The moon doesn't cause ocean tides, claims UKIP MP Carswell
Discussion
Greg66 said:
davepoth said:
chrispmartha said:
This is like pulling teeth! Right, when you had the compound fracture, at that point in time, was it a fact that you had a skeleton?
I was on morphine at the time; if I'd seen a pink elephant, would that have been a fact too?
davepoth said:
p1stonhead said:
You are being deliberately retarded and you know it. But going back to stars, even if some have died - it's a fact they once existed.
And you conveniently dodged the moon question. What about other planets in our solar system?
They're a long way away - they could well have just exploded and we wouldn't know about it. And you conveniently dodged the moon question. What about other planets in our solar system?
I'm out - you have brain damage.
davepoth said:
Consider this.
"the Universe was created by God in seven days"
Fiction?
"The Universe was created by a big explosion"
Fact?
Why do you believe the second and not the first? What evidence do you have that the second is better than the first? Have you ever done any experiments to prove the big bang theory, or have you just blindly accepted it because it was written in a book?
There is considerable evidence that the second is better than the first. Probably not enough evidence to say with certainty that Big Bang is a fact, but it's the best we have at the moment. I'm not an expert on it, so couldn't say."the Universe was created by God in seven days"
Fiction?
"The Universe was created by a big explosion"
Fact?
Why do you believe the second and not the first? What evidence do you have that the second is better than the first? Have you ever done any experiments to prove the big bang theory, or have you just blindly accepted it because it was written in a book?
But that's a long way from disputing evolution or the moon's effect on the tides. Those are established proven facts. Only idiots (of which sadly there are many) would dispute them.
Alpinestars said:
The earth is spherical if you want a universal fact. How will anyone disprove that?
At the risk of sailing perilously close to the edge of the sea of sanity; quite easily. 
It's an oblate spheroid; Newton of all people proposed it... the width at the equator is 40km more than pole to polefblm said:
Alpinestars said:
The earth is spherical if you want a universal fact. How will anyone disprove that?
At the risk of sailing perilously close to the edge of the sea of sanity; quite easily. It's an oblate spheroid; Newton of all people proposed it... the width at the equator is 40km more than pole to pole
TwigtheWonderkid said:
There is considerable evidence that the second is better than the first. Probably not enough evidence to say with certainty that Big Bang is a fact, but it's the best we have at the moment. I'm not an expert on it, so couldn't say.
But that's a long way from disputing evolution or the moon's effect on the tides. Those are established proven facts. Only idiots (of which sadly there are many) would dispute them.
As an atheist my opinion is that evolution is what happens, and that the big bang is most likely. I also am of the opinion that the moon has the greatest influence on the tides. But I am open to the views of anyone who says something else. And if they came up with a better idea (Heliocentrism, for example) I wouldn't ignore them out of hand.But that's a long way from disputing evolution or the moon's effect on the tides. Those are established proven facts. Only idiots (of which sadly there are many) would dispute them.
Science is not indisputable. That's the whole point of science.
desolate said:
davepoth said:
Science is not indisputable. That's the whole point of science.
But can we finally accept that there are some facts?This is for matters that are beyond the most simplistic of facts e.g. the chemical symbol for atomic hydrogen is H in English.
turbobloke said:
Popper, which is a professor's name not a habit, produced a reasonably helpful turn of phrase for 'facts' in science: contingent truths (i.e. not absolute).
This is for matters that are beyond the most simplistic of facts e.g. the chemical symbol for atomic hydrogen is H in English.
This I agree with - DaveP seems to be denying the existence of basic facts. (eg the existence of his skeleton)This is for matters that are beyond the most simplistic of facts e.g. the chemical symbol for atomic hydrogen is H in English.
desolate said:
This I agree with - DaveP seems to be denying the existence of basic facts. (eg the existence of his skeleton)
Not denying, just questioning.In criminal courts in this country, the bar for finding guilt is "beyond all reasonable doubt". Why is it not "Beyond all doubt"?
davepoth said:
desolate said:
This I agree with - DaveP seems to be denying the existence of basic facts. (eg the existence of his skeleton)
Not denying, just questioning.davepoth said:
In criminal courts in this country, the bar for finding guilt is "beyond all reasonable doubt". Why is it not "Beyond all doubt"?
<sigh>. The fact (see, that's another one) that there is a standard doesn't mean that it is impossible to prove, in a court, something beyond all doubt.
Greg66 said:
<sigh>.
The fact (see, that's another one) that there is a standard doesn't mean that it is impossible to prove, in a court, something beyond all doubt.
But it is impossible to prove something beyond all doubt. That would also mean proving something beyond doubt to stupid, illogical and possibly insane people who say things like "the moon has nothing to do with the tides" or "maybe I don't have a skeleton". The fact (see, that's another one) that there is a standard doesn't mean that it is impossible to prove, in a court, something beyond all doubt.
That's why the court frames it as "beyond reasonable doubt"; hundreds of years of jurisprudence have come to the conclusion that there is always some doubt, even if it is unreasonable, and that a little bit of unreasonable doubt is acceptable even if we're sending someone to prison.
The same is true in life. Everything we hold to be certain is at least a tiny bit uncertain, but if we focused on those uncertainties we would be crippled by them. So we cope with those uncertainties by pretending they are certain. IMO it's why religion became so popular - if you've got a God, you've got some certainty.
It's also why I've been arguing that thinking anything is certain is a bad idea, because you're just replacing the fake certainty of God with an invented fake certainty of science.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff