Why Darwinism isn't true.
-
The bible is written by movie directors like how they made the James Bond series.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I said tis before. I only need to prove tat u said in one instance tat gravity is not the truth, then I am right in saying u said gravity is not he truth before. One instance. In the beginning, your view of gravity is tat it is false. Only after debating with reservistsianz then u change your stand and said it is the truth.If u check the date, on the 15th u keep saying gravity is not truth and science is not truth. Only at the 17th onwards then u changed your stand
SO wat if they took "so long". Tat is not important for the discussion. U said it is the theory of gravitation. From a scientific angle, gravity consists of a theory.SO if it is a theory, it is the truth ?
If u do not like to talk about god, so be it. We can move on from there.
But u said all truth must be scopeless and can work under all situations. I do not agree. SO I will still paste the point about truth having a scope in
U claim tat truth must encompass EVERYTHING. It must work in ALL scenario. Tat is certainly rubbish because all facts has a certain boundary and scope. Gravity works only for physical matters. 1+1 only works for things of the same context. Medicine only focused on curing a certain illness, not all illnesses. Evolution talks about living things, not rock and sand. U see. They all have scopes.
Well according to u, science is NEVER about truth. However u also claimed Theologists is the ONLY one tat can handle truth. Tat to me, obviously is a double standard and a bad one since theologist r the one coming up with the most lies
SO u r still bringing in God into the picture now ? Tis is again another double standard. U claimed god is a truth but u cannot produce any evidence supporting it. U claimed science is not truth, even when they had brought tons of evidences etc. In tat case, god has a scope as well. Only believers think it is a truth. And thus its scope is only to believers because to non believers, it failed to be even true.
Nah.. there is something wrng with your grammer, not mine. I said before, science could be wrong, but the moment someone proves a part if wrong, tat part is no longer science. SO science is still a body of truth.
Another use of "body" in the form of the "science and its body of truth" could be "student body". The student body should consists of all students. However people from the student body do graduate from their school one day. But the student body is not grammatically wrong since those who had graduate simply leave the body. The student body is still consists of only students.
DO u understand now ?
U still do not understand the meaning of define. Define means it can be narrowed to ceratin values. I never narrow to any values so the answer I gave is undefined as well since it is any possible number. SO u r again wrong, with you tons of errors in tis subject
The rest of your message simply depends on the science definition part.
Now comes your other people definition
True, he has a different interpretation of science. And then ? He is only one digit in the world and obviously his view is not very well accepted
No , I ALREADY said since the beginning that Gravity is Truth. BUT NOT THE THEORY. But i guess u cant understand. As usual.
“They are theories and theories can be right and can be proven wrong like newtonian laws that only works on earth. U dont call it the FACT of Gravity..U never hear Scientists call theory.. the truth right ? “<--- so, where did i say Gravity is not truth ? Its quite in your face that the Theory is True, hence u dont call it the Fact or Truth of gravity. U call it the Theory of Gravity.
If it IS theory , it is NOT truth. Because Gravity is Truth, it has existed long before man defined it as Gravity. Theory is only True so far and on this planet. Simple.
I NEVER said Theologists are the ONLY one to handle truth. They handle truth differently from scienctists. They seek the evidence of the existence of God , which is thier Truth and that is God. Simple. Scientists seek the How and Why , explaination, to unravel the Mysteries of the Universe. As the Truth is already OUT THERE, hence they are not seeking that truth, but that explaination. But i guess, u just keep trying to say stuffs i didnt say. Its kinda weak u know.
Like i said,
Regarding your scope, I agree, Gravity works in its scope. I DONT agree with Maths because it has FAILED in its scopes in quantity, even within its context, it has failed. And i because i believe God is scopeless, and even IF ALL the truths work within its scope, i still cant say ALL truth's work within its scope, because God is scopeless to me, hence i believe that not all truth's have to have its scope. Thats why i said move on. Obviously this is a difference in opinion. N i am willing to accept yours. Simple. U dont believe God, but I do. SO MOVE ON.
U said "could" be. Why arent u certain ?
Then it still makes the presumption that , if your previous statement is already wrong , science is wrong already , and even if u correct it , u cannot negate the fact that it was wrong . Some theories are just so totally different and totally wrong that doesnt relect the truth. Like the Universe rotates around the Earth. Or how the Earth was Flat. If this happens more then onec, there are probably theories right now that are probably wrong, so must accet the possibility of fallacy in thoeries now accepted as correct.
I am more then willing to accept your explaination, but it still doesnt really answer the entire contradiction of your logic of :-
If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
Whether define it or not , once u DEFINE it, I can prove 1 = 2. Thats why it can NEVER be defined. Hence i used the word UNDEFINED. The fallacy of defining it even to work within your scope will yield 1 = 2.
"True, he has a different interpretation of science. And then ? He is only one digit in the world and obviously his view is not very well accepted"
- Well, then that means Science is not confied to just the dictionary definition of "Body of Truths" . I was merely pointing out to you that there are different definitions, just like how truth has different definitions. Even if it is not widely accepted, again, history has shown those that were not widely accepted, can become mainstream. My whole point from beginning was that we dont allow ourselves to conform to mainstream always. We have a brain, we challenge the norm and history again has shown that those people brought about new methods, new discovires, new theories. Thats it.
Hence u may be mainstream, I may not be. Thats why its a difference in opinion and understanding.
Thats all. Is it so hard ?
U believe Science = True = Truth
I believe Science = How and Why to unravel the mysteries of the Universe, and what is True may NOT be the Truth.
-
"STUPIDISMART on the 23rd Jan 1.03pm
I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter."
You said:
"Wrong stupid dousch bag. I am saying 0/0 * 1 = 0/0 *2 could be true."
My Ans:
Dividing by zero gives:
Simplified, yields:
Doesnt touch 0 again. If u -ve +v it, its still NOT 0. 0.000000000000000001.. is not 0.
So u agree with me that it is Undefined and NOT a legitimate operation? Hence if 0/0 can be defined, I can prove that 1 = 2 . Thats why I said , 0/0 IS A FALLACY in maths. If its a fallacy, how can it be the truth. And u said zero to infinity. Unless u wish to retract that statement and admit to the omission or u going to ignore it like you always do.
-
Your: Your only definition of truth is from the dictionary. The dictionary said tat science is a body of truth. But u refuse to accept tat explanation. Science has been wrong but it doesn't means it can never be right or truth. U also said u wrote wrongly before on true and false. So u can never write the right things again ?
Sure, i can accept your definition. I didnt say i dont. BUT , if i were to apply the SAME argument and reasoning u used on me,
So, IF once again science can be wrong, and the science is the how and why, wouldnt that be unable to make your How and Why Truth ? Because they can be wrong! If u think Science is Why and How and Science can be wrong, therefore the Why and How can be WRONG TOO. Sounds simliar to MY POINT yes ?
And back to your definition of Science = BODY OF TRUTHS , Since, the top of the statement has already stated the How and Why can be Wrong, and also your LOGIC of :-
If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
So, wouldnt that ONCE AGAIN CONTRADICT your own DEFINITION OF SCIENCE ? SO.. TELL ME, at the end of the day, how do you reconcile with all these CONTRADICTIONS with YOURSELF ? So is Science Truth ? Is it ? OR isnt it ?Answer this simple question.
And as for me writing wrongly on the True and False and whether i can even write correctly or not, I already said, what is True, may NOT be the Truth.Hence i am already prepared to make mistakes and correct them and i KNOW i am as fallible as science.. While urs is Science = True = Truth.
-
Originally posted by dadeadman1337:
They can be side by side, so long as they don't conflict or contradict each other
There will be contradictions. But contradictions are mostly done at the ignorance of both sides. Wrong interpretation and wrong application of theories.
So its still ongoing. So i am perfectly willing to let them solve the contradictions over time.
All i am saying is that having an open mind thats all.
Scientific knowledge is human knowledge and scientists are human beings. They ar enot gods, and science is not infallible. Yet the general public often thinks of scientific claims as absolutely certain truths. They think that if something is not certain, it is not scientific and if it is not scientific, then any other non-scientific view is its equal. This misconception seems to be, at least in part, behind the general lack of understanding about the nature of scientific theories.
Same goes to Religion, they are not gods too. Thats why they will sometimes fail in the interpretations too.To them God is truth already. But its the interpretations they apply that may not be the truth.
-
No , I ALREADY said since the beginning that Gravity is Truth. BUT NOT THE THEORY. But i guess u cant understand. As usual.
U r repeating a cycle. I will put the the previous answer here
15 Jan 1108pm, U specifically said gravity is a theory
How long did it take them just to explain the theory of gravity.
U specifically said it is a theory. And gravity do contains a theory stating why it pulls things to the earth. So u did say tat gravity, which is a theory, is false
I NEVER said Theologists are the ONLY one to handle truth. They handle truth differently from scienctists. They seek the evidence of the existence of God , which is thier Truth and that is God. Simple. Scientists seek the How and Why , explaination, to unravel the Mysteries of the Universe. As the Truth is already OUT THERE, hence they are not seeking that truth, but that explaination. But i guess, u just keep trying to say stuffs i didnt say. Its kinda weak u know.
U said the below, 15 Jan 1108pm
Science is not there to PROVE, it is to find out WHY, to EXPLAIN. They are not to discern what is true and false. Its not even thier doman. It is the Theologists.
U said later tat u wanna change the words to truth and not true. So your above sentence said theologist r the people tat discern wat is truth or not
Regarding your scope, I agree, Gravity works in its scope. I DONT agree with Maths because it has FAILED in its scopes in quantity, even within its context, it has failed. And i because i believe God is scopeless, and even IF ALL the truths work within its scope, i still cant say ALL truth's work within its scope, because God is scopeless to me, hence i believe that not all truth's have to have its scope. Thats why i said move on. Obviously this is a difference in opinion. N i am willing to accept yours. Simple. U dont believe God, but I do. SO MOVE ON.
Tat is a problem u see because everybody who know basic maths know tat addition has to work within the same context (talking about same type of object in addition). If u think u r so right about tis, then u wouldn't mind me writing it out for people to see.
Just a question... How do u really count in real life then ? U already have a big problem with such the most basic arithmetric so I am wondering if u r just trying to be funny or really have lousy maths
Then it still makes the presumption that , if your previous statement is already wrong , science is wrong already , and even if u correct it , u cannot negate the fact that it was wrong . Some theories are just so totally different and totally wrong that doesnt relect the truth. Like the Universe rotates around the Earth. Or how the Earth was Flat. If this happens more then onec, there are probably theories right now that are probably wrong, so must accet the possibility of fallacy in thoeries now accepted as correct.
Tat is funny u see. We r saying whether science is a body of truth. U r arguing tat it is not a body of truth. Why ? Because it is wrong before. I told u, if it is wrong, it ceases to be science. SO science still states the truth. On the other hand u said it is once it is wrong, so science will NEVER be TRUTH again. Since most of your argument hinges on tis matter, I shall discuss with u on length now
For u, u stereotype and judge a whole class of objects by 1 single member. Lets say in a country called A, if one of the people is a criminal, u claimed the whole country is full of criminals. Lets say a christian molest small kids, u claim ALL christians molest small kids.
