Observations and assumptions

[Diuretic]

So before we could check things around the world asuming cause it was raining at my house meant it was raining everywhere and cause the wind was blowing I knew the wind was blowing everywhere. Thanks for clarifying that.

We NOW know those assumptions are patently false but will use them in regards the Universe anyway? So much for science and learning.

Are all swans white?

 

[AllieBaba]

Once again Del demonstrates the might of his intelligence by offering... q refutation? No. A rebuttal? Of course not? Personal attacks and evasions? Of course! That's what idiots do when they have no refutation and they're shown to be an uneducated twit



My points remain unrefuted

I don't think education is required to determine your penis is tiny.

 

[JBeukema]

So before we could check things around the world asuming cause it was raining at my house meant it was raining everywhere and cause the wind was blowing I knew the wind was blowing everywhere. Thanks for clarifying that.

We NOW know those assumptions are patently false but will use them in regards the Universe anyway? So much for science and learning.

Are all swans white?

are all white birds swans?


and allie's just pathetic. Once again, the stupid theists have non response but to get angry

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So before we could check things around the world asuming cause it was raining at my house meant it was raining everywhere and cause the wind was blowing I knew the wind was blowing everywhere. Thanks for clarifying that.

What an imbecile.

You are the one insisting using that logic for the Universe is wise and scientific. Why wouldn't it have been wise in the past for rain and wind? You may want to rethink your position. Or actually read EVERYTHING instead of what you want to hear.

We observe a VERY small part of the Universe yet claim because we see something here it applies everywhere. Just like claiming cause I can see it raining here I can assume it is raining everywhere or because the wind is blowing here it is blowing the same and everywhere.

We know the last 2 are simply not true so why would we assume the little bit we know about the universe is true?

 

[JBeukema]

if you see it raining, you see it raining from clouds. You also will have most likely seen the rain falling from other clouds in the distance. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out; only someone mentally challenged and inherently deceitful like yourself would ever forward such a a foolish red herring as you have.

 

[Diuretic]

So before we could check things around the world asuming cause it was raining at my house meant it was raining everywhere and cause the wind was blowing I knew the wind was blowing everywhere. Thanks for clarifying that.

What an imbecile.

You are the one insisting using that logic for the Universe is wise and scientific. Why wouldn't it have been wise in the past for rain and wind? You may want to rethink your position. Or actually read EVERYTHING instead of what you want to hear.

We observe a VERY small part of the Universe yet claim because we see something here it applies everywhere. Just like claiming cause I can see it raining here I can assume it is raining everywhere or because the wind is blowing here it is blowing the same and everywhere.

We know the last 2 are simply not true so why would we assume the little bit we know about the universe is true?

Perhaps because we're trying to discover universal laws? I mean, gravity on Earth is probably the same (different strength or whatever it's called) as gravity on Mars isn't it?

 

[Ralph]

How scientific is it to observe something in a very localized area and the extrapolate that this observation is true throughout an entire planet or Universe?

That isn't what happened.

In fact, science once thought that the milky way was the entire universe and science thought that the universe was static.

It is very scientific to extrapolate theories based on what is known at the time, that turn out to be wrong.

And it is also very scientific to revise those theories as additionall information manifests.

If I note what I consider is expansion occurring around my planet can I then extrapolate from that, that expansion is occurring through out the Universe? Is that scientific?

Yes it is.

Assuming you're humble enough to recognize that you might have to rethink your theory in light of additional data.

It's called scientific method and its served us fairly well.

You got a better system?

Oh yeah, that's right...you've decided to take your cosmology theories from the musings of pre-iron-age shepherds.

Very enlightened.

You have just described "Philosophy" dressed as Physical Science. ALL......physical science is based upon the principle of Observed, Repeatable, Experimentation....if such cannot be established....A SCIENTIFIC FACT cannot be established. You also have opined that that it is acceptable in the realm of physical science to breach the first law of LOGIC known as "The Law of the Excluded Middle"....which merely proves that NOTHING can be both TRUE and FALSE at the same instant. You do so by stating that it is acceptable to define THEORY about the past as scientific fact based upon what is OBSERVED today...and any theory must be considered true...until it is disproved by empirical FACTS.....a paradox in itself...if it where possible to PROVE in the first place we would have no THEORY...only PHYSICAL LAW. But still the philosophers want the information that exists and gestates between their ears to be considered TRUTH, but self profess that it is awaiting FUTURE CORRECTION. Again, breaching the Law of the Excluded Middle.....as nothing can be considered as truth if there is the POSSIBILITY of error within its declarations.

