the (figurative) shelf alongside phlogiston and the philosopher's stone.
Are we getting into philosophy now?
You can if you like, but I won't thanks.
So, humour me. A few examples of 'things', where true varies.
Bwana wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 8:11 pm
An INFORMED opinion would be nice. Unfortunately the world is filled with uninformed ones. There's a good number of Republican legislators that have some really bizarre ones regrarding many issues. Not many of them are based in science.
That sounds perilously close to you telling me that my opinion is uninformed because it differs from your informed opinion. That's the sort of thing I sometimes say for comic effect, but you seem to be serious,
You may interpret my post as you wish. I was thinking of the sea of ignorance that surrounds me in this country. To be specific, an army of legislators that appear to not know jack shit about any facet of biology. Hence the reference to them in the post you quoted. Fer instance, Yesli Vega, running for Representative, Virginia, thinks that a woman's body might prevent pregnancy from rape. Todd Akin, Rep from Missouri suggests that "legitimate rape" vary rarely leads to pregnancy because their bodies prevent them from doing so. Both of them are uninformed.
Horse wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 1:29 pm
So, humour me. A few examples of 'things', where true varies.
Almost certainly true:
Theory of evolution
Theory of relativity
True(ish)
Newtonian physics
Almost certainly false:
Flat earth theory
In modern science we start with a hypothesis, not a theory. This is subjected to scientific testing using the scientific method and it doesn't become a theory until it has been tested rigorously and shown to be probably true.
Newtonian physics are accurate enough for everyday but not when you get to the very large or very small scale where General Relativity and Special relativity take over. What this means is that Newtonian mechanics is the basically as the building block that General and Special Relativity expand on.
There is no flat Earth theory as it fails at the testing of the hypothesis.
Three of those are theories. They're subject to modification, or abandonment, as new information becomes available.
Er... yes. Wasn't that the point?
If they're theories, are they really true?
The word theory has a different meaning when used in a scientific context. Very few things in science are absolutely certain, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s room for doubt in the fundamentals of most established theories..
But you know this, so not sure what your point is?
The word theory has a different meaning when used in a scientific context. Very few things in science are absolutely certain, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s room for doubt in the fundamentals of most established theories..
But you know this, so not sure what your point is?
That they're theories and subject to modification or abandonment. <-- this statement is true, no? Likewise for methane is flammable. It would appear that theories are neither true nor false. They just fit with the current knowledge base. They're believable or not, see flat earth comment above. Take note of Saga's use of almost certainly.
After yesterdays release of thousands of pages of evidence that Twitter was removing content about Hunter Biden's laptop at the behest of the Biden Campaign (& therefore a direct violation of the First Amendment) any mention of Musk has disappeared from the US media. Well, except one channel...
ZRX61 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 4:42 pm
After yesterdays release of thousands of pages of evidence that Twitter was removing content about Hunter Biden's laptop at the behest of the Biden Campaign (& therefore a direct violation of the First Amendment) any mention of Musk has disappeared from the US media. Well, except one channel...
Assuming that’s true, how is it a violation of the first amendment? Twitter is a private company, they can publish or not publish what they want.
Has Liz Truss joined his advisors?
