Posted on 04/05/2009 8:10:35 PM PDT by betty boop
If that isn't correct, then explain why not? Proof is a very high bar to pass, isn't it.
Here I have a theory. Weakened infectious organisms can be injected into a person and it will make them immune to the disease the organism causes. Of course it can never be proved, right?
Are you claiming that in all cases, injections with a weakened infectious organism will make them immune to that organism? Please do a little research and you will find that your theory is not correct in all cases. Falsified.
I have another theory. It is possible for humans to fly in machines that are heavier than air. Can’t be proved though, right?
As a pilot I happen to know that an airplane must constantly displace its weight in air, in straight and level flight. If the plane doesn't displace its weight in air (becoming heavier than the air it displaces) it is no longer capable of sustained flight. Hence I have falsified your theory.
I have another. One day men will be able to fly to the moon and back. Of course science cannot prove that?
Do you know the difference between and observation and a theory? Obviously not. Do you even understand the definition of a theory?
My question: What do you mean by truth?
Your answer: A complete understanding of reality.
Then you know no truth?
I doubt you claim to have “complete understanding of reality,” but do you claim you therefore do not know anything that is true?
It is not necessary to know everything about everything to know many true things. The term for all that one knows that is true is “truth.” When one swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they are not swearing to explain everything there is to know (understand) about reality, are they? Does the word truth in that swearing then mean nothing?
Hank
That is correct. I am guessing that I know some partial truths, that is about as far as it goes : )
When one swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they are not swearing to explain everything there is to know (understand) about reality, are they? Does the word truth in that swearing then mean nothing?
They are swearing to tell the truth as they know it. Their testimony while being truthful, from their perspective, may have no relationship at all to an objective truth. Maybe you need to read some Sherlock Holmes too : )
I think both these questions you are asking are closely related, proof and truth. Aside from trivial examples, I am not capable of the absolute determination of either. There will always be some uncertainty, however small it may be.
“According to you, every time I drop a ball that is ‘proving’ Newton’s law.”
Not according to me, my friend, since I never said it, nor thought it.
“Are you claiming that in all cases, injections with a weakened infectious organism will make them immune to that organism?”
You just love putting thoughts in people’s minds and words in their mouths that were never there. I’m claiming what you know perfectly well. There was great resistance to the idea of vaccination until Jenner proved it’s feasibility. Are you claiming that the possibility of vaccination has never been proven?
“As a pilot I happen to know that an airplane must constantly displace its weight in air, in straight and level flight. If the plane doesn’t displace its weight in air (becoming heavier than the air it displaces) it is no longer capable of sustained flight. Hence I have falsified your theory.”
You may be a pilot but you know nothing about physics. A plane does not “displace it’s weight” (that’s the concept of boyancy, which might work for baloons, but not heavier than air fligh). A planes wing actually creates a force called “lift” (due to the partial vacuum above the wing) a vector force which is opposite the vector gravitational force due to its mass (weight). The plane never weighs any less (except for the immeasurable amount due to its distance from the earth). The only thing you’ve falsified is your wrong theory of flight.
“Do you know the difference between and observation and a theory? Obviously not. Do you even understand the definition of a theory?”
Before there was any space-flight there were countless “scientific papers” presenting “theories” (actually hypotheses) that “proved” space flight was impossible, that enough “lift” could never be produced, etc. etc. There were other theories that suggested space flight was possible, which according to you, could never be proved.
Just exactly what to you think proof is? And how could anything be proved without observation?
Why are you so eager to prove you cannot know anything. By they way, you have completely convince me.
“Then you know no truth?
That is correct.”
Sorry to hear that. Guess there’s no reason to continue our discussion then. I certainly cannot believe anything someone who knows no truth says.
Wish you the best, though.
Hank
Thats the basic principle of communism(socialism).. which is of course WRONG..
Only one of many things wrong with socialism..
2 x 2 = 4 .... any that come up with 5 are simply WRONG...
I am very familiar with Bernoulli’s Principle, but you are forgetting that the wing is a pump that is constantly displacing air equal to the weight of the plane in level flight. Where do you think the 'partial vacuum' (lower pressure actually) comes from?
