having the taste or flavor characteristic of sugar, honey, etc.
producing the one of the four basic taste sensations that is not bitter, sour, or salt.
not salt or salted: sweet butter.
It is only explaining other tastes that can only be understood if they are tasted first. The taste must be experienced first in order for there to be an understanding of it and even after there is an understanding of it, it is almost impossible to explain it to those who haven't tasted.
I've never been licked from head to toe by a herd of giraffes, but I can imagine how it feels. Your argument is fallacious.
I have magical faeries that dance nude on my desk every day at sundown, I don't have any evidence of it, but you just have to experience it for yourself mang.
I am not here to argue whether the dogmas are true or not, however and I am sorry for not really contributing, but this just made me chuckle (in a happy, non-condecending manner)
Perfect example actually.
The concept of sweet is a subjective experience that differs from person to person. This is something that isn't scientific.
However! There is a scientific aspect to this. A scientist can study the operation of taste buds and discover how that information is relayed to the brain. They can identify which area of the brain is responsible for taste. They can test if a particular enzyme is released to process sweet things. Those are all testable. That's the difference between science and abstract concepts or philosophy.
Human beings are more likely to come and stay in my thread if they have someone or something to bash rather than if they have something to learn.
And your argument about "you have to experience it yourself" is predicated on a fallacy, that I'll outline using your next line as a starting point;
If someone has no experience of taste whatsoever, it would be nearly impossible to explain what chocolate tastes like. If they've just never had it, then you both have a host of shared experience in tasting other substances, and you can make a fair stab at it. The idea that "you can't know if you haven't experienced it yourself" is just outright bollocks. The entire basis of science is to create a rigorously tested basis of knowledge so that you can take the proven-reliable experiences of others as explanations, without resorting to experiencing it yourself. Every fiction author enables their readers to experience their stories, even though the stories are fiction and thus never happened in any way that could be experienced. The entire premise here is simply untrue, and only could be true if you ignore the entire concept of "language". Which exists to accomplish precisely what you're arguing is impossible.Like I said before in a previous post. I can't explain you how chocolate tastes, you have to taste it yourself. Some people however because they don't find evidence of something they completely shut themselves out of that experience.
When a homeless person is rambling in the streets, it's better to ignore them than argue with them. On the internets it's clearly better to spend an entire week proving them wrong.
Everything in the OP is gibberish and displays a lack of understanding of the basic premise of science.