My OPINION

[branmakmuffin]

Hmm well not exactly.

Hm, well, yes, exactly.

As we can see; the scientific method asks us to form a conclusion then test to see if the conclusion is supported by observation.

No, science does not make conclusions in a vacuum. Using a science-based (as opposed to faith-based) approach, a reasonable person will form a conclusion based on all the available evidence. Using a faith-based approach, a person will simply form a conclusion, which may or may not comport with the evidence.

[bobbryan2]

No, science does not make conclusions in a vacuum. Using a science-based (as opposed to faith-based) approach, a reasonable person will form a conclusion based on all the available evidence. Using a faith-based approach, a person will simply form a conclusion, which may or may not comport with the evidence.

Okay... religion doesn't make conclusions in a vacuum either. What you're mostly referring to is people in the religion that refuse to change their views as the evidence changes.

There are plenty of those people in science... How many people in the scientific fields have clung to long-held beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence. Bacteria? DDT? Heck... whether or not the earth is flat, round, the center of the galaxy, the center of the solar system, or whether or not the world can be described solely with rational numbers?

I'll probably grant you that science is a little more forgiving of change than most religions because of its tenants... but that doesn't change their fundamental make-ups. Plenty of religious people alter their thinking as time changes as well.

[branmakmuffin]

Okay... religion doesn't make conclusions in a vacuum either. What you're mostly referring to is people in the religion that refuse to change their views as the evidence changes.

There are plenty of those people in science... How many people in the scientific fields have clung to long-held beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence. Bacteria? DDT? Heck... whether or not the earth is flat, round, the center of the galaxy, the center of the solar system, or whether or not the world can be described solely with rational numbers?

The difference is that, regardless of how scientists behave, the science itself does not change. Anything based completely on faith changes in whatever way its adherents (or more probably its leaders) decide it should change. It's like a club. You can change the rules whenever you like.

[bobbryan2]

The difference is that, regardless of how scientists behave, the science itself does not change. Anything based completely on faith changes in whatever way its adherents (or more probably its leaders) decide it should change. It's like a club. You can change the rules whenever you like.

Science doesn't change? Are you sure about that? What science are you talking about? The scientific method? That doesn't even apply to things like mathematics. Is mathematics even part of the 'reasoned thinking' club?

And what part of faith remains is constantly in flux?

I guess you're going to have to be more specific, because I don't really know what you're getting at here.

[Baranor]

forgive my public school education but all I get out of this is "blah blah blah I'm right" , "blah blah blah no I'm right your wrong" and of course "blah blah blah your wrong I'm right you pretentious twit"

valiant effort Ooog but be careful your dangerously close to losing your title as Sabbat's resident elitist snob

[branmakmuffin]

Science doesn't change?

I'm pretty sure the laws of physics, for example, are the same today as they were during the age of dinosaurs.

[bobbryan2]

I'm pretty sure the laws of physics, for example, are the same today as they were during the age of dinosaurs.

But what are they? Do we have them right? We're almost certain on things like Newtonian mechanics... And stuff like Thermodynamics? Sure, we're pretty sure about that.

You gonna tell me our understanding of things like string theory are going to be identical in 100 years? in 1000? We even have revisions on things as recent as relativity.

Or are you talking about how they actually are... and not our understanding? Because... I gotta tell you. That's a dangerous slope. A religious person would say that God never changes, only our understanding of hm. (During the age of dinosaurs even).

[bobbryan2]

Anyways.. I'll bow out here. It's way off topic, and probably not the place for the conversation anyway.

Interesting things though...

[branmakmuffin]

But what are they? Do we have them right? We're almost certain on things like Newtonian mechanics... And stuff like Thermodynamics? Sure, we're pretty sure about that.

Whether we have them right or not, they are what they are. Our belief in what they are does not change them.

Or are you talking about how they actually are... and not our understanding? Because... I gotta tell you. That's a dangerous slope.

Not the least bit dangerous.

A religious person would say that God never changes, only our understanding of hm.

How quaint.

You know this thread is gonna get the axe tomorrow.

[bobbryan2]

How quaint.

Hehe.

You said my point was quaint when you made that same point first? Riiiight.

And yeah. It'll be axed.. ah well.

[branmakmuffin]

Hehe.

You said my point was quaint when you made that same point first? Riiiight.