The plane never weighs any less (except for the immeasurable amount due to its distance from the earth). The only thing you’ve falsified is your wrong theory of flight.
Of course the weight of the plane stays the same. I am talking about the weight of the air that is being displaced behind the wing.
I have a question for you that you may find fun. Why can you blow out a candle more than a foot away, but you can't suck it out more than an inch or so away?
Before there was any space-flight there were countless “scientific papers” presenting “theories” (actually hypotheses) that “proved” space flight was impossible, that enough “lift” could never be produced, etc. etc. There were other theories that suggested space flight was possible, which according to you, could never be proved.
You are doing a very good job making my point that nothing can be proved.
I wouldn't describe it that way. Such a thing is only possible from God's "point of view."
That comports well with my proposed "return to the 'Universal Now' discussion". I do believe I'll pursue that path for now -- and leave the "mutually lethal environments" theme for later -- or elsewhere...
That sounds a whole lot like Pilate's question: What is truth? Pilate asked it at the very moment Truth was standing right in front of him and looking him directly in the face. Pilate didn't even recognize it....
What I mean by Truth is Logos. In both the classical Greek and Christian meanings of that Word.
LOLOL but please do save the "mutually lethal environments" for later!!! Your other proposed topic is ever so much more inviting! And probably much more basic, thus more useful.
Universal Now forces us to think about "the time problem." Our current concepts regarding time may not be sufficient to advance a fuller understanding of Reality.
Betty Boop - I wouldn't describe it that way. Such a thing is only possible from God's "point of view."
I don't think it is possible either. Remember I see truth as a journey or a path if you will. Similar to Taoism.
“What I mean by Truth is Logos. In both the classical Greek and Christian meanings of that Word.”
Well the word only means “word,” in Koine Greek, which is the Greek the Bible was written in, not classical Greek, so don’t know what that would have to do with it.
Very disappointed in you betty boop.
What does the word mean when a parent punishes their child for not telling the truth. Or do you not believe children should be taught to tell the truth? And when the child asks, “what is truth,” your answer will be “Logos, in both the classical Greek and Christian meanings of that Word?”
Good grief gal, I wasn’t asking a theological question, just a simple common sense one. What do you mean by truth. When a news reporter presents some wild story you know can’t be true, and someone remarks, “that’s not the truth,” what does that mean? It certainly doesn’t mean “that’s not Logos in both the classical Greek and Christian meanings of that Word?”
If you cannot explain what you mean about the simplest concepts... oh, never mind.
Hank
Of course, but that does not explain what truth is. If someone said, "2 X 2 = 5" that would be false, and if someone else said "2 X 2 = 4" that would be true. But truth is the attribute that pertains to all true statements.
Truth is simply a quality or attribute and it pertains only to statements or assertions about something. If I simply say, "penguin" or "phoenix" neither is either true or false. They are just ideas or "concepts." Until I say something about them, that is, make a statement or assertion about them, the concept of truth is irrelevant. If I say, "there are penguins in the Antarctic" that is true and an example of truth. If I say, "there are phoenixes in the Antarctic" that is false, and and example of untruth. If I say "the phoenix is an ancient Egyptian mythical creature," that is true and an example of truth.
Truth is nothing more than the concept for the attribute common to all statements or assertions which are true. To regard truth as more than that is an example of the fallacy of reefication.
Hank
TXnMA: That comports well with my proposed "return to the 'Universal Now' discussion". I do believe I'll pursue that path for now -- and leave the "mutually lethal environments" theme for later -- or elsewhere...
Some truth can be true today and false tomorrow.. i.e. timestamped..
other truth is always true.. "Truth" is not as simple as life..
However life defies definition..
Some say Jesus is truth.. Jesus said he was truth..
To humans; truth may remain all wrapped up in Jesus..
Jesus said, "HE was the way, the truth, and the life.."
Could it/that be TRUE?...
Hank, you are trying to spice and dice because you don’t ‘get it.’
Independent thought in this case is thought that is free from the constraints of the threat of eternal damnation and the often illogical set of rules that religion gives one to live by and free from the promise of eternal salvation and all the selfish things that come from such motivation ‘to act.’
I have a feeling you actually do ‘get it,’ but you are too bull headed to admit it.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.