What is a fact?

No! What this boils down to is the fact that we are in disagreement and you are attempting to convince me that I am in error, yet you admit that the foundational subject that we have been discussing, is that arbitrary numbers being placed on scales and calling them and the resulting findings of those scales a FACT is what the error is. As for Einstein..... he said what he said.

Yeppir! Because that nature is abstract, it is not about reality.

Your interpretation of his words.

You have not answered all the questions. But I will settle for what you have said. What you have said is proof enough for me to continue with my own assessment of 'what is a fact'. You have stated in the quotation you made that "they are a tool of the human mind". Because they are a product of the human mind, they too are subjective and do not deal with reality. Just like Big Al said. As for them enabling you or others to make predictions about behavior, that too only supports my position that mathematics (as used today in forming predictions of future events) is nothing more than a more modernized version of the old ancient religious practice of numerology which allowed the soothsayers of days gone by to make predictions of future events. NUMEROLOGY at its finest point today.

 

Anybody else want to make a stab in the dark? It is really looking good for the hometeam, cuz nobody has been able to dismantle that 2.c. definition of 'fact'.

Well anyway, my next topic is going to be 'What does it mean to be reasonable'. So get ready for another one.

 

Your 2.c definition was dismantled a long time ago because it contradicts 2)

Just like your claim that the use of arbitrary numbers on the scale can only produce an arbitrary result has been dismantled ?

You never did respond so I presume you recognize the flaw in your claim.

 

Only in your private opinion. The 2.c. definition is still published and is still in full force and effect. You have accomplished nothing more than jacking your jaws while letting all sorts of rationalizations (excuses) flow from your fingertips onto the keyboard. YOU HAVE FAILED.

Prove that the arbitrary numbers on a scale can produce any result that is not based on arbitrary numbers, thus making the result arbitrary. Can an apple seed produce a cucumber? A question you still have failed to answer.

With so many of your cohorts chiming in to give you aid and assistance, I merely overlooked that particular posting. So I will respond now.

You are right, they don't use their own feet to measure the depth of a hole. They use one of those linear scales that were formed by grabbing a number out of the air. The first such measure was based on the side of a grain of wheat... that was found to be too arbitrary, so they tried something else, then something else.. all were based on arbitrary numbers.


Now one more time.... can an apple seed produce a cucumber? No?

 

No .. 2c contradicts the other definitions .. so only one of them can be true.

A fact is not "belief" 2c refers to someone believing something is fact as an example of how fact could be used in a sentence.

I have answered it many times.

If your claim was true, "that arbitrary numbers produce arbitrary results"

Then - when you measured the freezing point of water repeatedly under the same experimental conditions you would get arbitrary results (meaning that the results would vary beyond experimental error)

Does the freezing point of water vary when measured under the same experimental conditions ?

Yes or No.

 

So you say. Are you an authority figure representing the company that published the dictionary? No? Oh Well.

So you say. That of course is your biased private opinion.

Where?

You have already admitted that the numbers on the scale are in fact arbitrary. Therefore, when you read a number from that scale, you are reading arbitrary numbers.

Why would they change? You are still using a scale with arbitrary numbers, so the resulting numbers that you read, are in fact arbitrary numbers.

See above.

 

Good .. I will take that as a no.

If the freezing point of water does not vary when repeatedly measured then it is not arbitrary.

 

Take it however you want. Regardless of how you take it or how you interpret it, you still have not proven that the numbers on those scales are not arbitrary or that reading those numbers does not produce arbitrary results.

Can an apple seed produce cucumbers? You still have not answered that question.

 

I think it's time for an example of arbitrary numbers producing well-defined observable results.

A solar eclipse can be seen easily, but it's not obvious when the next eclipse is going to occur. We are able to predict solar eclipses with great precision far into the future. This is made possible by measurements and an understanding of the physical laws governing the motion of the heavenly bodies. Here is a prediction for August 21, 2017.



To make use of this information, you need to figure out what some of those numbers mean. First of all, the date August 21, 2017. A date denotes a day in a calendar, which is an arbitrary numerical scheme to keep track of time both in the past and the future. Various calendars have existed throughout history. They're deeply ingrained in our culture and are even a part of the ten commandments (there is no Sabbath day without a calendar).

Once you've figured out whether the current date coincides with the date of a predicted solar eclipse, you have to find out where you are to know whether you'll see the eclipse. This can be done in many ways, using a map, observation of the stars, artificial satellites sending a GPS signal, and more.

Incorporeal, you seem to think that scientists are satisfied after making a measurement that produces a number. The whole point physics, however, is to take those numbers, combine them with our knowledge of the laws of nature to produce other numbers, which have a well defined meaning in the real world. The date, time, and location of a solar eclipse is just one spectacular example of an accurate physical prediction. Numbers are merely an intermediate step in the whole process of science. The actual product are the real world implications derived from those numbers. Those implications are not arbitrary at all.


By the way, I recommend watching a solar eclipse if you have the opportunity.

 

I love it when one of the fine folks of the pseudo-scientific community steps up to the plate to offer proof that science and its use of numbers in this modern age is just a modernized form of Numerology as used by soothsayers in religions from the past. Fortune-telling.. predicting "future events". Now I have to ask. What type of social, economical, biological, psychological effects will that day in 2017 have upon my being?

