| who decides 21:24 - Aug 17 with 2156 views | Boundy |
when does a theory become a fact |  |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |  |
| who decides on 18:21 - Aug 18 with 876 views | shingle |
Neither is an option unless of course the afternoon turns out to be exceptionally windy. | | | |
| who decides on 18:21 - Aug 18 with 876 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
| who decides on 18:14 - Aug 18 by Whiterockin |
But what if you are colour blind, does fact become an opinion. |
Colour blind people can still see colours. I am very colour blind and apart from potting the odd brown on a snooker table instead of a red it doesn’t affect me at all. |  |
| |
| who decides on 22:51 - Aug 18 with 830 views | Catullus |
| who decides on 10:28 - Aug 18 by felixstowe_jack |
There was nobody around to have any theories millions of years ago it was just a fact. |
It wasn't a fact millions of years ago though, unless dinosaurs said so!
A theory become a fact when it is proven, surely?
If I had a theory 3 posters on here were the same person, if it's proven to be true it becomes a fact, not a rule.
In science isn't it generally decided by a concensus of your peers? | |
| |
| who decides on 23:12 - Aug 18 with 824 views | Kerouac |
| who decides on 22:51 - Aug 18 by Catullus |
It wasn't a fact millions of years ago though, unless dinosaurs said so!
A theory become a fact when it is proven, surely?
If I had a theory 3 posters on here were the same person, if it's proven to be true it becomes a fact, not a rule.
In science isn't it generally decided by a concensus of your peers? |
No.
Some things are just true, regardless of whether someone has a theory about it or not.
A person comes along, observes something, makes an assertion that they have just observed something that is true (a hypothesis) and then it is put to the test, providing the evidence.
We might then accept it as a fact, but it was a fact before a human ever came along and observed it.
In 1905 a concensus of Scientific peers (in Germany) denied Einstein's theories on;
- Photoelectric effect
- Brownian motion
- Special relativity
- Mass—energy equivalence (E=MC2)
https://bigthink.com/the-past/
Over the coming years the evidence that Einstein was right mounted up.
People's opinions and the approval of your peers are vastly over-rated.
Evidence is where it's at.
Now where is your evidence for your ludicrous hypothesis?
"If I had a theory 3 posters on here were the same person, if it's proven to be true it becomes a fact, not a rule." [Post edited 18 Aug 2022 23:27]
|  |
| |
| who decides on 23:27 - Aug 18 with 817 views | magicdaps10 |
| who decides on 23:12 - Aug 18 by Kerouac |
No.
Some things are just true, regardless of whether someone has a theory about it or not.
A person comes along, observes something, makes an assertion that they have just observed something that is true (a hypothesis) and then it is put to the test, providing the evidence.
We might then accept it as a fact, but it was a fact before a human ever came along and observed it.
In 1905 a concensus of Scientific peers (in Germany) denied Einstein's theories on;
- Photoelectric effect
- Brownian motion
- Special relativity
- Mass—energy equivalence (E=MC2)
https://bigthink.com/the-past/
Over the coming years the evidence that Einstein was right mounted up.
People's opinions and the approval of your peers are vastly over-rated.
Evidence is where it's at.
Now where is your evidence for your ludicrous hypothesis?
"If I had a theory 3 posters on here were the same person, if it's proven to be true it becomes a fact, not a rule." [Post edited 18 Aug 2022 23:27]
|
On the basis that one poster on here was actually 3, it doesn't need to be proven for it to be fact though.
If that person is 3 posters then without proof it's still a fact that person is 3 posters.
So in theory, something doesn't have to be proven or produced to prove it to be true or a fact.
So ultimately no evidence needs to be produced to prove a fact if it is a fact 🤷â€â™‚ï¸ |  |
| |
| who decides on 23:32 - Aug 18 with 816 views | Kerouac |
| who decides on 23:27 - Aug 18 by magicdaps10 |
On the basis that one poster on here was actually 3, it doesn't need to be proven for it to be fact though.
If that person is 3 posters then without proof it's still a fact that person is 3 posters.
So in theory, something doesn't have to be proven or produced to prove it to be true or a fact.
So ultimately no evidence needs to be produced to prove a fact if it is a fact 🤷â€â™‚ï¸ |
My God!