 

[AllieBaba]

So before we could check things around the world asuming cause it was raining at my house meant it was raining everywhere and cause the wind was blowing I knew the wind was blowing everywhere. Thanks for clarifying that.

We NOW know those assumptions are patently false but will use them in regards the Universe anyway? So much for science and learning.

Are all swans white?

are all white birds swans?


and allie's just pathetic. Once again, the stupid theists have non response but to get angry

Your inverted weenie doesn't make me mad. I think it's funny.

 

[Diuretic]

How scientific is it to observe something in a very localized area and the extrapolate that this observation is true throughout an entire planet or Universe?

That isn't what happened.

In fact, science once thought that the milky way was the entire universe and science thought that the universe was static.

It is very scientific to extrapolate theories based on what is known at the time, that turn out to be wrong.

And it is also very scientific to revise those theories as additionall information manifests.

If I note what I consider is expansion occurring around my planet can I then extrapolate from that, that expansion is occurring through out the Universe? Is that scientific?

Yes it is.

Assuming you're humble enough to recognize that you might have to rethink your theory in light of additional data.

It's called scientific method and its served us fairly well.

You got a better system?

Oh yeah, that's right...you've decided to take your cosmology theories from the musings of pre-iron-age shepherds.

Very enlightened.

You have just described "Philosophy" dressed as Physical Science. ALL......physical science is based upon the principle of Observed, Repeatable, Experimentation....if such cannot be established....A SCIENTIFIC FACT cannot be established. You also have opined that that it is acceptable in the realm of physical science to breach the first law of LOGIC known as "The Law of the Excluded Middle"....which merely proves that NOTHING can be both TRUE and FALSE at the same instant. You do so by stating that it is acceptable to define THEORY about the past as scientific fact based upon what is OBSERVED today...and any theory must be considered true...until it is disproved by empirical FACTS.....a paradox in itself...if it where possible to PROVE in the first place we would have no THEORY...only PHYSICAL LAW. But still the philosophers want the information that exists and gestates between their ears to be considered TRUTH, but self profess that it is awaiting FUTURE CORRECTION. Again, breaching the Law of the Excluded Middle.....as nothing can be considered as truth if there is the POSSIBILITY of error within its declarations.

Who you talking to Willis?

 

[Kalam]

no known ending point,no ability to observe outside our solar system and yet we claim we know that the universe is expanding.

You're screwing with me, right?

Let me google that for you
Let me google that for you

 

[editec]

How scientific is it to observe something in a very localized area and the extrapolate that this observation is true throughout an entire planet or Universe?

That isn't what happened.

In fact, science once thought that the milky way was the entire universe and science thought that the universe was static.

It is very scientific to extrapolate theories based on what is known at the time, that turn out to be wrong.

And it is also very scientific to revise those theories as additionall information manifests.

If I note what I consider is expansion occurring around my planet can I then extrapolate from that, that expansion is occurring through out the Universe? Is that scientific?

Yes it is.

Assuming you're humble enough to recognize that you might have to rethink your theory in light of additional data.

It's called scientific method and its served us fairly well.

You got a better system?

Oh yeah, that's right...you've decided to take your cosmology theories from the musings of pre-iron-age shepherds.

Very enlightened.

You have just described "Philosophy" dressed as Physical Science. ALL......physical science is based upon the principle of Observed, Repeatable, Experimentation....if such cannot be established....A SCIENTIFIC FACT cannot be established. You also have opined that that it is acceptable in the realm of physical science to breach the first law of LOGIC known as "The Law of the Excluded Middle"....which merely proves that NOTHING can be both TRUE and FALSE at the same instant. You do so by stating that it is acceptable to define THEORY about the past as scientific fact based upon what is OBSERVED today...and any theory must be considered true...until it is disproved by empirical FACTS.....a paradox in itself...if it where possible to PROVE in the first place we would have no THEORY...only PHYSICAL LAW. But still the philosophers want the information that exists and gestates between their ears to be considered TRUTH, but self profess that it is awaiting FUTURE CORRECTION. Again, breaching the Law of the Excluded Middle.....as nothing can be considered as truth if there is the POSSIBILITY of error within its declarations.

