Not to mention that truth has no place in science. (see coyoteman's homepage or posting history)
That being the case, one wonders what the hoopla is all about over the teaching of evolution from the evolutionists. If science isn't about truth, then there's no basis for saying that anybody else's theory, or even opinion, is not true. How can someone proclaim something as fact when they don't even know what truth is?
That being the case, one wonders what the hoopla is all about over the teaching of evolution from the evolutionists. If science isn't about truth, then there's no basis for saying that anybody else's theory, or even opinion, is not true. How can someone proclaim something as fact when they don't even know what truth is?
I've explained this to you at least a dozen times, but you simply are unable to learn.
For the lurkers, what this incorrect and dishonest post is in reference to a definition I have posted on my FR home page, and which I have posted periodically. This deals with the use of the word "truth" in science. It is from a CalTech website, so reflects more than just my opinion.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.While I have explained this a number of times, some folks refuse to listen, and repeatedly and dishonestly try to twist the meaning of the definition.
Lurkers, judge for yourselves.