I suppose it made sense to you...it certainly sheds some light on the way someone like you thinks and explains some of your stances on here.
You have of course just demonstrated, unwittingly, why a 'theory' is never a 'fact' and why 'evidence' is king.
To be clear (I thought I already had been clear, but there you go)...
It is on the person who has observed something they believe to be true to prove it...which is possible, if it is true.
- 3 posters maybe 1
and
- 3 posters can equally be 3 highly amused individuals who have got under happy clapper's skins by making similar observations.
Both statements could be true, it is up to the observer/thinker who has been confident enough to make such assertions to prove those assertions are correct with evidence.
I have the evidence that you are wrong. I would bet that Keith has different evidence that proves you are wrong.
Where is your evidence? [Post edited 18 Aug 2022 23:44]
| |
| |
| who decides on 10:27 - Aug 19 with 757 views | Catullus |
No.
Some things are just true, regardless of whether someone has a theory about it or not.
Those are kerouacs words, that must explain why so many things that were once accepted as facts have been changed over the centuries eh, because someone had a theory that was eventually proven to be fact.
It used to a fact that the sun rotated around the Earth, and here are some more "facts" that aren't factual,
https://www.worldatlas.com/art
For a fact to be a FACT it doesn't have to be true, not if everbody believes it and that's right up until somebody with a theory comes along and oher people gain more evidence and we realise the theory is actually the fact.
PS, there have been plenty of posters on here with other, secret usernames and what they all shared in common was denying that they had other usernames, until it was proven. Anybody can use a VPN to try and prove they are in a different place, amongst other methods. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| who decides on 10:46 - Aug 19 with 734 views | Kerouac |
| who decides on 10:27 - Aug 19 by Catullus |
No.
Some things are just true, regardless of whether someone has a theory about it or not.
Those are kerouacs words, that must explain why so many things that were once accepted as facts have been changed over the centuries eh, because someone had a theory that was eventually proven to be fact.
It used to a fact that the sun rotated around the Earth, and here are some more "facts" that aren't factual,
https://www.worldatlas.com/art
For a fact to be a FACT it doesn't have to be true, not if everbody believes it and that's right up until somebody with a theory comes along and oher people gain more evidence and we realise the theory is actually the fact.
PS, there have been plenty of posters on here with other, secret usernames and what they all shared in common was denying that they had other usernames, until it was proven. Anybody can use a VPN to try and prove they are in a different place, amongst other methods. |
Dear, dear.
It was never true that the Sun rotated around the earth, it was always true that the earth rotated around the Sun.
The majority of humans accepted a theory that wasn't true because they were ignorant.
It has subsequently been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth rotates around the Sun, the evidence became irrefutable long ago.
You are proving for me that a popular theory supported by the majority is not to be trusted without hard evidence.
There IS a reality, there ARE truths. To improve life for humans it is our job to deeper our understanding of the universe and collect truths by;
- thinking
- making observations
- coming up with a hypothesis
- and then proving or disproving it
Every time a human reveals something that is true by supplying evidence to support their ideas and showing that their theory works in reality, they are remembered for all time (Archimedes, Pythagoras, Isaac Newton, Rutherford, Albert Einstein and thousands of others).
Reality does not depend on your perspective, reality is reality.
Our understanding of what reality is changes due to perspective.
P.S.
"PS, there have been plenty of posters on here with other, secret usernames and what they all shared in common was denying that they had other usernames, until it was proven. Anybody can use a VPN to try and prove they are in a different place, amongst other methods."
If I made a similar baseless allegation about you, Fireboy, STID, MagicDaps etc. you would deny it wouldn't you...but by your own logic (...and Daps') my mere accusation would be enough for people to accept the idea as true. Wouldn't it.
I am being extremely polite and tolerant of you here, for the sake of Keith's site...you, as an individual (and the rest of the group), honestly, do not deserve my polite tolerance.
In effect, the moderation of this site, which tolerates such trolling, is protecting you from the consequences of your actions.
Like a child shielded by an adult from reality. [Post edited 19 Aug 2022 10:59]
| |
| |
| who decides on 11:07 - Aug 19 with 713 views | Catullus |
A fact s something that is "known or proved to be true" and for centuries people knew certain things were facts, they knew them to be true, then people with theories proved very many facts weren't true and established new facts.