For me, I don;t stereotype like u do. In science, everything is documented with independent evidence and facts. If one of the science knowledge is wrong, it doesn't means the rest, all the other knowledges with their evidence and facts, are all wrong. It just meant tat particular proven wrong fact is wrong. So science is still a collection of a body of truth.
True, there may be some bad knowledge tat is incorrect. U chose to stereotype and claimed the whole science is ALL WRONG because there r some wrongs in it. I chose to say only tat these small knowledge r wrong but science is still right.
If by the same conclusion, u yourself wrote wrongly before. So everything u write now is all wrong as well ? Since u wrote everything wrong, then why should people believe in u ? Using your stereotype, theologists r wrong before, so ALL theologies r wrong ? In fact in the human world, all organisations make a wrong somewhere. So all the human world r all wrong ? The politicians r all wrong, the policemen r all wrong, the philosophers r all wrong. Nothing is right since human made mistakes in all their professions. You r just having an extreme stereotype problem and playing with it
BTW Theory of sun revolving around the earth is not science. It is not derived by the scientific method but more fromt he bible. Earth is flat is again not science since it is not derived by the scientific method but mostly by the bible. SO wat other examples of theories or law tat has been rejected before ?
Whether define it or not , once u DEFINE it, I can prove 1 = 2. Thats why it can NEVER be defined. Hence i used the word UNDEFINED. The fallacy of defining it even to work within your scope will yield 1 = 2.
I told u I say it could be any number. So in practise what I said is the meaning of undefined.
1) I said it could be any number
2) undefine means it could be any number
3) SO I do suggest it is undefined
Now u said 0/0 has a logical meaning of zero.Why is tat so ? U said tat 0/0 could substitute a value and all 0/0 has the same value. WHy is tat so. U claimed tat 1=2. WHy is tat so ?
Well, then that means Science is not confied to just the dictionary definition of "Body of Truths" . I was merely pointing out to you that there are different definitions, just like how truth has different definitions. Even if it is not widely accepted, again, history has shown those that were not widely accepted, can become mainstream. My whole point from beginning was that we dont allow ourselves to conform to mainstream always. We have a brain, we challenge the norm and history again has shown that those people brought about new methods, new discovires, new theories. Thats it.
U never read the amended reply I made. He is a person who treat science as truths.
We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work.
Stated by the same person who u said defined science differently
Science = How and Why to unravel the mysteries of the Universe, and what is True may NOT be the Truth.
Tis is a rubbish statement which u refuse to comment. I told u
If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
So u keep using "what is true may not be the truth" yet u refuse to accept tat it is logically flawed
Simplified, yields:
I have said many times liao. Dividing by zero is illegal. Furthermore 0/0 means it could be anything, and the left hand side and right hand side zero does not have to be the same.
Doesnt touch 0 again. If u -ve +v it, its still NOT 0. 0.000000000000000001.. is not 0.
Defined Variable could touch the graph and u get an exact answer. Undefined value is like the graph u shown and it cannot touch it but its value could means anything\
Thats why I said , 0/0 IS A FALLACY in maths. If its a fallacy, how can it be the truth.
0/0 is a fallacy. Do u really know wat is the meaning of fallacy ?
In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation.
So it is a truth. It is just tat u r giving a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning and argumentation.
-
1) U claimed : 1+1 =2 is not truth. And based on wat ? U say 1 egg + 1 sperm = 1 fertilised egg. And thus u claimed 1+1 not equal to 2.
My Ans: Truth has to work within a certain scope. For 1+1=2, both must be the same context. (1 apple + 1 apple =2 apples, 1 apple + 1 orange = 1 apple + 1 orange, not 2 apples or 2 oranges). If u do not obey its scope, u r not using the equation right and talking cock.
2) U claimed: U did not say Gravity is not truth
My Ans:
a) U say gravity is a theory.
15 Jan 1108pm, U specifically said gravity is a theory
How long did it take them just to explain the theory of gravity.
15 Jan 1108pm, u said
How long did it take them just to explain the theory of gravity.
and obviously, "theory of gravity"="theory of gravity", not "theory of the watever sh!t u can add in gravity"
b) U claimed theory can be false thus it is not truth.
16 Jan 216am,
They are theories and theories can be right and can be proven wrong like newtonian laws that only works on earth. U dont call it the FACT of Gravity..U never hear Scientists call theory.. the truth right ?
c) So in other words, u said gravity is not truth to u
3) U claimed: god is a truth tat has no scope
My ans: God is not even shown to be true, thus not even truth and thus is just talking cock. And even if u insist it is true, it also has a scope because it ceases to be true to a non believer. Its scope is to believer only
4) U claimed: U said "its NOT about the How and Why.. but the SEARCH for TRUTH. Are we both finally in agreement that its about the How and Why then. And not about the Truth ?"
My ans: If u read wat I wrote, i said the WHY and HOW r truth. U said how and why, are NOT truth. Gravity is a scientific issue. It is the answer WHY things fall to the ground. Then is gravity truth to u ?
5) on this statement didnt u pretty much say Science Is Truth. And then u say science can be wrong, so isnt wrong, not true, hence not true = not truth. Because u derive True = Truth from the dictionary.
My ans: Science can be wrong, but it is mostly right. Since it is right, it is about the truth. However in your narrow definition, if science is ever wrong, it will never ever be right or truth ever again. Theologist r wrong as well. How come u still treat it as truth then ? Which profession is never wrong before ?
6) U claimed: 0/0 logically should be zero. U claimed tat u can substitute values into undefined equation and treat it like a variable. U claimed tat 1=2 in the article shows there is a problem with maths.U claim the graph never touches 0 so it is not zero. U claim I had define the value of 0/0 when I said it could be any value from 0 to infinity
My Ans: 0/0 has no logical meaning. Divide by zero is meaningless. U cannot differentiate between variable and undefined values. U do not even grasp the basic idea of wat is undefine. U paste a portion of the article showing tat only idiots will conclude 1=2 and u did tat. U fail to read my explanation tat the 0 in the graph has values from - infinity to + infinity. U r still stuck in your elementary maths and think tat UNDEFINE value must have a cut in the graph like a variable. And any possible value from zero to infinity REINFORCE the idea it is undefined, and not being defined.
7) U claimed: The dictionary definition of truth is wrong. And tis is because science has been wrong before
My Ans: Your only definition of truth is from the dictionary. The dictionary said tat science is a body of truth. But u refuse to accept tat explanation. Science has been wrong but it doesn't means it can never be right or truth. U also said u wrote wrongly before on true and false. So u can never write the right things again ?
8) U claimed: Wat is true may not be the truth
My ans: If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
It is a simple logic. Do u understand logic ?
9) U claimed: There r many other definitions of science
My ans: All mainstream organisations treat science as truth or knowledge of facts. And u just misquote Richard Feynman
10) U claimed: Tat since science is wrong before, then it cannot be a "body of truth"
My ans: Science may be wrong before but when it detects a wrong, it instantly correct itself and reflect the truth. So it is still a body of truth. Similar to "student body" (the use of body is the same as science and its body of truth), its members will cease to be students one day. However the definition of "student body" is still intact because those who r no longer students just leave the student body and thus it is still grammatically correct.
If a small part of science is proven wrong, it just meant tat small part is wrong. However u r prejudiced and practise stereotype and thus claim the whole organisation is wrong because a small part is wrong. In tat case, politicians, policemen, philosophers , theologistsand in fact the whole world's organisation had commit a wrong before and thus should be wrong to u too.
-
Just let badzmaro live in his own hole.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
U r repeating a cycle. I will put the the previous answer here
15 Jan 1108pm, U specifically said gravity is a theory
How long did it take them just to explain the theory of gravity.
U specifically said it is a theory. And gravity do contains a theory stating why it pulls things to the earth. So u did say tat gravity, which is a theory, is false
U said the below, 15 Jan 1108pm
Science is not there to PROVE, it is to find out WHY, to EXPLAIN. They are not to discern what is true and false. Its not even thier doman. It is the Theologists.
U said later tat u wanna change the words to truth and not true. So your above sentence said theologist r the people tat discern wat is truth or not
Tat is a problem u see because everybody who know basic maths know tat addition has to work within the same context (talking about same type of object in addition). If u think u r so right about tis, then u wouldn't mind me writing it out for people to see.
Just a question... How do u really count in real life then ? U already have a big problem with such the most basic arithmetric so I am wondering if u r just trying to be funny or really have lousy maths
Tat is funny u see. We r saying whether science is a body of truth. U r arguing tat it is not a body of truth. Why ? Because it is wrong before. I told u, if it is wrong, it ceases to be science. SO science still states the truth. On the other hand u said it is once it is wrong, so science will NEVER be TRUTH again. Since most of your argument hinges on tis matter, I shall discuss with u on length now
For u, u stereotype and judge a whole class of objects by 1 single member. Lets say in a country called A, if one of the people is a criminal, u claimed the whole country is full of criminals. Lets say a christian molest small kids, u claim ALL christians molest small kids.
For me, I don;t stereotype like u do. In science, everything is documented with independent evidence and facts. If one of the science knowledge is wrong, it doesn't means the rest, all the other knowledges with their evidence and facts, are all wrong. It just meant tat particular proven wrong fact is wrong. So science is still a collection of a body of truth.
True, there may be some bad knowledge tat is incorrect. U chose to stereotype and claimed the whole science is ALL WRONG because there r some wrongs in it. I chose to say only tat these small knowledge r wrong but science is still right.
If by the same conclusion, u yourself wrote wrongly before. So everything u write now is all wrong as well ? Since u wrote everything wrong, then why should people believe in u ? Using your stereotype, theologists r wrong before, so ALL theologies r wrong ? In fact in the human world, all organisations make a wrong somewhere. So all the human world r all wrong ? The politicians r all wrong, the policemen r all wrong, the philosophers r all wrong. Nothing is right since human made mistakes in all their professions. You r just having an extreme stereotype problem and playing with it
BTW Theory of sun revolving around the earth is not science. It is not derived by the scientific method but more fromt he bible. Earth is flat is again not science since it is not derived by the scientific method but mostly by the bible. SO wat other examples of theories or law tat has been rejected before ?
I told u I say it could be any number. So in practise what I said is the meaning of undefined.
1) I said it could be any number
2) undefine means it could be any number
3) SO I do suggest it is undefined
Now u said 0/0 has a logical meaning of zero.Why is tat so ? U said tat 0/0 could substitute a value and all 0/0 has the same value. WHy is tat so. U claimed tat 1=2. WHy is tat so ?
U never read the amended reply I made. He is a person who treat science as truths.
We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work.
Stated by the same person who u said defined science differently
Tis is a rubbish statement which u refuse to comment. I told u
If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
So u keep using "what is true may not be the truth" yet u refuse to accept tat it is logically flawed
I have said many times liao. Dividing by zero is illegal. Furthermore 0/0 means it could be anything, and the left hand side and right hand side zero does not have to be the same.
