Is anything, that isn't a fact, debatable?

[vindicatorx]

Surely you have a source to back up your claim that evolution is a fact then?

pretty much the entire scientific community agrees it's fact.

[Deleted]

theory with lot of hardcore ammunition. unlike creation theory with simple zero findings behind it.

I aren't a creationist

[Deleted]

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

[vindicatorx]

I'm saying it. I don't trust science. One day a law works this way, the next day new discovery happened so it changed, the day after that more evidence suggests that the previous discoveries were false so scrap that change and go back to the original.

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.

[Bollocks]

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

[Orange Joe]

I thought evolution was a theory

Theory doesn't mean it's untrue. Theory just means this is true based on everything we can observe right now

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Water wet. Talk amongst yourselves.

[Orange Joe]

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

What you call a factor is called a variable when testing. Yes variables are tested as much as they can be.

[melodramocracy]

Water wet. Talk amongst yourselves.

'Wet' is simply an adjective.

[Bollocks]

What you call a factor is called a variable when testing. Yes variables are tested as much as they can be.

But often what not they are tested isolated. Never all together at once. So we essentially have a theory or law that states the following its true for certain conditions, but it doesn't tell us that much about what actually happens.

[Orange Joe]

But often what not they are tested isolated. Never all together at once. So we essentially have a theory or law that states the following its true for certain conditions, but it doesn't tell us that much about what actually happens.

Can you give me an example based on actual science done?

[Bollocks]

Can you give me an example based on actual science done?

I already gave you one, the one related to attraction between masses and how it ignores the electric forces.

[Forogil]

I already gave you one, the one related to attraction between masses and how it ignores the electric forces.

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.

[Orange Joe]

I already gave you one, the one related to attraction between masses and how it ignores the electric forces.

? You're trying to mix electromagnetism with gravity? They are 2 separate things.

[xChurch]

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.

[xChurch]

Technically a fact is not debatable. Otherwise, it is not fact. Unless you mean debatable in the "you're wrong cuz I said so" aspect. But, by definition a fact is indisputable.

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.

[Deleted]

What? You're assuming your own conclusion by saying "everything is debatable." And how does this thread relate to facts?

If something is not debatable then it must be a fact, correct? If you assume this is true then the contrapositive is also true. So, if something isn't a fact, then it is debatable.

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 ...

[xChurch]

I'm still waiting on Terrence Howard's new groundbreaking math discovery on why 1x1=2 lol.

"How can it equal one? If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told its two, and that cannot be." - Terrence Howard

Another gem.

"I was always wondering, you know, why does a bubble take the shape of a ball? Why not a triangle or a square? I figured it out. If Pythagoras was here to see it, he would lose his mind. Einstein, too! Tesla!" - Terrence Howard

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...-10502365.html

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...

[Adam Jensen]

pretty much the entire scientific community agrees it's fact.

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.

[callipygoustp]

Specifically moral judgements according to character, thinking etc. (neuropsychology.)

No poll, just curious about other people reasoning. Thanks.

First day on the internet? Welcome aboard.

To answer your question more directly : yes.