Other people seem to read my posts fine, whob. Maybe if you actually put some effort into reading posts properly you would not have a problem either, but as we all know, this is an area where you have trouble.
"Ush's madeup accusation: Whob you are saying the scientific method is relative."
The ONLY person making up stuff is you- disgraceful that you now have to resort to outright lying to try and back your argument.
To remind you what was said- and you cannot erase what you actually said, whob:
As a relativist would say..you are the one with the burden of proof.
I pointed out that whether a person believes in things being relative or not has NO bearing on how they would use the scientific method, and so have no bearing onto whether they would ask for proof or not.
You then tried to change what you said, saying you were applying it to the scientific term of relativity. I then simply pointed out that whether a scientist believes in the theroy of relativity... ALSO has no bearing as to whether they would ask for proof or not.
What you said is all there for everyone to read, whob. You said that a relatavist, in particular, would say that. That is shit. Whether the person is a relatavist or not is irrelevant.
So all the rest you have posted about that is yet further innane, moronic babble.
"If a Scientist admits to not being able to discover FACTS..then he has essentially just discredited Science's ability to discover ANYTHING. It would be a fruitless endeavor for him to even continue being a Scientist..because guess what, he's already determined that discovering TRUTH is an impossibility."
First of all, as I have repeatedly told you, science is about making workable theories, not hard, mathematical-style facts. There is absolutely no contradiction in my words at all to anyone with a brain who reads it- they can never be totally certain, but they can be very close- that is the best they can do.
But even if that were not so, you have very much helped the relatavist point here by reminding people that science needs assumptions to work. That in of itself removes the idea of it being absolute, and that you would never be able to achieve much if you did not make those asusmptions- which is the point, I shall remind you again, that I have happily made many times0 is nonetheless irrelevant, because that does not change the fact that these assumptions have been made.
You might not like the way things would be without those assumptions- you can;t deny that you still make them, and as they are not provable in of themselves, anything you ever do which you rpesent as proof did, in the first place, make those assumptions. Being based on assumotipns, they are not absolute.
"Is there a force..that exists..that pulls us to the ground. Yes!!!
What is my proof? When someone jumps out a window..they fall to the ground. End of discussion.
Again Ush..where is the proof that someone can jump from a building and start flying up in the air?
The burden of proof lies on you my friend..not me.."
Nope, the burden of proof does not lie on me at all. You have to prove that what you call evidence for this is irrefutable and beyond doubt. You can't, because it is only based on your perceptions, and your perceptions might be wring. You keep trying to twist this to say that perceptions are trying to change something. They are not, and no-one is saying this, and your morinic statements in this area still persist. The point is that what you think are th laws of gravity might be entirely wrong.
Perception is NOT truth. I have already outlined how people might perceive 2 + 2 to be 5, and so on. I person can be mistaken and make false conclusions from what he observes. If one person can be, then all can be. Therefore, all might be wrong, and everything you take for granted about gravity might all be nosense- a dream, or illusion.
"THANK YOU. So it doesn't have an effect on ANYTHING..thus making the whole damn point of scepticism moot. "
Wrong! Just because it has no physical effect, that does not make it moot at all. It is in fact spectacularly relevant to the discussion we are having now.
"Suggesting something can happen..does not mean it will happen, and does not disprove what we already know will happen!!!!"
You don't literally KNOW it, because what you know is based on assumotions that might be wrong, so therefore ultimately you are assuming it. What you are stating as fact might not be fact at all- again, all might be illusion or dream.
Descartes had it as a person controlled by an evil demon, altering his perception. Scientists later had it as the 'breains in jars' scenario, all we know actually being false information fed to us. These days, the example would be living in the Matrix. But regardless, the possiiblity exists that all the sensroy ifnormation we get is nonsense. That;s why it can be doubted, and that is why your so-called proven facts have no power within the sceptical argument.
"Evidence Ush evidence..what don't you understand about this?!! I have evidence. People have jumped off of four story buildings..and fallen to the ground. That is not just my PERCEPTION. That is a FACT."
Wrong again, it's an assumption. And once more, I have no need of evidence until you have proven any of it absolutely without ANY assumptions at ANY point. Which you have not done- and never can do.
"Again..what proof do you have of someone jumping off of a Building and flying?!!! "
Your moronic request returns. I have none, offered none, never said I would have any, and have no need of any- such a thing is totally irrelevant. Even if a relatavist could offer proof, he'd only doubt it along with everything else. The point is simply that your assumptions about gravity are not certain- no matter how likely they are, they are still only assumptions. The possiiblity of error exists.
"Again..what the hell does your ability to doubt..disprove?!!"
The doubt in itself does not disprove anything. But until you have eliminated all room for doubt., you haven't actually proven anything absolutely. You cannot do one so you will never do the other.
"Give me some concrete answers Ush.."
What a biased question! It assumes absolutes. Oh well, as it is still only an assumption it, still only feeds into the relatavist idea.
"Okay..I've refuted all the main points"
Again- only in your mind, twisted and incorrect as it is. You haven;t come close to refuting anyhting- you are simply being totally outclassed, time after time after time again.