if everything being debatable is a fact, and this thread being debated.. doesn't that make facts debatable?
I think we should stop debating this.... which will be my last contribution to this debate
/micdrop
That is the most ridiculous statement I have read in this thread. That is what makes science more trustworthy in general. You have to remember we know shitloads more about the world now than we have previously so yes from time to time we realize oh snap what was the best explanation then changes now because we now know this. The more we learn about the world the more we are able to explain other aspects we previously couldn't know.
How do you know is the more we learn about the world. As far as I'm concerned theories can be formulated like the following:
F(A) = a
f= experiment
(A) = Factor to study
a = result
So when we construct our knowledge we do the following
F(A) + F(B)
So in actuallity do we really test both factors at the same time? Take for example the law of attraction which states that bodies will attract accordingly to their mass if there are not outside forces (electric forces). Then there is the opposite statement that bodies will repel or attract depending on the electric forces, but it doesn't take into consideration other forces . So both statements together give me a theory that does not take into consideration both of the forces as factors.
What we shoulD HAVE IS
F(a,b) = XA + YB
But we have a combined theory of gravity and electric (and magnetic) forces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwel...rved_spacetime
What we don't have is a complete tested theory that includes both gravity and quantum properties.
All facts are technically debatable, but if you have a really good argument against some facts (such as evolution), you might want to let the Nobel committee know about it so you can collect your million.
That's kind of the point though, facts can be debated sure, but unless you have some solid evidence of why a fact is no longer valid, it's kind of a waste of breath. Most of the time people like to act like they've found out some giant hole in established fact but rarely have any grounded evidence to back up their claims. Never seen Joe basement dweller getting a Nobel prize for stumbling onto the reasons why gravity isn't a fact.
I'll elaborate as perhaps 'debating fact' is not strictly the correct way of saying what I mean. What I mean is that what's being debated is whether or not some things are in fact a fact. In that sense a lot of facts are debatable.
Id say its a hobby for the unreasonable, insane, religious or politicians but.. ye to each their own ...
What the fuck did I just read? I can't believe this guy is serious about this. Perfect example of how people can convince themselves of certain "facts" but rarely ever have any real evidence to convince others. Or maybe we're just the stupid ones and soon we'll be hearing about Terrence Howard the Nobel Laureate. lol...
There's a book by Jerry Coyne called "Why Evolution is True" and it's a detailed explanation of every single shred of evidence why it is true. I've read about half of it and that half was densely pack with facts and in depth explanation. Even though I haven't finished it, I suggest anyone reads it because even half of it was overwhelming and convincing.
Putin khuliyo