No, I made it regarding science, you made it regarding religion. Since science and religion are not even remotely the same thing, the point applies to them completely differently.[/quote]

[Vardak]

I'm pretty sure the laws of physics, for example, are the same today as they were during the age of dinosaurs.

Physics has not changed, true enough. However our understanding of physics has been altered dramatically.

Ask your self, and assume God has a sense of humor, what if God created everything including the geological record simply to challenge our faith.

Now I happen to agree that science is able to explain the how's of the universe better than faith, but not the why's.

[bobbryan2]

No, I made it regarding science, you made it regarding religion. Since science and religion are not even remotely the same thing, the point applies to them completely differently.

[/QUOTE]

Talk about conclusions in a vacuum.

[Stormanne]

Wow, read the first two pages on this thread, talking about fact v. opinion in regards to others. Pop to the last page and there is a discussion on physics and religion. Talk about derailment...lol. Simple quote about opinions though

"Opinions are like a$$holes, everybody has one, and to the guy next to you, yours stinks"

[Voalkrynn2]

LOL!

Seems that this was OP's point. More than that, fact (as Aranticus has defined it) is highly dependent on how it is presented.

For example, an observable difference between longsword and kopesh is a x2 vs x3 critical multiplier. Another observable difference is the need to acquire kopesh as an exotic weapon feat. An unobservable difference might be attack speed. There may be others as well.

Depending on how many of these mitigating differences are included in the fact it might be possible to prove just about anything. The routine failure of posters to include all of the mitigating differences causes the fact to become opinion at the very best (and a lie at the worst).

Opinion: Using bold colored text is ineffective and an eye sore.

Fact: The forum is here for people to communicate their thoughts, concepts, and opinions.

[Borror0]

The science itself does not change.

That's not important.

You don't seem to get that it's because we, as a society, believe in science that it is the rational way to think and view our world. Were you born a few centuries earlier and you might be thinking that Galileo wan an heretic as the Church said. While an information can be true of false, it can only be used in a conversation as a fact if both parties view it as a fact: common ground.

You can reject a fact and not believe it's true. It's your opinion.

[Desteria]

Let's keep this simple: is it demonstrably true or false that the Earth is round? I'll go ahead and answer that for you: yes. Therefore, the shape of the Earth is never subject to one's opinion.

Actuly False....

The earth is a Sphear, well not just a sphear but a slightly oval sphear


/smarta$$ out

[GlassCannon]

Essentially, what I gather from this and other sources, is that a belief can and will actively change reality for a person(perspective, but it influences their choices as well, being unable to see the truth as it is, in cold hard math, always blurring the edges and warming it up with the pillow of their own artificially injected opinion), regardless what the actual reality may be, and when said reality shatters the illusion of a false belief(which is strongly and adamantly true in the mind of the believer), the believer then denounces the reality-based dream-shattering facts with illogical reaffirmation of said false beliefs.... which leads to infighting, bickering, cooked facts, skewed numbers, angry people and frustrated readers. We need to try to be more civil around here. Discussing things like this in a polite and lighthearted manner is how things get accomplished. Simply bashing away at one another is more harmful than shutting the game down completely(the basis and means for the dissent initially, and a place to vent irrelevant negative emotions via a translated means, 'an excuse', for emission).

TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read) - People won't change their mind even if the world proves em wrong, so just try to be compassionate about it.

[branmakmuffin]

Actuly False....

The earth is a Sphear, well not just a sphear but a slightly oval sphear

/smarta$$ out

Actually, it's an oblate spheroid.

[branmakmuffin]

Physics has not changed, true enough. However our understanding of physics has been altered dramatically.

And this means what, exactly, regarding the actual laws of physics? Again, this all smacks of a very human-centric view of the universe.

Now I happen to agree that science is able to explain the how's of the universe better than faith, but not the why's.

Who cares about the whys? Only the lost want to know "Why are we here?"

Test of emotional maturity: at the end of the movie Barton Fink, John Torturro's character has a box. He does not open the box, and we never find out what's in it. If a person hates the movie because the contents are never revealed, that person is so emotionally immature that he can't deal with a little ambiguity in a movie, for Pete's sake, let alone in his life. Remember what happened to Cate Blanchett's character at the end of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, because she wanted to know everything.