You obviously failed to note that I wrote

It is very scientific to extrapolate theories based on what is known at the time, that turn out to be wrong.

Theory presumes the possiblity of it being wrong, doesn't it, Ralph?

 

[JBeukema]

It's this kind of anti-intellectualism and opposition to reason that leads me toconclude that RGS and his ilk either

are too mentally incompetent to be allowed among the rest of society and should be locked away or (B) are totally dishonest and intent on returning Mankind to the stone age and must be locked away.

 

[Diuretic]

No need, their numbers are diminishing, thankfully. Education does that

 

[JBeukema]

i said it before and I say it again: i wish the morons would just trust their god and stop turning to materialism, naturalism, and modern medicine. Then , when their kind dies out, Mankind can finally make real progress. This cannot occur soon enough, and I hope I live long enough to see their numbers fade to oblivion and witness Man's steps into an enlightened world.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

i said it before and I say it again: i wish the morons would just trust their god and stop turning to materialism, naturalism, and modern medicine. Then , when their kind dies out, Mankind can finally make real progress. This cannot occur soon enough, and I hope I live long enough to see their numbers fade to oblivion and witness Man's steps into an enlightened world.

You are one sick puppy. But then we already knew that, didn't we?

 

[JBeukema]

I'm sick? You're the one who waits for all of those who disagree with you to be cast into a lake of fire to suffer for eternity. You're the one who worships a masochistic god who calls for the genital mutilation of newborn males.

Before you accuse anyone of being sick, you need to take a long hard look in the mirror,

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm sick? You're the one who waits for all of those who disagree with you to be cast into a lake of fire to suffer for eternity. You're the one who worships a masochistic god who calls for the genital mutilation of newborn males.

Before you accuse anyone of being sick, you need to take a long hard look in the mirror,

As usual you haven't a clue. But hey thanks for playing.

 

[eagleseven]

i said it before and I say it again: i wish the morons would just trust their god and stop turning to materialism, naturalism, and modern medicine. Then , when their kind dies out, Mankind can finally make real progress. This cannot occur soon enough, and I hope I live long enough to see their numbers fade to oblivion and witness Man's steps into an enlightened world.

An ironic statement, given that the atheists of Europe are being out-bred by the Muslims of the Middle-East and the Christians of the Americas...

 

[JBeukema]

Once again, RGS is unable to refute anything JB has said

 

[N4mddissent]

The assumption is that we live in a rational universe. Prior to the development of scientific thinking, it was perhaps common to generalize phenomena without a rational basis. For example, an early society might experience a local flood that they then extrapolate to be a global flood, assuming the conditions of their experience are universal.

But of course, the development of science means that we attempt to explain phenomena on the basis of fundamental natural laws. So rather than say it is raining here, so it must be raining everywhere, we say it is raining here because of conditions (x) and anywhere conditions (x) exist it will be raining. Systematic exploration of the cause and effect we all experience daily is what allows us to operate on the basis of a rational universe. If touching a hot surface causes pain, then we extrapolate and assume that touching any hot surface will cause pain. Understanding the fundamental cause- that it is the quality of "hotness" that caused the pain allows us to operate without the assumption that all surfaces cause pain.

It is also rational to predict on the basis of mathematical models. For example, no human has actually counted to a billion. Yet, we can assume a billion exists as a number due to the logical progression of numbers. You cannot "see" a billion objects in the sense that an individual would not live long enough to count and confirm that a billion objects are present. Yet this does not mean it is rational to discard the concept of a "billion" just because it has never been physically observed.

Also, stating we cannot observe beyond our own solar system is not exactly correct. While it may be true that we as observers are limited to being in our own solar system while observing, we can observe many, many objects beyond our solar system. If a galaxy appears to be traveling away, then it is rational to note that to an observer in that galaxy, we would appear to be moving away. If you have ever sat in an automatic carwash and experienced the sensation that your car was moving rather than the machinery around you, then you have a some sense of the relativistic nature of motion in the universe.

Understanding fundamental laws of nature, in combination with mathematical models, allows for the rational assumption of certain facts if rational arguments can be made that conditions exist, based upon those laws and models, that would logically imply those facts are true. In other words, if all of the fundamental conditions for rain exists in some place, and you know with reasonable certainty that the fundamental conditions for rain exists there, then it is perfectly rational to assume it is raining there, even if you do not observe it directly.