There you go now, using more of those admitted "which is an arbitrary numerical scheme " (a scheme can sometimes carry some very strong negative connotations). Show absolute proof of what day is to be classified as the 'sabbath day'. Use your mathematical calculations and unfold the history back to the exact date when that commandment was issued. That should prove to be an interesting set of calculations.

Then you should also be able to calculate the past in like manner.

No! That thought you have just printed above is a projection on your part, and has been emphasized by the writings of Giftedone. Giftedone is the person who is so dead set on the notion that 32 F = 0 C. I, on the other hand, have continuously contended that those numbers are arbitrary and Giftedone has admitted that they are arbitrary.

Then the whole point is to provide a "meaning in the real world" based on arbitrariness. OK... you want to live in a delusional world of arbitrary conditions.

More Numerology.

The "actual product" is something that is tangible, not something that is 'implied'. So, yes, as long as you are aiding the definition of those numbers as being something implicated, then they are also arbitrary.

Why? So that I can waste a couple of hours (at most) of my time?

 

Of course an apple seed does not produce cucumbers. How does this relate to the freezing point of water ?

Avoiding answering the question does not help your argument.

The lack of varience in the freezing point when measured repeatedly under the same experimental conditions proves that the use of a scale made of arbitrary numbers does not make the freezing point of water arbitrary.

All you have to do to prove your claim is show that the freezing point of water does vary.

Good luck with that.

 

If you want to call it a relationship, then it would relate to those arbitrary numbers found on those various scales you rave on about. Just like the apple seed cannot produce a cucumber; a scale that uses arbitrary numbers cannot produce anything but more arbitrary numbers.

The use of arbitrary numbers cannot produce anything other than more arbitrary numbers. Prove me wrong.

Likewise prove that the use of arbitrary numbers can produce anything other than arbitrary numbers. Regardless of how many times you use those arbitrary numbers, they will always be arbitrary numbers.

 

As soon as you create a standard the number is no longer arbitrary.

You keep repeating your claim over and over again but you can not show that the freezing point of water varies.

Either it varies or it does not. If it does not vary it is not arbitrary.

Your claim is busted and your analogy is a joke.

 

No! As soon as you grab any number out of the air and apply it to a previously unknown quality of an item (such as the freezing point of water), the numbers are arbitrary. You really do need to study the meaning of that word 'arbitrary'.

Why should I say that the freezing point of water varies. The freezing point of water is that point in time when the water changes from a liquid to a solid according to the physical senses and perceived by the human mind.

If it does not vary, and you apply an arbitrary number, then that number remains arbitrary. Regardless of what number you use.

You claim that my 'claim' is busted. What claim have I made? Only the one which you have admitted to. The numbers on that thermometer were and are arbitrary from the moment that the first thermometer was created.

 

"The freezing point of water is that point in time when the water changes from a liquid to a solid according to the physical senses and perceived by the human mind."

Wrong

Time is another human invented measurement so by your definition is arbitrary.

Any how the freezing point of water can be changed by pressure

The relationship between pressure and melting/freezing temp as follows:

P= -395.2*((T/273.16)^9-1)
where T is absolute temperature in Kelvin and P is pressure in MPa.
This is valid for pressures up to 209.9 MPa. At higher pressures water freezes to ice-three, ice-five, ice-six or ice-seven at increasing temperatures.

However measurements are not arbitrary they are invented by humans to describe the change in one condition (in this case temperature) without any other variables, these are constant. therefore cannot be applied arbitrarily

 

Question:

Does the freezing point of water vary when repeated measurments are made under the same experimental conditions ?

 

No "conditions" that you call the "same experimental conditions" can exist. Do an experiment today under a set of conditions, and then the next day you attempt to do the same experiment under the same set of experimental conditions, and the experiment will be immediately ruled as a failure, because the experiments were not conducted under the same set of experimental conditions. The conditions are never able to be conducted under the same set of conditions because the same set of conditions cannot be reproduced. Why? TIME. Today is not yesterday and today is not tomorrow. You fail.

 

The conditions are the same within experimental error. Obviously the freezing point of water can not be measured to an infinite number of decimal places.

Arguing the definition of "exact" or "the same" is a pathetic attempt at digging up support.

Science does not operate in the realm of absolutes and anyone who has done any science knows this .. and most 5th graders can understand this.

Part of the definition of "experimental conditions" is defined the allowable experimental error.

Deviation of results greater than experimental error constitutes a failure to prove - in this case- that the freezing point of water does not vary.

 

One day to the next day or even one moment in time to the next moment in time is NOT THE SAME unit of time. The conditions are not the same.

You are the one who specified the "same conditions". Choose your terminology in a manner that is more exacting.

If science does not operate in the realm of 'absolutes', then science can only operate in the theoretical therefore, science is unproven because there are no absolutes in science. Just guesswork.

Show the source of the alleged definition.

Date and time stamp of the experiments proves that the conditions were not the same.

 

Hello Giftedone: Still waiting for your response. Does science operate in the realm of absolutes or does science simply do guesswork?

 

Come on Giftedone. Surely you can answer that simple little question above: Can't you?

 

Neither of the two.
.

 

Aside from the fact that 'science' is not capable of performing a task in and of itself or by itself, then please explain your rationalization.

BTW: I am still waiting for a response from Giftedone.

 

I agree that science is part of something bigger than itself. It supports industry and it depends on industry.
.

 

Now moving away from dependencies, and moving back to my question (Does science operate in the realm of absolutes or does science simply do guesswork?); can you offer an explanation of your former response wherein you stated "neither of the two"?