Defined Variable could touch the graph and u get an exact answer. Undefined value is like the graph u shown and it cannot touch it but its value could means anything\
0/0 is a fallacy. Do u really know wat is the meaning of fallacy ?
In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation.
So it is a truth. It is just tat u r giving a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning and argumentation.
Again, regarding the Theory of Gravity, whats wrong with them taking a long time to explain the theory of gravity ? Gravity is a truth already. It just took them ages to postulate a theory to explain it. They had a long of theories, some were right and wrong, and all were wrong until now. Until so far..its Einsteins. There may be more theories... we just gotta wait for the new ones to come out.
The problem as usual, like 1 Apple + 1 Apple = 2 Fruits. If we confine it purely to maths, how do we define all the quantities in our life ? We might as well not right ? The scope is supposed to cover its quantiy, its not to say its bad, it has issues it cannot solve.
U said: “True, there may be some bad knowledge tat is incorrect. U chose to stereotype and claimed the whole science is ALL WRONG because there r some wrongs in it. I chose to say only tat these small knowledge r wrong but science is still right. “
Do u know what I am talking about ? When did I say science is all wrong ? Did I say science are lies ? You are jumping to conclusions and do u even know what I am talking about ? All I said is, science makes mistakes. Thats why its called Theories. There is a possibility that it can be wrong. Whats wrong with that ? You are the one being extreme her. Not me. All I saying is u have to accept the possibilities that science can be wrong. Thats all.
Yes, people make mistakes, if they are wrong, they are wrong. I believe certain things to be true, but I cannot accept them to be the truth. I have to open my mind that nothing that anyone tells me, I will just believe them. They may be true, but still not the truth to me. How hard is it to understand ? Why must be it the truth if it is true. Who is the extreme here, to you its either RIGHT or WRONG. To me, its a possibility that the statement is wrong, just because someone says 'This is it” I have to believe ?
Regarding the Flat Earth theory, not just Christians in the early days, but Ancient greece , China and so on. They too have their own science that time to come out that the world is flat. Dont always put the blame on christians. It was Copernicus who was a christian that made it known that it was not flat too. And regarding wrong theories, there are a few. And there are a few that are not all wrong and not all correct. Hence its true, but not the truth. Just to show a few.
i)Flat Earth hypothesis
ii)Phlogiston theory
iii)Geocentric theory of the solar system
iv)The classical elemental theory
v)Aristotle's dynamic motion
vi)Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves
vii)Newton's corpuscular theory of light (While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.)
viii)Newton's Laws of Motion(which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, the were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold)
U said: “I told u I say it could be any number. So in practise what I said is the meaning of undefined.
1) I said it could be any number
2) undefine means it could be any number
3) SO I do suggest it is undefined”
My answer: You assume undefined can be anything, while I assumed undefined cant be defined.
Undefined : not given meaning or significance, as by a definition; not defined or explained
I guess this is where ur undefined and my undefined is different. Hence, U could define anything if it is undefined, while I do not define what is undefined. I personally think my undefined is better, because undefined is the opposite meaning of define. I guess if u want to believe in YOUR meaning, I personally believe mine is better. So I guess when we talk about undefined in a normal usage of the word, it can be a chair , table , book. I guess it can be anything for us right ? Good for you if u think undefined can be anything. Unless you have totally different meanings for Maths , Real Life and Religion...etc, maybe u should specifiy, or normally, people will misunderstand.
A mathematical expression which has no meaning and which cannot be interpreted is known mathematically as 'undefined.'
Regarding you definition:
“Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation ... Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
U said: The bottom line is simply saying one should doubt the experts and keep challenging science. Which is really nothing wrong. WHy not see wat other words he had about science and its truth ?
Well done ! U even answered your question to my answers. I was counting on that. I totally know who Ricard Feynam is. That is my WHOLE POINT TILL NOW.
And then u quote:
“Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.”
U said: “The third aspect of my subject is that of science as a method of finding things out. This method is based on the principle that observation is the judge of whether something is so or not. All other aspects and characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea.”
And yes, gravity the natural phenomenon, was the ultimate and final jduge of that truth. U see the similiarities here ?
“We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.”
U said :He is really very much a science person and believe science to be the truth.
I say: He is really very much a science person to explain the how and why , of the truth.
“Stated by the same person who u said defined science differently
Science = How and Why to unravel the mysteries of the Universe, and what is True may NOT be the Truth.
Tis is a rubbish statement which u refuse to comment. I told u
If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true”
If u believe in that logic, then once again, your definition of body of truth's is wrong. Personally cant reconcile with your previous statement that science can be wrong. Logically. How can u say something true and truth and then allow it to be false and wrong?
10) U claimed: Tat since science is wrong before, then it cannot be a "body of truth"
Your ans: Science may be wrong before but when it detects a wrong, it instantly correct itself and reflect the truth. So it is still a body of truth. Similar to "student body" (the use of body is the same as science and its body of truth), its members will cease to be students one day. However the definition of "student body" is still intact because those who r no longer students just leave the student body and thus it is still grammatically correct.
My Answer: When it detects a wrong, they sometimes still can find the answer. They know there is a problem, with the equations, with the theory. It does not instantly correct itself and reflect the truth. Hence its not longer a body of truth. When you say body of truth, u HAVE To encompass everything , and can NEVER be wrong. Thats the whole idea of Body of Truths. Regarding your “student body” , picture this, all this student body , each of them represents a theory. Now think of it this way, so lets assume the wrong theories as “monkeys”. True when u find the monkeys and kick them out. But the problem is, we still dont know how many monkeys there are. So therein lies a problem. Grammatically it cannot be a “student body” . Because there are monkeys in there. Now another point is, we are not talking about grammatically truths. We are talking about truths. Truths have to be Trut according to you. It cannot be wrong. IF science already make mistakes, it therefore cannot be truth. Very simple logic.
“I have said many times liao. Dividing by zero is illegal. Furthermore 0/0 means it could be anything, and the left hand side and right hand side zero does not have to be the same. “
My Answer: It HAS to be the same. Its the same equation.
Exmaple: 0/0 + 1 = 0/0 + 2 . Now assume 0/0 = X so X +1 = X +2 . So I assume u know simple algebra. So if X = 1 , both X on either side have to = 1 right ?
U said: “Defined Variable could touch the graph and u get an exact answer. Undefined value is like the graph u shown and it cannot touch it but its value could means anything”
My Ans: My point is, it never touches 0. U can define it , variable it here n there, this and that, it still will NEVER reach 0. Simple as that.
U said “In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation.
So it is a truth. It is just tat u r giving a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning and argumentation.”
My Answer:
Fallacy : a false or mistaken idea
We are NOT dealing with argumentation here right ? So obviously u chose a wrong definition.
We are talking about Maths, which allowed this 0/0 to exist, due to its rules , but the problem now is they dont know how to define it at the moment. Unless you are telling me, Maths as an incorrect reasoning then? I am sure we both can agree that 0/0 is a illegitimate operation. So if Maths were the one that spawn 0/0 , I guess what u are saying is maths is an incorrect reasoning. Is that what you are saying ?
In case you may not understand my bad grammar, and sucky english, have a good read of this one:
“In mathematics, certain kinds of mistaken proof are often exhibited, and sometimes collected, as illustrations of a concept of mathematical fallacy. There is a distinction between a simple mistake and a mathematical fallacy in a proof: a mistake in a proof leads to an invalid proof just in the same way, but in the best-known examples of mathematical fallacies, there is some concealment in the presentation of the proof. For example the reason validity fails may be a division by zero that is hidden by algebraic notation. There is a striking quality of the mathematical fallacy: as typically presented, it leads not only to an absurd result, but does so in a crafty or clever way. [1] Therefore these fallacies, for pedagogic reasons, usually take the form of spurious proofs of obvious contradictions. Although the proofs are flawed, the errors, usually by design, are comparatively subtle, or designed to show that certain steps are conditional, and should not be applied in the cases that are the exceptions to the rules.
The traditional way of presenting a mathematical fallacy is to give an invalid step of deduction mixed in with valid steps, so that the meaning of fallacy is here slightly different from the logical fallacy. The latter applies normally to a form of argument that is not a genuine rule of logic, where the problematic mathematical step is typically a correct rule applied with a tacit wrong assumption. Beyond pedagogy, the resolution of a fallacy can lead to deeper insights into a subject (such as the introduction of Pasch's axiom of Euclidean geometry). [2] Pseudaria, an ancient lost book of false proofs, is attributed to Euclid. [3]
Mathematical fallacies exist in many branches of mathematics. In elementary algebra, typical examples may involve a step where division by zero is performed, where a root is incorrectly extracted or, more generally, where different values of a multiple valued function are equated. Well-known fallacies also exist in elementary Euclidean geometry and calculus.”
I hope that helps clear all your doubt of where what I mean by Fallacy in 0/0 = Undefined.
“If a small part of science is proven wrong, it just meant tat small part is wrong. However u r prejudiced and practise stereotype and thus claim the whole organisation is wrong because a small part is wrong. In tat case, politicians, policemen, philosophers , theologistsand in fact the whole world's organisation had commit a wrong before and thus should be wrong to u too. “
Did I say that the whole of science is false ? I am just applying your logic. Thats why I am asking you how do u reconcile ? So is Science = Truth ? Is it ? Or Isnt it?
So what is true, may not be the truth.
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Just let badzmaro live in his own hole.
Sure beats being a maggot living in putrid flesh.
-
Again, regarding the Theory of Gravity, whats wrong with them taking a long time to explain the theory of gravity ? Gravity is a truth already. It just took them ages to postulate a theory to explain it. They had a long of theories, some were right and wrong, and all were wrong until now. Until so far..its Einsteins. There may be more theories... we just gotta wait for the new ones to come out.
So do u agree tat u had said gravity is not the truth before ?
The problem as usual, like 1 Apple + 1 Apple = 2 Fruits. If we confine it purely to maths, how do we define all the quantities in our life ? We might as well not right ? The scope is supposed to cover its quantiy, its not to say its bad, it has issues it cannot solve.
Is very simple. It is for adding things within the same context or the same unit. If u wanna find out the number of fruits u have u add the number of fruits together. But to u, u r illogical and try to add the fruits u have with, lets say, the number of bags to have to get a figure tat is senseless.
Why don't we try tis then. Before u do the summation, wat is the question u r asking ? If u can define the question, then addition will give u your answer. If u cannot even come out with the question, then something is wrong with your logics
Wat do u want to find find out ? How many bags r there ? U just add bags. How many fruits r there ? U just add fruits. EVERYBODY know tis
All I said is, science makes mistakes. Thats why its called Theories. There is a possibility that it can be wrong. Whats wrong with that ?
They could be wrong, but so r the theologists. Why state tat truth and false is the domain of theologists and not scientist ?
Then let me ask u, why do u take medicine, or live in high rise building of use computers ? If they r not truth to u, these inventions could fail
I believe certain things to be true, but I cannot accept them to be the truth. I have to open my mind that nothing that anyone tells me, I will just believe them.
Tis goes back to the question if a thing is not truth, it cannot be true as well.
