There are no “facts” that I am “refusing to accept.” Please give an example or three. Thanks.
I doxxed myself on the “other” forum. And I have suffered no “reputational damage.”
You said you would reject scientific consensus in favor of a 2000 year old book written by men who didn’t know the shape of the planet they were standing on
Apparently you fail to see the difference between “scientific consensus” and “scientific fact.” I am unaware of any scientific fact that I knowingly deny. Please give a specific example, if you can. Thanks.
Carbon-14 radioactive decay
Dating the age of the universe via measuring the expansion of galaxies and observations into the distant universe.
The evolution of species
The fossil record indicates a changing population of species spanning approximately 4 billion years and 4 distinguishable eons rather than a single cataclysm circa 4-5000 years ago.
The existence of intersex individuals
That the behavior of particles at a very small scale is fundamentally probabilistic, unknown and unknowable prior to measurement, not predetermined, and not explainable by hidden local variables.
Your ignorance of how science works is on full display itt. There are no scientific facts. Only varying degrees of certainty. Scientific consensus and theories are only the best explanations we have at any given time. That doesn’t mean they’re infallible. As new data and evidence becomes available, scientific consensus can and does change
That said, the theory of evolution and the Earth being older than 6000 years are about as close to facts as science gets. Maybe it’s time to change your interpretation of thr bible?
So, what is the difference?
Evolutionary theory would be so easy to disprove too. All it would take is a single fossil in the wrong place (like a rabbit dug up from the mesozoic era) and poof! So much for Darwin
You’re a disgrace to your philosophy degree. To me it is inconceivable how someone who has been exposed to philosophy could adopt the most ignorant version of a comically ignorant belief system.
1 Like
If I’m not mistaken, I think philosophy majors are one of the more likely degrees among believers. Math and science majors much less so
I would need a cite. I would expect significantly less religious belief among philosophy grads than say engineers. Sometimes ones sees stats where philosophy is lumped in with theology or religious studies, which would alter the results.
2 Likes
Cactus and I disagree that these are examples “scientific facts.”
If you’re not too busy, can you give us your definitions of “scientific fact” and “scientific consensus”?
So, long story short, you agree with my earlier claim that I don’t knowingly deny any scientific facts.
I certainly have never denied that some of my opinions are against the current scientific consensus.
I would call an empirical claim a “scientific fact” if an observable and oft-repeated experiments invariably yield the same result every time.
For example, I would say the empirical claim, “At sea-level, water boils at 100 C.” a scientific fact. You can observe and repeat the experiment a million times and get the same result every time.
The rate of radioactive decay of carbon 14 is an absolute fact.
The speed of light is an absolute fact. The observations of distant galaxies are absolute facts.
The stratification of different fossils in distinct layers of earth that were formed at distinct times, as opposed to a massive mix of fossils all in the same layer of earth at the same time, is an absolute fact.
The existence of intersex individuals is an absolute fact.
That the behavior of particles at a very small scale is fundamentally probabilistic, unknown and unknowable prior to measurement, not predetermined, and not explainable by hidden local variables, is an absolute fact that is observable with very simple equipment.
I’m pretty sure the decay of carbon meets this definition. Are you saying it doesn’t?
Also, for completeness, let’s define “scientific consensus” as well.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings with us. I look forward to hearing from you again soon.
I would say that a “scientific consensus” would be if a large majority (maybe 90%+) of scientists who are experts in a given field agree on a given hypothesis.
Carbon-14 dating results can vary widely even when dating the same rock specimen.
It also assumes uniformitarianism and that the specimen being dated hasn’t been contaminated or altered somehow during its alleged lifespan.
I think I agree with you that we can at least know for a fact the current speed of light.in the Milky Way Galaxy.