Originally posted by Philosophicus
A fact is the status given to something placing it in the condition of an indistputably universal truth - something that can't be denied of in terms of its characteristic.
The results of experiments are the product of interpretation once again. There can be no data or experiments without human interpretation. Moreover, scientists constantly disagree over the meaning of experiments and the meaning of the data. Einstein himself said that the more scientifically something is accurate and makes sense, the further it is from reality and the closer it is to reality, the farther it is from making scientifically sense. And who gives scientists the right to claim authority? Science is a method of investigation which value and results can be questioned. The value of science as such is also an interpretation and subject to opinion.
Don' t flatter yourself.
We respect the authority of science when we are dealing with questions that can be resolved by the methods of scientific investigation, such as observation, calculation and repeatable experiments. While science is constantly moving and evolving, many scientist indeed disagree with each other while, on the other hand, they do agree on certain aspects.
What is the the boiling and freezing point of water?
Actually, according to Quantum mechanics, no certainty around a specific border line or threshold for change from one form into another can be found as being fixed, so the boiling and freezing point of water is not exactly determinable, also, one cannot calculate an exact temperature for anything, as their will always be a portion of the number which cannot be rounded off.
Moreover, if one looks at it philosophically, science cannot measure thresholds as their exists no absolute point of morphological transformation - everything must be a continuous flow, otherwise one run into the contradiction of a 'somethingness into a nothingness, into a somethingness' their cannot be gaps of nothingness inbetween entities, for then there would be nothing to conect one form with another.
Originally posted by Storm
Don' t flatter yourself.We respect the authority of science when we are dealing with questions that can be resolved by the methods of scientific investigation, such as observation, calculation and repeatable experiments. While science is constantly moving and evolving, many scientist indeed disagree with each other while, on the other hand, they do agree on certain aspects.
What is the the boiling and freezing point of water?
SIGH.... why not just ask his name???? Isn't that a fact??
Originally posted by clickclick
You would be able to find evidence for whether or not it fell, then it would become a fact.Observing what ? So long as there is something to observe, it makes not difference whether one actually did observe it or not.
If a tree fell but you didnt observe it, did it still fall?
Of course. By asking that very question, you are implying that it took place, therefore you have your answer.
If I planted a tree, carved my name into it and came back two years later and noticed that it was taller. Independent of anyones observation , it grew. Even if nobody ever saw it again, so long as it was taller or bigger, it grew.
Somethings actions are determined by whatever factors are involved in that action, not whether or not one observes that action.
Sating that one must observe for an action to take place is a non sequitur.
you fail to see how simple this is...
the human reality is created on what we observe if there is nothing to observe then it doesnt exist
ex. monkeys if we didnt observe them or percieve them they fail to exist to our knowledge
also your mind is not a box open it up its a philosophy forum
you fail to see how simple this is... the human reality is created on what we observe if there is nothing to observe then it doesnt exist ex. monkeys if we didnt observe them or percieve them they fail to exist to our knowledge also your mind is not a box open it up its a philosophy forum
Something "not existing" to a persons knowledge I find completely irrelevant to whether or not it actually took place.
I know how simple this is, people want to complicate it with nonsensical answers.
Observation doesnt prove existence. There are many types of bacteria, you cant see them but I can gaurantee you they exist. You will know when you get sick and so on.
The whole question is silly.
Who do you suppose has the authority to say something is a fact?
Certainly not Nietzsche, at least not in that instance. I dont know why you quoted him as if his opinion is anything more than that.
Anyway, if you want to believe that everything is simply subjective than so be it, makes not difference to me. Doesnt make you right, not the in the least but you can believe whatever you want.
Actually I'm atheist and I agree with click click. Just because you don't observe something happen doesn't mean it didn't occur. You think things only happen while someone is watching, nothing ever just happens without anyone noticing? Seems pretty silly to me. If a wildfire starts and nobody sees it start but then it spreads and burns down a city does that mean the fire never started just because nobody actually saw it happen?