Even today facts are often being disproved and new facts take their place.
Other facts are simply misconceptions, for example, Everest is not the tallest mountain on the planet, Coffee is not made from beans and you cannot see the Great wall of China from space but still, many people believe they are facts. | |
| |
| who decides on 12:55 - Aug 19 with 699 views | shingle |
| who decides on 10:46 - Aug 19 by Kerouac |
Dear, dear.
It was never true that the Sun rotated around the earth, it was always true that the earth rotated around the Sun.
The majority of humans accepted a theory that wasn't true because they were ignorant.
It has subsequently been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth rotates around the Sun, the evidence became irrefutable long ago.
You are proving for me that a popular theory supported by the majority is not to be trusted without hard evidence.
There IS a reality, there ARE truths. To improve life for humans it is our job to deeper our understanding of the universe and collect truths by;
- thinking
- making observations
- coming up with a hypothesis
- and then proving or disproving it
Every time a human reveals something that is true by supplying evidence to support their ideas and showing that their theory works in reality, they are remembered for all time (Archimedes, Pythagoras, Isaac Newton, Rutherford, Albert Einstein and thousands of others).
Reality does not depend on your perspective, reality is reality.
Our understanding of what reality is changes due to perspective.
P.S.
"PS, there have been plenty of posters on here with other, secret usernames and what they all shared in common was denying that they had other usernames, until it was proven. Anybody can use a VPN to try and prove they are in a different place, amongst other methods."
If I made a similar baseless allegation about you, Fireboy, STID, MagicDaps etc. you would deny it wouldn't you...but by your own logic (...and Daps') my mere accusation would be enough for people to accept the idea as true. Wouldn't it.
I am being extremely polite and tolerant of you here, for the sake of Keith's site...you, as an individual (and the rest of the group), honestly, do not deserve my polite tolerance.
In effect, the moderation of this site, which tolerates such trolling, is protecting you from the consequences of your actions.
Like a child shielded by an adult from reality. [Post edited 19 Aug 2022 10:59]
|
Lol you now need to go on to his views on the German invasion of Russia, but be warned as they may very well tip you over the edge. | | | |
| who decides on 13:00 - Aug 19 with 695 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| who decides on 11:07 - Aug 19 by Catullus |
A fact s something that is "known or proved to be true" and for centuries people knew certain things were facts, they knew them to be true, then people with theories proved very many facts weren't true and established new facts.
Even today facts are often being disproved and new facts take their place.
Other facts are simply misconceptions, for example, Everest is not the tallest mountain on the planet, Coffee is not made from beans and you cannot see the Great wall of China from space but still, many people believe they are facts. |
You seem to be confusing facts with things people believe to be true.
They aren’t the same thing. |  |
| |
| who decides on 23:49 - Aug 19 with 651 views | Catullus |
| who decides on 12:55 - Aug 19 by shingle |
Lol you now need to go on to his views on the German invasion of Russia, but be warned as they may very well tip you over the edge. |
Theyweren't my views about the German invasion of Russia though, were they. They were my views about the possible outcome if Germany had gotten the quick victory Hitler craved.
If you change a part of history, anything is possible. | |
| |
| who decides on 00:12 - Aug 20 with 643 views | Jack123 |
| who decides on 11:07 - Aug 19 by Catullus |
A fact s something that is "known or proved to be true" and for centuries people knew certain things were facts, they knew them to be true, then people with theories proved very many facts weren't true and established new facts.
Even today facts are often being disproved and new facts take their place.
Other facts are simply misconceptions, for example, Everest is not the tallest mountain on the planet, Coffee is not made from beans and you cannot see the Great wall of China from space but still, many people believe they are facts. |
Wow, regarding the tallest mountain in the world, if someone asked me that, I would always say Everest, never even heard of this before:
World’s tallest mountain
Mt. Everest, at 8,850 meters (29,035 feet) above sea level, undeniably claims the point of highest altitude in the world. The title of “tallest mountain in the word”, however, as measured from the base to its peak, belongs to Mauna Kea which has an altitude of only 4,205 meters (13,796 feet) above sea level. |  |
| |
| who decides on 07:43 - Aug 20 with 628 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| who decides on 23:08 - Aug 17 by Kerouac |
Evidence.