If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
U said u believe certain things to be true, but not the truth. In actual fact they contradict.If u think it is true, it is the truth. If u think it is not truth, it is not true.
Regarding the Flat Earth theory, not just Christians in the early days, but Ancient greece , China and so on. They too have their own science that time to come out that the world is flat. Dont always put the blame on christians.
All of them r not science because they do not use the scientific method. Christians r the one tat is persistent in tis saying though
i)Flat Earth hypothesis
ii)Phlogiston theory
iii)Geocentric theory of the solar system
iv)The classical elemental theory
v)Aristotle's dynamic motion
vi)Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves
All these r not scientific method, so they r not science
vii)Newton's corpuscular theory of light (While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.)
viii)Newton's Laws of Motion(which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, the were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold)
They r not wrong. They r just refined. U still have to use corpuscular theory of light (photon) with waves to fully described light. Motion of body still require laws of motion + einstein to fully describe it
You assume undefined can be anything, while I assumed undefined cant be defined.
If I said "it could be anything", is it different from saying "nobody can say what it is".
U have to tell me wat is the physical difference between the two. U again is just playing with words. If u read at the dictionary, it just says "unable to specify distinctly".Wat is wrong with saying it "could be anything" ?
He is really very much a science person to explain the how and why , of the truth.
And the HOW and WHY r truth. Nothing in it says tat the HOW and WHY r not truth.
All other aspects and characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea
The idea is the scientific hypothesis. It is judged if it is the truth or not
We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory.
Again the experiments etc is the scientific method and is science. And he treat the theory as truth or not
Personally cant reconcile with your previous statement that science can be wrong. Logically. How can u say something true and truth and then allow it to be false and wrong?
Simple. It is true and truth until proven false or wrong. A lot of the scientific principles are always true given the same scope. It had proven it is right before isn't it ? So my abc still stands
If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true”
When it detects a wrong, they sometimes still can find the answer. They know there is a problem, with the equations, with the theory. It does not instantly correct itself and reflect the truth. Hence its not longer a body of truth. When you say body of truth, u HAVE To encompass everything , and can NEVER be wrong. Thats the whole idea of Body of Truths. Regarding your “student body” , picture this, all this student body , each of them represents a theory. Now think of it this way, so lets assume the wrong theories as “monkeys”. True when u find the monkeys and kick them out. But the problem is, we still dont know how many monkeys there are. So therein lies a problem. Grammatically it cannot be a “student body” . Because there are monkeys in there. Now another point is, we are not talking about grammatically truths. We are talking about truths. Truths have to be Trut according to you. It cannot be wrong. IF science already make mistakes, it therefore cannot be truth. Very simple logic.
Tis is again rubbish. We r talking about "body" here mind u. Then u go to the "student body" and talk about theory and monkeys. Why does the "student body" becomes theory ?Can u really explain your explanation nicely with words ?
And according to me, truth simply means conformity with facts and reality. It cannot be wrong is your theory.
Exmaple: 0/0 + 1 = 0/0 + 2 . Now assume 0/0 = X so X +1 = X +2 . So I assume u know simple algebra. So if X = 1 , both X on either side have to = 1 right ?
Wrong. When u divide it by X, the operation becomes illegal because u r still dividing by zero. SO tis equation is still wrong.Normally when u do variable equation, u must be sure they r all defined
My point is, it never touches 0. U can define it , variable it here n there, this and that, it still will NEVER reach 0. Simple as that.
As said before, the terms is important. If it cuts the graph, it is defined value, not undefined. It is precisely why it never cuts the graph it is undefined, and it could be anything between -ve infinity to +infinity
Fallacy : a false or mistaken idea
U personally used the word fallcy previously (as in fallacy in maths). And your argument is 1=2 which is wrong because u use incorrect reasoning and reasoning
We are talking about Maths, which allowed this 0/0 to exist, due to its rules , but the problem now is they dont know how to define it at the moment.
They already defined it as "undefined". Tis is already the end of the line for 0/0 to tis moment in time. U still don't get it don't u ? If u look at the graph, it will never cut it, yet at 0, the values could be anything from -ve infinity to infinity. Tat is the meaning of undefined.
I hope that helps clear all your doubt of where what I mean by Fallacy in 0/0 = Undefined.
I read it, but it just support my idea.
There is a distinction between a simple mistake and a mathematical fallacy in a proof: a mistake in a proof leads to an invalid proof just in the same way, but in the best-known examples of mathematical fallacies, there is some concealment in the presentation of the proof.
U putting 0/0 as X and then dividing it. U r concealing in the presentation.
Therefore these fallacies, for pedagogic reasons, usually take the form of spurious proofs of obvious contradictions.
It is obvious tat it contradiction using wrong ways to prove 1=2
The latter applies normally to a form of argument that is not a genuine rule of logic, where the problematic mathematical step is typically a correct rule applied with a tacit wrong assumption.
U assume division by 0 is correct. In actual fact it is wrong.
I hope tis clear up your understanding of fallacy
Did I say that the whole of science is false ? I am just applying your logic. Thats why I am asking you how do u reconcile ? So is Science = Truth ? Is it ? Or Isnt it?
U said science is never about the truth, so it is false.
I said science is a collection of truths.
-
1) U claimed : 1+1 =2 is not truth. And based on wat ? U say 1 egg + 1 sperm = 1 fertilised egg. And thus u claimed 1+1 not equal to 2.
My Ans: Truth has to work within a certain scope. For 1+1=2, both must be the same context. (1 apple + 1 apple =2 apples, 1 apple + 1 orange = 1 apple + 1 orange, not 2 apples or 2 oranges). If u do not obey its scope, u r not using the equation right and talking cock. Before u do the summation, why not u state the question to ask first before doing the sums ?
2) U claimed: U did not say Gravity is not truth
My Ans:
a) U say gravity is a theory.
15 Jan 1108pm, U specifically said gravity is a theory
How long did it take them just to explain the theory of gravity.
15 Jan 1108pm, u said
How long did it take them just to explain the theory of gravity.
and obviously, "theory of gravity"="theory of gravity", not "theory of the watever sh!t u can add in gravity"
b) U claimed theory can be false thus it is not truth.
16 Jan 216am,
They are theories and theories can be right and can be proven wrong like newtonian laws that only works on earth. U dont call it the FACT of Gravity..U never hear Scientists call theory.. the truth right ?
c) So in other words, u said gravity is not truth to u
3) U claimed: god is a truth tat has no scope
My ans: God is not even shown to be true, thus not even truth and thus is just talking cock. And even if u insist it is true, it also has a scope because it ceases to be true to a non believer. Its scope is to believer only
4) U claimed: U said "its NOT about the How and Why.. but the SEARCH for TRUTH. Are we both finally in agreement that its about the How and Why then. And not about the Truth ?"
My ans: If u read wat I wrote, i said the WHY and HOW r truth. U said how and why, are NOT truth. Gravity is a scientific issue. It is the answer WHY things fall to the ground. Then is gravity truth to u ?
5) on this statement didnt u pretty much say Science Is Truth. And then u say science can be wrong, so isnt wrong, not true, hence not true = not truth. Because u derive True = Truth from the dictionary.
My ans: Science can be wrong, but it is mostly right. Since it is right, it is about the truth. However in your narrow definition, if science is ever wrong, it will never ever be right or truth ever again. Theologist r wrong as well. How come u still treat it as truth then ? Which profession is never wrong before ?
6) U claimed: 0/0 logically should be zero. U claimed tat u can substitute values into undefined equation and treat it like a variable. U claimed tat 1=2 in the article shows there is a problem with maths.U claim the graph never touches 0 so it is not zero. U claim I had define the value of 0/0 when I said it could be any value from 0 to infinity. U claimed tat 1=2 is a fallacy.
My Ans: 0/0 has no logical meaning. Divide by zero is meaningless. U cannot differentiate between variable and undefined values. U do not even grasp the basic idea of wat is undefine. U paste a portion of the article showing tat only idiots will conclude 1=2 and u did tat. U fail to read my explanation tat the 0 in the graph has values from - infinity to + infinity. U r still stuck in your elementary maths and think tat UNDEFINE value must have a cut in the graph like a variable. And any possible value from zero to infinity REINFORCE the idea it is undefined, and not being defined. And fallacy means u use incorrect arguments and reasonings to substantiate a rubbish statement, which is true to your case
7) U claimed: The dictionary definition of truth is wrong. And tis is because science has been wrong before
My Ans: Your only definition of truth is from the dictionary. The dictionary said tat science is a body of truth. But u refuse to accept tat explanation. Science has been wrong but it doesn't means it can never be right or truth. A south korean professor could fake his result but it doesn't means newton law of motion is wrong. U also said u wrote wrongly before on true and false. So u can never write the right things again ?
8) U claimed: Wat is true may not be the truth
My ans: If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
It is a simple logic. Do u understand logic ? U still did not answer your thinking with respect to tis statement
9) U claimed: There r many other definitions of science
My ans: All mainstream organisations treat science as truth or knowledge of facts. And u just misquote Richard Feynman
10) U claimed: Tat since science is wrong before, then it cannot be a "body of truth"
My ans: Science may be wrong before but when it detects a wrong, it instantly correct itself and reflect the truth. So it is still a body of truth. Similar to "student body" (the use of body is the same as science and its body of truth), its members will cease to be students one day. However the definition of "student body" is still intact because those who r no longer students just leave the student body and thus it is still grammatically correct.
If a small part of science is proven wrong, it just meant tat small part is wrong. However u r prejudiced and practise stereotype and thus claim the whole organisation is wrong because a small part is wrong. In tat case, politicians, policemen, philosophers , theologistsand in fact the whole world's organisation had commit a wrong before and thus should be wrong to u too.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
So do u agree tat u had said gravity is not the truth before ?
Is very simple. It is for adding things within the same context or the same unit. If u wanna find out the number of fruits u have u add the number of fruits together. But to u, u r illogical and try to add the fruits u have with, lets say, the number of bags to have to get a figure tat is senseless.
Why don't we try tis then. Before u do the summation, wat is the question u r asking ? If u can define the question, then addition will give u your answer. If u cannot even come out with the question, then something is wrong with your logics
Wat do u want to find find out ? How many bags r there ? U just add bags. How many fruits r there ? U just add fruits. EVERYBODY know tis
They could be wrong, but so r the theologists. Why state tat truth and false is the domain of theologists and not scientist ?
Then let me ask u, why do u take medicine, or live in high rise building of use computers ? If they r not truth to u, these inventions could fail
Tis goes back to the question if a thing is not truth, it cannot be true as well.
If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
U said u believe certain things to be true, but not the truth. In actual fact they contradict.If u think it is true, it is the truth. If u think it is not truth, it is not true.
All of them r not science because they do not use the scientific method. Christians r the one tat is persistent in tis saying though
All these r not scientific method, so they r not science
They r not wrong. They r just refined. U still have to use corpuscular theory of light (photon) with waves to fully described light. Motion of body still require laws of motion + einstein to fully describe it
If I said "it could be anything", is it different from saying "nobody can say what it is".
