Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

You JUST SAID that you can't ever say that anything "will" happen lol

Please don't make up posts from me to argue against. I said that there is no such thing as a projected certainty. The two terms are mutually exclusive.

The laws of physics are exactly what they are defined as, laws that are certain. A climate change projection, by definition, is uncertain.

This isn't hard.

A law of physics just means that in the past that model accurately reflects what has happened, so we expect it to continue doing the same in the future.

What part of the word "law" are you struggling with? There is no expectation, it is a certainty.

[TZucchini]

You're contradicting yourself in the same sentence. Bravo.

Excellent dodge.

Can the laws of physics change? How can we know with 100% certainty that they won't?

It's all just a guess.

[Tinykong]

Excellent dodge.

Can the laws of physics change? How can we know with 100% certainty that they won't?

It's all just a guess.

It's most certainly not a dodge. It's an accurate calling out of you contradicting yourself within the same sentence.

By definition, they cannot.

[NineSpine]

It's most certainly not a dodge. It's an accurate calling out of you contradicting yourself within the same sentence.

By definition, they cannot.

They are just models of phenomenon, invented by people, and it is well-acknowledged within physics that the laws of physics only describe phenomenon as we know it, and will break down in circumstances we don't know a lot about, like black holes.

You said that we cannot be certain anything in the future, but now you are telling us that the laws of physics certainly predict future behavior.

[Tinykong]

They are just models of phenomenon, invented by people, and it is well-acknowledged within physics that the laws of physics only describe phenomenon as we know it, and will break down in circumstances we don't know a lot about, like black holes.

You said that we cannot be certain anything in the future, but now you are telling us that the laws of physics certainly predict future behavior.

I never said this.

[TZucchini]

It's most certainly not a dodge. It's an accurate calling out of you contradicting yourself within the same sentence.

By definition, they cannot.

You can't be certain of that. No one can. All we can do is project what will happen in the future based on what's happened in the past.

The laws of physics might not even exist. Nothing is a certainty. Everything is a guess.

Oh no!

[NineSpine]

I never said this.

I asked you for an example of a projection that is a certainty. Your answer was "There's no such thing."

[Tinykong]

I asked you for an example of a projection that is a certainty. Your answer was "There's no such thing."

You confused the word "projection" with "anything."

- - - Updated - - -

You can't be certain of that. No one can. All we can do is project what will happen in the future based on what's happened in the past.

The laws of physics might not even exist. Nothing is a certainty. Everything is a guess.

Oh no!

Let's just toss out Einstein's equivalence principle based on a single study.

[NineSpine]

You confused the word "projection" with "anything."
Let's just toss out Einstein's equivalence principle based on a single study.

Projection "an estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present ones."

When you say that the laws of physics will accurately describe phenomenon tomorrow, that's a projection. You are saying that because of present behavior, you can predict future behavior. That's what the climate models do.

[Eroginous]

I love it how you completely ignored my post.

This term isn't far off, though it would need the word "scientific" in front of it. And even then it's still not completely accurate. In terms of a scientific hypothesis, the research has already been done, however, the experiment has not.

In the case of a scientific projection, the research has been done, and some of the experimental work (calculation) has been done as well.

Incorrect. Adding the word 'scientific' to 'hypothesis' is redundant. The term 'hypothesis' already implies science. It's like adding 'scientific' to 'physics.' Pointless. A waste of time. It makes you look ridiculous.

If someone doesn't understand that a hypothesis is already scientific (especially when considering the context of the conversation), they should probably kill themselves.

[Tinykong]

Projection "an estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present ones."

When you say that the laws of physics will accurately describe phenomenon tomorrow, that's a projection. You are saying that because of present behavior, you can predict future behavior. That's what the climate models do.

The word "projection" and "law" are mutually exclusive. By definition, a law will happen, a projection might happen.

Clearly this distinction is lost on you.

[NineSpine]

The word "projection" and "law" are mutually exclusive. By definition, a law will happen, a projection might happen.

Clearly this distinction is lost on you.

You are too hung up on the colloquial definition of "law". A scientific law is just a model for explaining phenomenon. That's all it is. I gave the definition of "projection" and the word "might" was nowhere in there.

[Tinykong]

You are too hung up on the colloquial definition of "law". A scientific law is just a model for explaining phenomenon. That's all it is. I gave the definition of "projection" and the word "might" was nowhere in there.

Someone citing dictionary definitions is telling me I'm hung up on the dictionary definition of a physical law.

lols

[TZucchini]

I love it how you completely ignored my post.

I ignore most of your posts, tbh.

And a hypothesis does not imply science. I'd ask you to consult a dictionary, but...yeah.

[NineSpine]

Someone citing dictionary definitions is telling me I'm hung up on the dictionary definition of a physical law.

lols

Yeah, and I'm right, because you don't understand the difference between a descriptive and a proscriptive law.

[Tinykong]

Yeah, and I'm right, because you don't understand the difference between a descriptive and a proscriptive law.

These terms have nothing to do with the discussion of physical laws.

[NineSpine]

These terms have nothing to do with the discussion of physical laws.

Yes, they do. Physical laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are just descriptions of phenomenon.

[Tinykong]

Yes, they do. Physical laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are just descriptions of phenomenon.

This is an entirely subjective position, and more suited for a philosophical discussion rather than a scientific one.

[NineSpine]

This is an entirely subjective position, and more suited for a philosophical discussion rather than a scientific one.

No, it is not subjective. Do you think the laws of physics are prescriptive? You think someone put them into effect and enforces them?

[Tinykong]

No, it is not subjective. Do you think the laws of physics are prescriptive? You think someone put them into effect and enforces them?

That's not what prescriptive means. You're going off on some sort of creationist tangent.