View Single Post

Default 

November 23rd, 2013, 12:48
Originally Posted by zahratustra View Post
Let's not go too far in your righteous zeal guys? I'm a proponent of TBBT and ToE but neither of them can or should be considered a "scientific fact". Science doesn't deal (despite what you suggest) with "facts". It deals with "proofs". The classification of scientific information includes proven, evolving and borderline science. It also includes a description of fallacious information. TBBT and ToE are evolving sciences but that's perfectly all right. Science is comfortable with "evolving". I wonder why you aren't?

"Does science never absolutely prove anything?"
http://www.nars.org/Voice_of_Science…20Anything.pdf
You say that science doesn't deal with "facts" and then you go on to talk about "proofs". Shows how much you know about the scientific method. As I have made clear throughout this thread (and earlier in the post you comment on!), you should read it before commenting, technically there are no facts *or* proofs in science and can never be, it's just that many scientists, not being that pernickety, tend to refer to the best established theories such as relativity, evolution and big bang as facts, because they are thought to be as close to the truth as we are ever likely to get… It's important not to get too hung up on language, because words are used in different ways in different contexts.

Strictly speaking there is no such thing as an empirical fact - we can never say for certain that unicorns don't exist or that grass is green or anything else that relies on empirical information. But in normal discussions where these technical nuances aren't important it's common to call these things facts - otherwise you might as well drop the word from the English language.
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#248

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 1,006