U have to tell me wat is the physical difference between the two. U again is just playing with words. If u read at the dictionary, it just says "unable to specify distinctly".Wat is wrong with saying it "could be anything" ?
And the HOW and WHY r truth. Nothing in it says tat the HOW and WHY r not truth.
All other aspects and characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea
The idea is the scientific hypothesis. It is judged if it is the truth or not
We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory.
Again the experiments etc is the scientific method and is science. And he treat the theory as truth or not
Simple. It is true and truth until proven false or wrong. A lot of the scientific principles are always true given the same scope. It had proven it is right before isn't it ? So my abc still stands
If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true”
Tis is again rubbish. We r talking about "body" here mind u. Then u go to the "student body" and talk about theory and monkeys. Why does the "student body" becomes theory ?Can u really explain your explanation nicely with words ?
And according to me, truth simply means conformity with facts and reality. It cannot be wrong is your theory.
Wrong. When u divide it by X, the operation becomes illegal because u r still dividing by zero. SO tis equation is still wrong.Normally when u do variable equation, u must be sure they r all defined
As said before, the terms is important. If it cuts the graph, it is defined value, not undefined. It is precisely why it never cuts the graph it is undefined, and it could be anything between -ve infinity to +infinity
U personally used the word fallcy previously (as in fallacy in maths). And your argument is 1=2 which is wrong because u use incorrect reasoning and reasoning
They already defined it as "undefined". Tis is already the end of the line for 0/0 to tis moment in time. U still don't get it don't u ? If u look at the graph, it will never cut it, yet at 0, the values could be anything from -ve infinity to infinity. Tat is the meaning of undefined.
I read it, but it just support my idea.
There is a distinction between a simple mistake and a mathematical fallacy in a proof: a mistake in a proof leads to an invalid proof just in the same way, but in the best-known examples of mathematical fallacies, there is some concealment in the presentation of the proof.
U putting 0/0 as X and then dividing it. U r concealing in the presentation.
Therefore these fallacies, for pedagogic reasons, usually take the form of spurious proofs of obvious contradictions.
It is obvious tat it contradiction using wrong ways to prove 1=2
The latter applies normally to a form of argument that is not a genuine rule of logic, where the problematic mathematical step is typically a correct rule applied with a tacit wrong assumption.
U assume division by 0 is correct. In actual fact it is wrong.
I hope tis clear up your understanding of fallacy
U said science is never about the truth, so it is false.
I said science is a collection of truths.
First of all, let me make it clear. That a lot of your explainations and these supposedly elaborations just further reinforces my point. Lets just do a simple cross-examination. And hopefully through this, we can cut the bullshit, and get down to the gist of it to clear any confusion and supposedly misunderstandings with all those long-winded supposely explainations and elabtorations that you claim is being directed at me, but unfortunately, I know that, and it seems to me, that you are actually explaining it to yourself. Bravo.
Let me just cross-exam our statements with a series of simple YES or NO questions.
1)U said: So do u agree tat u had said gravity is not the truth before ?
NO. I will quote you what u used on me.
“How long did it take them just to explain the theory of gravity”
As u can clearly see, the word Theory is in reference to the subject Gravity. As u notice the word “of” .
Did I not state clearly and constantly that Gravit is Truth ? YES or NO
2)U Ans: Truth has to work within a certain scope. For 1+1=2, both must be the same context. (1 apple + 1 apple =2 apples, 1 apple + 1 orange = 1 apple + 1 orange, not 2 apples or 2 oranges). If u do not obey its scope, u r not using the equation right and talking cock. Before u do the summation, why not u state the question to ask first before doing the sums ?
All this time, I already clearly meant in different circumstances.
Is 1 + 1 = 2 True and the Truth IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES ? YES or NO
3)U said I claimed: I did not say Gravity is not truth
NO. I will quote you what u used on me.
“How long did it take them just to explain the theory of gravity”
As u can clearly see, the word Theory is in reference to the subject Gravity. As u notice the word “of” .
Did I not state clearly and constantly that Gravit is Truth ? YES or NO
4)U said: Then let me ask u, why do u take medicine, or live in high rise building of use computers ? If they r not truth to u, these inventions could fail .
Can you tell me no high rise has collapsed ? Can u tell me no computer has faild? Can u tell medicine can work all the time ? Can you tell me all the machines in this world never fail ? Can you tell me your car never break down ? Can u tell me your windows never give u the blue screen of death ? YES or NO
5) U said “: If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
U said u believe certain things to be true, but not the truth. In actual fact they contradict.If u think it is true, it is the truth. If u think it is not truth, it is not true.”
Your Truth and my Truth is different . YES or NO ?
Exmaple: I drive a Maserati and you drive a Hyundai.( Remember this is an exmaple, not trying to insult anybody) If u were to tell me take a part of Hyundai in my Maserati engine, is it going to work ? YES or NO ?
If I try to fit my Maserati part into your Hyndai, is it going to work ? YES or NO ?
6)U said “All of them r not science because they do not use the scientific method. Christians r the one tat is persistent in tis saying though
i)Flat Earth hypothesis
ii)Phlogiston theory
iii)Geocentric theory of the solar system
iv)The classical elemental theory
v)Aristotle's dynamic motion
vi)Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves
All these r not scientific method, so they r not science”
Are scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses ?
vii)Newton's corpuscular theory of light (While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.)
viii)Newton's Laws of Motion(which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, the were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold)
They r not wrong. They r just refined. U still have to use corpuscular theory of light (photon) with waves to fully described light. Motion of body still require laws of motion + einstein to fully describe it.
Does all these theories manage to explain what its supposed to explain ? YES or NO
Did it not fail to apply itself in its context ? YES or NO
7) U said : “If I said "it could be anything", is it different from saying "nobody can say what it is".
U have to tell me wat is the physical difference between the two. U again is just playing with words. If u read at the dictionary, it just says "unable to specify distinctly".Wat is wrong with saying it "could be anything" ?”
Let me ask you:
If we come across something that we dont even know what it is, and I asked you, “What is it ?” normally, if a person dont know, they will reply, “ I dont know” they dont say , “It could be anything!” because, by asking that question answering “It could be anyhing?” Is like telling me... it could be anything, which I KNOW. “If could be anything!”. thats why I asked you, “What is it ?
Now, is Undefined the opposite of Defined ? YES or NO
8)U said: And the HOW and WHY r truth. Nothing in it says tat the HOW and WHY r not truth.
All other aspects and characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea
The idea is the scientific hypothesis. It is judged if it is the truth or not
We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory.
Again the experiments etc is the scientific method and is science. And he treat the theory as truth or not.
And u just misquote Richard Feynman
I answered: He is really very much a science person to explain the how and why , of the truth.
Both of us interpretated his definition of science differently. Now, let me ask you.
Are you Richard Feynman ? YES or NO
9 )I hope that helps clear all your doubt of where what I mean by Fallacy in 0/0 = Undefined.
U said: “I read it, but it just support my idea.
There is a distinction between a simple mistake and a mathematical fallacy in a proof: a mistake in a proof leads to an invalid proof just in the same way, but in the best-known examples of mathematical fallacies, there is some concealment in the presentation of the proof.
U putting 0/0 as X and then dividing it. U r concealing in the presentation.
Therefore these fallacies, for pedagogic reasons, usually take the form of spurious proofs of obvious contradictions.
It is obvious tat it contradiction using wrong ways to prove 1=2
The latter applies normally to a form of argument that is not a genuine rule of logic, where the problematic mathematical step is typically a correct rule applied with a tacit wrong assumption.
U assume division by 0 is correct. In actual fact it is wrong.”
Did I not say 0/0 is Undefined and its not a legitimate operation in the beginning of this subject ? YES or NO
Did u point out to me that “It can be 0 to Infinity depending on the subject matter.” YES or NO
After that:
Did u say “0/0 * 0 = 0/0 * infinity. Since 0/0 can be anything, the first set of 0/0 could be 1 while the second set could be 0, then it still come to the conclusion tat 0= 0 which is again right.” YES OR NO
Does the graph ever reaches 0 ? YES or NO
10) DID I EVER SAY “SCIENCE IS WRONG” YES or NO
11)U claimed I said science is never about the truth, so it is false.
I said science is a collection of truths.
Did I say ever Science is false ? YES or NO
If you asked for a crate of good apples, and there are 50 bad apples out of 500. Is it still a crate of good apples ? YES or NO
12)Does science make mistakes ? YES or NO
-
Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO
-
If something is wrong, can it be Truth (True = Truth) ? YES or NO
Should be an extremely easy YES or NO. You have had enough time to explain, elaborate , spin and all that. I know what i said, u know what i said, i know what u said. So lets cut to the chase and work it out from here. U can choose not to answer a simple Yes or No. If that is the case, do not expect me to reply your questions that I have already answered so many times.
-
-
From wat I see, u r just avoiding the previous questions I made. I can answer u your questions, but u have to answer back mine as well. Fair right ?
Did I not state clearly and constantly that Gravit is Truth ? YES or NO
No
It is because u said gravity is a theory and thus not truth before. Therefore it is not constantly. Let me ask u a question back then. Yes or no too
Did u ever suggest that gravity is a theory or there is a theory of gravity ?
Let me tell u one thing first. Gravity is really a scientific theory similar to evolution.
Is 1 + 1 = 2 True and the Truth IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES ? YES or NO
No
This is because u threw garbage into the equation. I also issue a challenge for u
Is the truth gravity which u claimed is TRUTH, TRUTH in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES ? Yes or no
Let me ask u another one
Can you Show me the example of 1+1 not equal to 2 again but state the question u want to ask first ?
Your Truth and my Truth is different . YES or NO ?
Yes
But does your TRUTH and SCIENCE deviates greatly from the rest of the english speaking world ?
If u were to tell me take a part of Hyundai in my Maserati engine, is it going to work ? YES or NO ?
If I try to fit my Maserati part into your Hyndai, is it going to work ? YES or NO ?
Yes. I am sure the rear mirror or tires or steering wheel or seats is standardised and can fit nicely on any car
Are scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses ?
No
Not fully. I believe tat peer review and scrutiny should be included as well
Does all these theories manage to explain what its supposed to explain ? YES or NO
Did it not fail to apply itself in its context ? YES or NO
Yes. It did works FULLY for many cases. Let me ask u back,
DO u believe tat several truths should be studied together to obtain a better understanding ?
Now, is Undefined the opposite of Defined ? YES or NO
Yes
If we come across something that we dont even know what it is, and I asked you, “What is it ?” normally, if a person dont know, they will reply, “ I dont know” they dont say , “It could be anything!” because, by asking that question answering “It could be anyhing?” Is like telling me... it could be anything, which I KNOW. “If could be anything!”. thats why I asked you, “What is it ?
U r again saying rubbish. If someone shows a thing which we have no clue at all, a person saying "it could be anything" is justified. U know wat is the meaning of "anything" ? It means it could be something u do not know too. U could search at google and u can find the following usage in grammer
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100125181108AABia6T
What kind of Parrot is this (It could be anything!)?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/snappydessy/4267199946/
It Could Be Anything
But what IS it? I may give a clue soon if nobody gets even close... :)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Could_it_be_dangerous_if_you%27ve_had_swelling_for_3_days_now_and_you%27re_sweating_profusely
Could it be dangerous if you've had swelling for 3 days now and you're sweating profusely?
