Scientific facts do not exist

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

eh. im going with its a process, that does have to do with facts, sometimes.

this whole thread seems retarded tho.

why this need to separate facts from science. just seems gay and sets off my bullshit-dar.

Oh really, the more lies the merrier is not retarded in your book Hat but sharing the fact that there is no such thing as scientific fact you call retarded and after I took the time to answer a question you requested an answer too and stressed you really needed an answer. I guess I answered it much better than you anticipated ...

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

Baking Bread is a science.

Pathetic

No, baking bread is simply baking bread. No science here.

That's because bread (different types even) are successful formulas hence fact and not science. You might not admit it but I think you get it subliminally at least.

[Iolo/Penderyn]

Hypothesis are not facts, they might lead to recognition of fact or falsification of hypothesis but are not facts.

That's what the inverted commas mean. Hypotheses that have not been disproved over a fairly long period are the nearest we get to facts, ever.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Oh really, the more lies the merrier is not retarded in your book Hat but sharing the fact that there is no such thing as scientific fact you call retarded and after I took the time to answer a question you requested an answer too and stressed you really needed an answer. I guess I answered it much better than you anticipated ...

I just don't get your passion in this. it seems like it is a process, of observing, hypothesisizing, experimenting, calculating, refining, in ideas and matter.

what's the harm if I go through life thinking it's a process? a scientific fact process?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

#scientificfact

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

thought experiment a:

if you had a kid, and it came home from school and said, " mommy/daddy, today I learned that facts aren't scientific!", would you feel good about that education?

[Into the Night]

The process of science verifies or falsifies theory as fact.

Nope. No theory is ever proven True. Science does not use supporting evidence at all.

[Into the Night]

I don't even know why I take the time with you, you are deliberately retarded and I'm not a big fan of answering for others deliberate ignorance. The process of science is what leads to verification or falsification slow poke.

...deleted unrelated link...

Insults are a fallacy, dude. Science has no proofs. No theory, whether a scientific one or not, it ever proven True. Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that.

[Into the Night]

Pathetic



That's because bread (different types even) are successful formulas hence fact and not science. You might not admit it but I think you get it subliminally at least.

Baking bread is not a theory. It is simply baking bread.

[Into the Night]

That's what the inverted commas mean. Hypotheses that have not been disproved over a fairly long period are the nearest we get to facts, ever.

A hypothesis is not a theory, nor turns into a theory. They stem from theories, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.

[Into the Night]

I just don't get your passion in this. it seems like it is a process, of observing, hypothesisizing, experimenting, calculating, refining, in ideas and matter.

what's the harm if I go through life thinking it's a process? a scientific fact process?

The harm is turning science into a religion. Only religions use supporting evidence, not science.

[Into the Night]

thought experiment a:

if you had a kid, and it came home from school and said, " mommy/daddy, today I learned that facts aren't scientific!", would you feel good about that education?

Yes.

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

That's what the inverted commas mean. Hypotheses that have not been disproved over a fairly long period are the nearest we get to facts, ever.

Either recognized as falsified or recognized as fact, almost (the process incomplete) doesn't qualify as fact.

[Into the Night]

Either recognized as falsified or recognized as fact, almost (the process incomplete) doesn't qualify as fact.

If something is recognized as fact, it is fact..by definition. The moment someone does not recognize the fact, it is no longer a fact. It becomes an argument.

Science has nothing to do with it.

[Mott the Hoople]

It is either a fact or a science of which science is a process that determines recognition of fact. Once verified or falsified as fact, it's no longer a science.



edited this in fyi "The harnessing of electricity was a science until harnessing electricity became a successful formula thus a fact we harnessed electricity thus no longer a science but a fact. From there what to do with the electricity developed successful formulas which became fact such as the light bulb, radio, television was no longer a science because it became fact. Each new design for each new tv, radio or light bulb for example became fact through a successful formula. You want to create a new television, the science is making a successful formula and once the formula is successful, it is no longer a science but a fact that from that point that the tv exists."

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada

As a person educated in science I can say, without reservation, that this is one of the most wacked out and illogical examples of a circular reasoning logical fallacy I've ever seen. Jeffery...I'm sure your family and loved ones have told you this many times already but you really need to seek professional help.