What constitutes suitable evidence depends on the hypothesis.
It is possible for something we once considered to be a fact to be wrong and be superseded of course...but in order for that to happen the onus is on the person proposing a new hypothesis to supply irrefutable evidence (based on the knowledge of the day).
If they can do that and it can be demonstrated that the new fact works when tested, in reality, it is a fact...until somebody else with a new hypothesis can prove by supplying irrefutabl...etc. |
Based on the knowledge of the day is the key phrase. When you look at things from that perspective laws can be rescinded when knowledge broadens. So a lot of theories that are accepted now as laws or rules could possibly be overruled.
Agree 100% |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| who decides on 12:28 - Aug 20 with 612 views | Kerouac |
| who decides on 07:43 - Aug 20 by Brynmill_Jack |
Based on the knowledge of the day is the key phrase. When you look at things from that perspective laws can be rescinded when knowledge broadens. So a lot of theories that are accepted now as laws or rules could possibly be overruled.
Agree 100% |
Yep, 100% agree.
There is such a thing as reality, and there are truths.
Humanity is engaged in trying to broaden our knowledge and discover truths.
Sometimes we discover that something is true and it will be true for all time and sometimes we discover things that on the surface appears to be true and works for us in practice...but we haven't quite got to the truth and there is more to learn.
The onus is on those who are trying to replace what we know to be true with their new theory/hypothesis to provide the evidence...
We have to go with the hard evidence, whatever field we are talking about - Science, Maths, Medicine, technology, History, Politics, Social Policy etc.
Evidence is king...and opinions/identities/beliefs aren't worth very much.
You will get those who say, what about morality?
If the science says Eugenics is the best way forward we still shouldn't go down that path because it is immoral...and I have sympathy with that position.
My answer is that we should shape our morality, as best we can (it will never be perfect), to best fit the evidence before us.
There will always be grey areas and we should have some red lines...Eugenics for example...but if our 'morality' largely goes against the hard evidence (For me this is the weakness of Islam and Marxism/Socialism...you are essentially engaged in a tussle with reality, nobody can ever live up to the ideals of those ideologies, because we are human and because the evidence before us contradicts the ideals of those philosophies...some would argue that Christianity has the same problem, I would argue 'yes, but it is a better fit with reality than those other two ideologies'...it is imperfect, but a better fit - saying that, I am not about to renounce my sin and become a Catholic again! I just see the value that the Christian religion gave to our societies a whole lot clearer now) | |
| |
| who decides on 13:28 - Aug 20 with 600 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
| who decides on 00:12 - Aug 20 by Jack123 |
Wow, regarding the tallest mountain in the world, if someone asked me that, I would always say Everest, never even heard of this before:
World’s tallest mountain
Mt. Everest, at 8,850 meters (29,035 feet) above sea level, undeniably claims the point of highest altitude in the world. The title of “tallest mountain in the word”, however, as measured from the base to its peak, belongs to Mauna Kea which has an altitude of only 4,205 meters (13,796 feet) above sea level. |
It’s all semantics. How do you decide where everests “base” is anyway? The Himalayas are absolutely massive. No doubt the roots go deep. There’s also another mountain that due to the elliptical shape of Earth is further away from the Earths core so they try to claim that is higher than Everest.
It’s all bollocks really. | |
| |
| who decides on 13:29 - Aug 20 with 599 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
| who decides on 23:49 - Aug 19 by Catullus |
Theyweren't my views about the German invasion of Russia though, were they. They were my views about the possible outcome if Germany had gotten the quick victory Hitler craved.
If you change a part of history, anything is possible. |
Yep anything is possible which is why it’s impossible to speculate what would have happened. | |
| |
| who decides on 13:30 - Aug 20 with 598 views | shingle |
| who decides on 23:49 - Aug 19 by Catullus |
Theyweren't my views about the German invasion of Russia though, were they. They were my views about the possible outcome if Germany had gotten the quick victory Hitler craved.
If you change a part of history, anything is possible. |
Most of what you said was not true, I enjoy my Nazi history and knew for a fact most of what you were saying was wrong, also some of the stats and numbers you come out with in which I was not sure about I simply checked the stats of some top historians on Barbarosa and again had to come to the conclusion that you seemed to be making up figures as you went along. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