Well it could be anything. It is difficult to answer a question with so little to go on.
Let me ask u back
It is already certified tat 0/0 is a fallacy, a misinterpretation and there is no mathematical or logic error in it. Don't u think tat playing around with the equation just shows u giving off more silly fallacies and misinterpreting the whole situation ?
Are you Richard Feynman ? YES or NO
No. Let me ask u back
Are you Richard Feynman ? YES or NO
U r the one who quotes him first
Did I not say 0/0 is Undefined and its not a legitimate operation in the beginning of this subject ? YES or NO
NO. U say 0/0 is logically zero which is obviously wrong
Did u point out to me that “It can be 0 to Infinity depending on the subject matter.” YES or NO
Yes. I still stand by these words. It surely beats saying it is logically zero
Did u say “0/0 * 0 = 0/0 * infinity. Since 0/0 can be anything, the first set of 0/0 could be 1 while the second set could be 0, then it still come to the conclusion tat 0= 0 which is again right.” YES OR NO
Yes. I still stand by these words
Can you prove my above equation wrong ?
Does the graph ever reaches 0 ? YES or NO
No
So ? I have said many times tat it goes from -ve infinity to + infinity and it could be anything in between. Let me ask u back
Does y tend to positive infinity and negative infinty as x goes to zero ? Wat is the value of X=0 then ?
The answer u give is the answer of division by zero
DID I EVER SAY “SCIENCE IS WRONG” YES or NO
Yes. Because if it is not truth, it is false and wrong
Did u ever say Science is NEVER about the truth ?
If you asked for a crate of good apples, and there are 50 bad apples out of 500. Is it still a crate of good apples ? YES or NO
Don't know. A wholeseller who get 90% good apples could already be very happy. Normally the bad apples could be 80 or 90 per 500. Let me ask u back
If there r good apples in the crate, could u say the supplier has never provided any good apples in it ?
Does science make mistakes ? YES or NO
Yes
-
Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO
Unsure. U still has not given an example of a wrong scientific theory
-
If something is wrong, can it be Truth (True = Truth) ? YES or NO
Yes. Examples like "Wat u said r wrong". This is the truth even though u r wrong. Wat is not the truth is definitely false/wrong but wat is wrong may be the truth.
Let me ask u back here.
If a science hypothesis is wrong, does it means ALL the other established scientific theories and laws, like Einstein, Newton etc r all wrong as well ?
Now I have answered all your questions. Why not u answer mine with a yes or no as well.
-
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
From wat I see, u r just avoiding the previous questions I made. I can answer u your questions, but u have to answer back mine as well. Fair right ?
Did I not state clearly and constantly that Gravit is Truth ? YES or NO
No
It is because u said gravity is a theory and thus not truth before. Therefore it is not constantly. Let me ask u a question back then. Yes or no too
Did u ever suggest that gravity is a theory or there is a theory of gravity ?
Let me tell u one thing first. Gravity is really a scientific theory similar to evolution.
Is 1 + 1 = 2 True and the Truth IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES ? YES or NO
No
This is because u threw garbage into the equation. I also issue a challenge for u
Is the truth gravity which u claimed is TRUTH, TRUTH in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES ? Yes or no
Let me ask u another one
Can you Show me the example of 1+1 not equal to 2 again but state the question u want to ask first ?
Your Truth and my Truth is different . YES or NO ?
Yes
But does your TRUTH and SCIENCE deviates greatly from the rest of the english speaking world ?
If u were to tell me take a part of Hyundai in my Maserati engine, is it going to work ? YES or NO ?
If I try to fit my Maserati part into your Hyndai, is it going to work ? YES or NO ?
Yes. I am sure the rear mirror or tires or steering wheel or seats is standardised and can fit nicely on any car
Are scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses ?
No
Not fully. I believe tat peer review and scrutiny should be included as well
Does all these theories manage to explain what its supposed to explain ? YES or NO
Did it not fail to apply itself in its context ? YES or NO
Yes. It did works FULLY for many cases. Let me ask u back,
DO u believe tat several truths should be studied together to obtain a better understanding ?
Now, is Undefined the opposite of Defined ? YES or NO
Yes
If we come across something that we dont even know what it is, and I asked you, “What is it ?” normally, if a person dont know, they will reply, “ I dont know” they dont say , “It could be anything!” because, by asking that question answering “It could be anyhing?” Is like telling me... it could be anything, which I KNOW. “If could be anything!”. thats why I asked you, “What is it ?
U r again saying rubbish. If someone shows a thing which we have no clue at all, a person saying "it could be anything" is justified. U know wat is the meaning of "anything" ? It means it could be something u do not know too. U could search at google and u can find the following usage in grammer
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100125181108AABia6T
What kind of Parrot is this (It could be anything!)?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/snappydessy/4267199946/
It Could Be Anything
But what IS it? I may give a clue soon if nobody gets even close... :)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Could_it_be_dangerous_if_you%27ve_had_swelling_for_3_days_now_and_you%27re_sweating_profusely
Could it be dangerous if you've had swelling for 3 days now and you're sweating profusely?
Well it could be anything. It is difficult to answer a question with so little to go on.
Let me ask u back
It is already certified tat 0/0 is a fallacy, a misinterpretation and there is no mathematical or logic error in it. Don't u think tat playing around with the equation just shows u giving off more silly fallacies and misinterpreting the whole situation ?
Are you Richard Feynman ? YES or NO
No. Let me ask u back
Are you Richard Feynman ? YES or NO
U r the one who quotes him first
Did I not say 0/0 is Undefined and its not a legitimate operation in the beginning of this subject ? YES or NO
NO. U say 0/0 is logically zero which is obviously wrong
Did u point out to me that “It can be 0 to Infinity depending on the subject matter.” YES or NO
Yes. I still stand by these words. It surely beats saying it is logically zero
Did u say “0/0 * 0 = 0/0 * infinity. Since 0/0 can be anything, the first set of 0/0 could be 1 while the second set could be 0, then it still come to the conclusion tat 0= 0 which is again right.” YES OR NO
Yes. I still stand by these words
Does the graph ever reaches 0 ? YES or NO
No
So ? I have said many times tat it goes from -ve infinity to + infinity and it could be anything in between. Let me ask u back
Wat is the value of y when x=0 in the graph ?
The answer u give is the answer of division by zero
DID I EVER SAY “SCIENCE IS WRONG” YES or NO
Yes. Because if it is not truth, it is false and wrong
Did u ever say Science is NEVER about the truth ?
If you asked for a crate of good apples, and there are 50 bad apples out of 500. Is it still a crate of good apples ? YES or NO
Don't know. A wholeseller who get 90% good apples could already be very happy. Normally the bad apples could be 80 or 90 per 500. Let me ask u back
If there r good apples in the crate, could u say the supplier has never provided any good apples in it ?
Does science make mistakes ? YES or NO
Yes
-
Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO
Unsure. U still has not given an example of a wrong scientific theory
-
If something is wrong, can it be Truth (True = Truth) ? YES or NO
No
Let me ask u back here.
If a trivial science hypothesis is wrong, does it means ALL the other established scientific theories and laws, like Einstein, Newton etc r all wrong as well ?
Now I have answered all your questions. Why not u answer mine with a yes or no as well.
Its just a simple YES or NO. Thats all. I didnt ask for your elaboration. I have seen enough of your "elaboration". Its a simple YES or NO in this cross examination , elaborations can just confuse people. There is no need to spin things. I am sure , we have elaborated PLENTY.
I am more then willing to answer a simple YES or NO in your questions.
Now please. Before that.
Answer in a YES or NO.
First of all, let me make it clear. That a lot of your explainations and these supposedly elaborations just further reinforces my point. Lets just do a simple cross-examination. And hopefully through this, we can cut the bullshit, and get down to the gist of it to clear any confusion and supposedly misunderstandings with all those long-winded supposely explainations and elabtorations that you claim is being directed at me, but unfortunately, I know that, and it seems to me, that you are actually explaining it to yourself. Bravo.
Let me just cross-exam our statements with a series of simple YES or NO questions.
1)U said: So do u agree tat u had said gravity is not the truth before ?
NO. I will quote you what u used on me.
“How long did it take them just to explain the theory of gravity”
As u can clearly see, the word Theory is in reference to the subject Gravity. As u notice the word “of” .
Did I not state clearly and constantly that Gravit is Truth ? YES or NO
2)U Ans: Truth has to work within a certain scope. For 1+1=2, both must be the same context. (1 apple + 1 apple =2 apples, 1 apple + 1 orange = 1 apple + 1 orange, not 2 apples or 2 oranges). If u do not obey its scope, u r not using the equation right and talking cock. Before u do the summation, why not u state the question to ask first before doing the sums ?
All this time, I already clearly meant in different circumstances.
Is 1 + 1 = 2 True and the Truth IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES ? YES or NO
3)U said I claimed: I did not say Gravity is not truth
NO. I will quote you what u used on me.
“How long did it take them just to explain the theory of gravity”
As u can clearly see, the word Theory is in reference to the subject Gravity. As u notice the word “of” .
Did I not state clearly and constantly that Gravit is Truth ? YES or NO
4)U said: Then let me ask u, why do u take medicine, or live in high rise building of use computers ? If they r not truth to u, these inventions could fail .
Can you tell me no high rise has collapsed ? Can u tell me no computer has faild? Can u tell medicine can work all the time ? Can you tell me all the machines in this world never fail ? Can you tell me your car never break down ? Can u tell me your windows never give u the blue screen of death ? YES or NO
5) U said “: If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
U said u believe certain things to be true, but not the truth. In actual fact they contradict.If u think it is true, it is the truth. If u think it is not truth, it is not true.”
Your Truth and my Truth is different . YES or NO ?
Exmaple: I drive a Maserati and you drive a Hyundai.( Remember this is an exmaple, not trying to insult anybody) If u were to tell me take a part of Hyundai in my Maserati engine, is it going to work ? YES or NO ?
If I try to fit my Maserati part into your Hyndai, is it going to work ? YES or NO ?
6)U said “All of them r not science because they do not use the scientific method. Christians r the one tat is persistent in tis saying though
i)Flat Earth hypothesis
ii)Phlogiston theory
iii)Geocentric theory of the solar system
iv)The classical elemental theory
v)Aristotle's dynamic motion
vi)Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves
All these r not scientific method, so they r not science”
Are scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses ?
viii)Newton's Laws of Motion(which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, the were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold)
They r not wrong. They r just refined. U still have to use corpuscular theory of light (photon) with waves to fully described light. Motion of body still require laws of motion + einstein to fully describe it.
Does all these theories manage to explain what its supposed to explain ? YES or NO
Did it not fail to apply itself in its context ? YES or NO
7) U said : “If I said "it could be anything", is it different from saying "nobody can say what it is".
U have to tell me wat is the physical difference between the two. U again is just playing with words. If u read at the dictionary, it just says "unable to specify distinctly".Wat is wrong with saying it "could be anything" ?”
Let me ask you:
If we come across something that we dont even know what it is, and I asked you, “What is it ?” normally, if a person dont know, they will reply, “ I dont know” they dont say , “It could be anything!” because, by asking that question answering “It could be anyhing?” Is like telling me... it could be anything, which I KNOW. “If could be anything!”. thats why I asked you, “What is it ?
Now, is Undefined the opposite of Defined ? YES or NO
8)U said: And the HOW and WHY r truth. Nothing in it says tat the HOW and WHY r not truth.
All other aspects and characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea
The idea is the scientific hypothesis. It is judged if it is the truth or not
We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory.
Again the experiments etc is the scientific method and is science. And he treat the theory as truth or not.
And u just misquote Richard Feynman
I answered: He is really very much a science person to explain the how and why , of the truth.
Both of us interpretated his definition of science differently. Now, let me ask you.
Are you Richard Feynman ? YES or NO
9 )I hope that helps clear all your doubt of where what I mean by Fallacy in 0/0 = Undefined.
U said: “I read it, but it just support my idea.
There is a distinction between a simple mistake and a mathematical fallacy in a proof: a mistake in a proof leads to an invalid proof just in the same way, but in the best-known examples of mathematical fallacies, there is some concealment in the presentation of the proof.
U putting 0/0 as X and then dividing it. U r concealing in the presentation.
Therefore these fallacies, for pedagogic reasons, usually take the form of spurious proofs of obvious contradictions.
It is obvious tat it contradiction using wrong ways to prove 1=2
The latter applies normally to a form of argument that is not a genuine rule of logic, where the problematic mathematical step is typically a correct rule applied with a tacit wrong assumption.
U assume division by 0 is correct. In actual fact it is wrong.”
Did I not say 0/0 is Undefined and its not a legitimate operation in the beginning of this subject ? YES or NO
Did u point out to me that “It can be 0 to Infinity depending on the subject matter.” YES or NO
After that:
Did u say “0/0 * 0 = 0/0 * infinity. Since 0/0 can be anything, the first set of 0/0 could be 1 while the second set could be 0, then it still come to the conclusion tat 0= 0 which is again right.” YES OR NO
Does the graph ever reaches 0 ? YES or NO
10) DID I EVER SAY “SCIENCE IS WRONG” YES or NO
11)U claimed I said science is never about the truth, so it is false.
I said science is a collection of truths.
Did I say ever Science is false ? YES or NO
If you asked for a crate of good apples, and there are 50 bad apples out of 500. Is it still a crate of good apples ? YES or NO
12)Does science make mistakes ? YES or NO
-
Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO
-
If something is wrong, can it be Truth (True = Truth) ? YES or NO
Please. If i would want your explaination, i will refer myself to your previous posts, or ask you .
Please, answer within the context of the question. No need to spin it out of context. Its not hard. Its a very simple yes or not. I will be more then happy to answer your YES or NO.
-
-
I had given a Yes or No answer for all your questions. U go and read
And sorry tis is a debate. We give reply to each other like a 5 minutes uninterrupted talk, not u going around asking silly and unfair questions . Had u watched too much of "the Pupil " ?
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I had given a Yes or No answer for all your questions. U go and read
Unfotunately u didnt answer all the questions. U can just answer YES or NO. Its very simple. No need for elaborations. U can EDIT again. In a simple YES or NO. Its not hard. Please answer those u have missed out, and i will be more then happy to answer your first reply of my cross exmaination.
Its just a simple YES or NO. Thats all. I didnt ask for your elaboration. I have seen enough of your "elaboration". Its a simple YES or NO in this cross examination , elaborations can just confuse people. There is no need to spin things. I am sure , we have elaborated PLENTY.
I am more then willing to answer a simple YES or NO in your questions.
Now please. Before that.
Answer in a YES or NO.
First of all, let me make it clear. That a lot of your explainations and these supposedly elaborations just further reinforces my point. Lets just do a simple cross-examination. And hopefully through this, we can cut the bullshit, and get down to the gist of it to clear any confusion and supposedly misunderstandings with all those long-winded supposely explainations and elabtorations that you claim is being directed at me, but unfortunately, I know that, and it seems to me, that you are actually explaining it to yourself. Bravo.
Let me just cross-exam our statements with a series of simple YES or NO questions.
1)U said: So do u agree tat u had said gravity is not the truth before ?
NO. I will quote you what u used on me.
“How long did it take them just to explain the theory of gravity”
As u can clearly see, the word Theory is in reference to the subject Gravity. As u notice the word “of” .
Did I not state clearly and constantly that Gravit is Truth ? YES or NO
2)U Ans: Truth has to work within a certain scope. For 1+1=2, both must be the same context. (1 apple + 1 apple =2 apples, 1 apple + 1 orange = 1 apple + 1 orange, not 2 apples or 2 oranges). If u do not obey its scope, u r not using the equation right and talking cock. Before u do the summation, why not u state the question to ask first before doing the sums ?
All this time, I already clearly meant in different circumstances.
Is 1 + 1 = 2 True and the Truth IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES ? YES or NO
3)U said I claimed: I did not say Gravity is not truth
NO. I will quote you what u used on me.
“How long did it take them just to explain the theory of gravity”
As u can clearly see, the word Theory is in reference to the subject Gravity. As u notice the word “of” .
Did I not state clearly and constantly that Gravit is Truth ? YES or NO
4)U said: Then let me ask u, why do u take medicine, or live in high rise building of use computers ? If they r not truth to u, these inventions could fail .
Can you tell me no high rise has collapsed ? Can u tell me no computer has faild? Can u tell medicine can work all the time ? Can you tell me all the machines in this world never fail ? Can you tell me your car never break down ? Can u tell me your windows never give u the blue screen of death ? YES or NO
5) U said “: If it is not the truth, it is not true.
a) if a thing is not truth, it must be false
b) false is not true
U said u believe certain things to be true, but not the truth. In actual fact they contradict.If u think it is true, it is the truth. If u think it is not truth, it is not true.”
Your Truth and my Truth is different . YES or NO ?
Exmaple: I drive a Maserati and you drive a Hyundai.( Remember this is an exmaple, not trying to insult anybody) If u were to tell me take a part of Hyundai in my Maserati engine, is it going to work ? YES or NO ?
If I try to fit my Maserati part into your Hyndai, is it going to work ? YES or NO ?
6)U said “All of them r not science because they do not use the scientific method. Christians r the one tat is persistent in tis saying though
i)Flat Earth hypothesis
ii)Phlogiston theory
iii)Geocentric theory of the solar system
iv)The classical elemental theory
v)Aristotle's dynamic motion
vi)Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves
All these r not scientific method, so they r not science”
Are scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses ?
viii)Newton's Laws of Motion(which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, the were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold)
They r not wrong. They r just refined. U still have to use corpuscular theory of light (photon) with waves to fully described light. Motion of body still require laws of motion + einstein to fully describe it.
Does all these theories manage to explain what its supposed to explain ? YES or NO
Did it not fail to apply itself in its context ? YES or NO
7) U said : “If I said "it could be anything", is it different from saying "nobody can say what it is".
U have to tell me wat is the physical difference between the two. U again is just playing with words. If u read at the dictionary, it just says "unable to specify distinctly".Wat is wrong with saying it "could be anything" ?”
Let me ask you:
If we come across something that we dont even know what it is, and I asked you, “What is it ?” normally, if a person dont know, they will reply, “ I dont know” they dont say , “It could be anything!” because, by asking that question answering “It could be anyhing?” Is like telling me... it could be anything, which I KNOW. “If could be anything!”. thats why I asked you, “What is it ?
Now, is Undefined the opposite of Defined ? YES or NO
8)U said: And the HOW and WHY r truth. Nothing in it says tat the HOW and WHY r not truth.
All other aspects and characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea
The idea is the scientific hypothesis. It is judged if it is the truth or not
We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory.
Again the experiments etc is the scientific method and is science. And he treat the theory as truth or not.
And u just misquote Richard Feynman
I answered: He is really very much a science person to explain the how and why , of the truth.
Both of us interpretated his definition of science differently. Now, let me ask you.
Are you Richard Feynman ? YES or NO
9 )I hope that helps clear all your doubt of where what I mean by Fallacy in 0/0 = Undefined.
U said: “I read it, but it just support my idea.
There is a distinction between a simple mistake and a mathematical fallacy in a proof: a mistake in a proof leads to an invalid proof just in the same way, but in the best-known examples of mathematical fallacies, there is some concealment in the presentation of the proof.
U putting 0/0 as X and then dividing it. U r concealing in the presentation.
Therefore these fallacies, for pedagogic reasons, usually take the form of spurious proofs of obvious contradictions.
It is obvious tat it contradiction using wrong ways to prove 1=2
The latter applies normally to a form of argument that is not a genuine rule of logic, where the problematic mathematical step is typically a correct rule applied with a tacit wrong assumption.
U assume division by 0 is correct. In actual fact it is wrong.”
Did I not say 0/0 is Undefined and its not a legitimate operation in the beginning of this subject ? YES or NO
Did u point out to me that “It can be 0 to Infinity depending on the subject matter.” YES or NO
After that:
Did u say “0/0 * 0 = 0/0 * infinity. Since 0/0 can be anything, the first set of 0/0 could be 1 while the second set could be 0, then it still come to the conclusion tat 0= 0 which is again right.” YES OR NO
Does the graph ever reaches 0 ? YES or NO
10) DID I EVER SAY “SCIENCE IS WRONG” YES or NO
11)U claimed I said science is never about the truth, so it is false.
I said science is a collection of truths.
Did I say ever Science is false ? YES or NO
If you asked for a crate of good apples, and there are 50 bad apples out of 500. Is it still a crate of good apples ? YES or NO
12)Does science make mistakes ? YES or NO
-
Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO
-
If something is wrong, can it be Truth (True = Truth) ? YES or NO
Please. If i would want your explaination, i will refer myself to your previous posts, or ask you .
Please, answer within the context of the question. No need to spin it out of context. Its not hard. Its a very simple yes or not. I will be more then happy to answer your YES or NO.
-
-
I answered and it is
Did I not state clearly and constantly that Gravit is Truth ? YES or NO
No
It is because u said gravity is a theory and thus not truth before. Therefore it is not constantly. Let me ask u a question back then. Yes or no too
Did u ever suggest that gravity is a theory or there is a theory of gravity ?
Let me tell u one thing first. Gravity is really a scientific theory similar to evolution.
Is 1 + 1 = 2 True and the Truth IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES ? YES or NO
No
This is because u threw garbage into the equation. I also issue a challenge for u
Is the truth gravity which u claimed is TRUTH, TRUTH in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES ? Yes or no
Let me ask u another one
Can you Show me the example of 1+1 not equal to 2 again but state the question u want to ask first ?
Your Truth and my Truth is different . YES or NO ?
Yes
But does your TRUTH and SCIENCE deviates greatly from the rest of the english speaking world ?
If u were to tell me take a part of Hyundai in my Maserati engine, is it going to work ? YES or NO ?
If I try to fit my Maserati part into your Hyndai, is it going to work ? YES or NO ?
Yes. I am sure the rear mirror or tires or steering wheel or seats is standardised and can fit nicely on any car
Are scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses ?
No
Not fully. I believe tat peer review and scrutiny should be included as well
Does all these theories manage to explain what its supposed to explain ? YES or NO
Did it not fail to apply itself in its context ? YES or NO
Yes. It did works FULLY for many cases. Let me ask u back,
DO u believe tat several truths should be studied together to obtain a better understanding ?
Now, is Undefined the opposite of Defined ? YES or NO
Yes
If we come across something that we dont even know what it is, and I asked you, “What is it ?” normally, if a person dont know, they will reply, “ I dont know” they dont say , “It could be anything!” because, by asking that question answering “It could be anyhing?” Is like telling me... it could be anything, which I KNOW. “If could be anything!”. thats why I asked you, “What is it ?
U r again saying rubbish. If someone shows a thing which we have no clue at all, a person saying "it could be anything" is justified. U know wat is the meaning of "anything" ? It means it could be something u do not know too. U could search at google and u can find the following usage in grammer
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100125181108AABia6T
What kind of Parrot is this (It could be anything!)?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/snappydessy/4267199946/
It Could Be Anything
But what IS it? I may give a clue soon if nobody gets even close... :)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Could_it_be_dangerous_if_you%27ve_had_swelling_for_3_days_now_and_you%27re_sweating_profusely
Could it be dangerous if you've had swelling for 3 days now and you're sweating profusely?
Well it could be anything. It is difficult to answer a question with so little to go on.
Let me ask u back
It is already certified tat 0/0 is a fallacy, a misinterpretation and there is no mathematical or logic error in it. Don't u think tat playing around with the equation just shows u giving off more silly fallacies and misinterpreting the whole situation ?
Are you Richard Feynman ? YES or NO
No. Let me ask u back
Are you Richard Feynman ? YES or NO
U r the one who quotes him first
Did I not say 0/0 is Undefined and its not a legitimate operation in the beginning of this subject ? YES or NO
NO. U say 0/0 is logically zero which is obviously wrong
Did u point out to me that “It can be 0 to Infinity depending on the subject matter.” YES or NO
Yes. I still stand by these words. It surely beats saying it is logically zero
Did u say “0/0 * 0 = 0/0 * infinity. Since 0/0 can be anything, the first set of 0/0 could be 1 while the second set could be 0, then it still come to the conclusion tat 0= 0 which is again right.” YES OR NO
Yes. I still stand by these words
Can you prove my above equation wrong ?
Does the graph ever reaches 0 ? YES or NO
No
So ? I have said many times tat it goes from -ve infinity to + infinity and it could be anything in between. Let me ask u back
Does y tend to positive infinity and negative infinty as x goes to zero ? Wat is the value of X=0 then ?
The answer u give is the answer of division by zero
DID I EVER SAY “SCIENCE IS WRONG” YES or NO
Yes. Because if it is not truth, it is false and wrong
Did u ever say Science is NEVER about the truth ?
If you asked for a crate of good apples, and there are 50 bad apples out of 500. Is it still a crate of good apples ? YES or NO
Don't know. A wholeseller who get 90% good apples could already be very happy. Normally the bad apples could be 80 or 90 per 500. Let me ask u back
If there r good apples in the crate, could u say the supplier has never provided any good apples in it ?
Does science make mistakes ? YES or NO
Yes
-
Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO
Unsure. U still has not given an example of a wrong scientific theory
-
If something is wrong, can it be Truth (True = Truth) ? YES or NO
Yes. Examples like "Wat u said r wrong". This is the truth even though u r wrong. Wat is not the truth is definitely false/wrong but wat is wrong may be the truth.
Let me ask u back here.
If a science hypothesis is wrong, does it means ALL the other established scientific theories and laws, like Einstein, Newton etc r all wrong as well ?
Now I have answered all your questions. Why not u answer mine with a yes or no as well.
I am sorry but u don't set all the rules. I gave u a yes or no answer and I have the right to elaborate on my answer. Why u so worried and don't dare to reply liao ? U wanna end tis game now ?
-
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I had given a Yes or No answer for all your questions. U go and read
And sorry tis is a debate. We give reply to each other like a 5 minutes uninterrupted talk, not u going around asking silly and unfair questions . Had u watched too much of "the Pupil " ?
So U can ask silly and unfair questions and i cant ? So your explainations are acceptable while mine is not ? How unfair is mine ? Are they not just a cross examination into our differences and where each of us stand ?
-
U can ask. But I let u have the chance to elaborate. U refuse to let me elaborate. Tat is really rubbish u see.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I answered and it is
Did I not state clearly and constantly that Gravit is Truth ? YES or NO
No
It is because u said gravity is a theory and thus not truth before. Therefore it is not constantly. Let me ask u a question back then. Yes or no too
Did u ever suggest that gravity is a theory or there is a theory of gravity ?
Let me tell u one thing first. Gravity is really a scientific theory similar to evolution.
Is 1 + 1 = 2 True and the Truth IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES ? YES or NO
No
This is because u threw garbage into the equation. I also issue a challenge for u
Is the truth gravity which u claimed is TRUTH, TRUTH in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES ? Yes or no
Let me ask u another one
Can you Show me the example of 1+1 not equal to 2 again but state the question u want to ask first ?
Your Truth and my Truth is different . YES or NO ?
Yes
But does your TRUTH and SCIENCE deviates greatly from the rest of the english speaking world ?
If u were to tell me take a part of Hyundai in my Maserati engine, is it going to work ? YES or NO ?
If I try to fit my Maserati part into your Hyndai, is it going to work ? YES or NO ?
Yes. I am sure the rear mirror or tires or steering wheel or seats is standardised and can fit nicely on any car
Are scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses ?
No
Not fully. I believe tat peer review and scrutiny should be included as well
Does all these theories manage to explain what its supposed to explain ? YES or NO
Did it not fail to apply itself in its context ? YES or NO
Yes. It did works FULLY for many cases. Let me ask u back,
DO u believe tat several truths should be studied together to obtain a better understanding ?
Now, is Undefined the opposite of Defined ? YES or NO
Yes
If we come across something that we dont even know what it is, and I asked you, “What is it ?” normally, if a person dont know, they will reply, “ I dont know” they dont say , “It could be anything!” because, by asking that question answering “It could be anyhing?” Is like telling me... it could be anything, which I KNOW. “If could be anything!”. thats why I asked you, “What is it ?
U r again saying rubbish. If someone shows a thing which we have no clue at all, a person saying "it could be anything" is justified. U know wat is the meaning of "anything" ? It means it could be something u do not know too. U could search at google and u can find the following usage in grammer
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100125181108AABia6T
What kind of Parrot is this (It could be anything!)?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/snappydessy/4267199946/
It Could Be Anything
But what IS it? I may give a clue soon if nobody gets even close... :)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Could_it_be_dangerous_if_you%27ve_had_swelling_for_3_days_now_and_you%27re_sweating_profusely
Could it be dangerous if you've had swelling for 3 days now and you're sweating profusely?
Well it could be anything. It is difficult to answer a question with so little to go on.
Let me ask u back
It is already certified tat 0/0 is a fallacy, a misinterpretation and there is no mathematical or logic error in it. Don't u think tat playing around with the equation just shows u giving off more silly fallacies and misinterpreting the whole situation ?
Are you Richard Feynman ? YES or NO
No. Let me ask u back
Are you Richard Feynman ? YES or NO
U r the one who quotes him first
Did I not say 0/0 is Undefined and its not a legitimate operation in the beginning of this subject ? YES or NO
NO. U say 0/0 is logically zero which is obviously wrong
Did u point out to me that “It can be 0 to Infinity depending on the subject matter.” YES or NO
Yes. I still stand by these words. It surely beats saying it is logically zero
Did u say “0/0 * 0 = 0/0 * infinity. Since 0/0 can be anything, the first set of 0/0 could be 1 while the second set could be 0, then it still come to the conclusion tat 0= 0 which is again right.” YES OR NO
Yes. I still stand by these words
Can you prove my above equation wrong ?
Does the graph ever reaches 0 ? YES or NO
No
So ? I have said many times tat it goes from -ve infinity to + infinity and it could be anything in between. Let me ask u back
Does y tend to positive infinity and negative infinty as x goes to zero ? Wat is the value of X=0 then ?
The answer u give is the answer of division by zero
DID I EVER SAY “SCIENCE IS WRONG” YES or NO
Yes. Because if it is not truth, it is false and wrong
Did u ever say Science is NEVER about the truth ?
If you asked for a crate of good apples, and there are 50 bad apples out of 500. Is it still a crate of good apples ? YES or NO
Don't know. A wholeseller who get 90% good apples could already be very happy. Normally the bad apples could be 80 or 90 per 500. Let me ask u back
If there r good apples in the crate, could u say the supplier has never provided any good apples in it ?
Does science make mistakes ? YES or NO
Yes
-
Has Theories been wrong before ? YES or NO
Unsure. U still has not given an example of a wrong scientific theory
-
If something is wrong, can it be Truth (True = Truth) ? YES or NO
Yes. Examples like "Wat u said r wrong". This is the truth even though u r wrong. Wat is not the truth is definitely false/wrong but wat is wrong may be the truth.
Let me ask u back here.
If a science hypothesis is wrong, does it means ALL the other established scientific theories and laws, like Einstein, Newton etc r all wrong as well ?
Now I have answered all your questions. Why not u answer mine with a yes or no as well.
I am sorry but u don't set all the rules. I gave u a yes or no answer and I have the right to elaborate on my answer. Why u so worried and don't dare to reply liao ? U wanna end tis game now ?
I said again , IF i need elabtorations , i will ask. So can you. Ask me for elaborations. Simple YES or NO will suffice, within the context of the questions.
And lets not veer off out of context.
I am willikng to answer your YES or NO, but do u want elaborations as well ? Wouldnt that defeat the pupose of this cross exmaination ? This game just started. And i am just warming up.
It seems we often have misunderstndings. A simple YES or NO will suffice to fully understand each others standing.
-
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
U can ask. But I let u have the chance to elaborate. U refuse to let me elaborate. Tat is really rubbish u see.
Wouldnt elaboration just bring us back to the beginning ? Of this vicious cycle ? Wouldnt u want to just know my simple YES or NO ?
-
I am sorry but I don't follow your rules. U don't give me money. I replied u yes or no followed by the elaborations whether u like it or not like it.
-
The answer of just Yes and No is meaningless and misleading if we do not know wat the other is thinking.
If u do not like the elaboration, u just read the Yes or No and then decide if u wanna read the rest. If u do not like to read, then u skip lor
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I am sorry but I don't follow your rules. U don't give me money. I replied u yes or no followed by the elaborations whether u like it or not like it.
You didnt answer all the questions. And u did not answer a simple YES or NO. How hard is that ?
Its just a simple cross examination here. Dont worry too much here.
