My OPINION

[Borror0]

Is it possible to squelch peeps on the forums?

http://forums.ddo.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist

[Milolyen]

I can see Bran's point of view on his definition of fact.

Fact: Gravity exists

Not-Fact: Gravity is measured at 9.8 m/s^2.

But I am basing my assumption on his definition of science though as well. Feel free to correct me Bran.

Actually that would be wrong using bran's point of view

Fact: 2 objects with mass are attracted to one another.
Not-Fact: Our definition of gravity.
Fact: (on earth) Gravity (as we know it) is measured at 9.8 m/s^2 up till it reachs terminal velocity.

With our current knowledge of the way the universe works gravity is a fact but tomorrow we could find a different reason for this attraction that could prove our definition of gravity wrong. So in this case gravity is not a fact using only that portion of the definition of a fact.

However the word fact would rarely be used if that was its actual deffinition. People in general us the word fact to represent "something having objective reality that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation." as pulled straight from Wikipedia.

Milolyen

[Dirac]

I've really enjoyed this thread; at least enough to really **** off my wife by reading it this afternoon instead of working around the house. For the record, I agree wiht Oogly, in that disagreeing politely is a worthwhile goal. I agree with A_D, that in this form of communication, communicating clearly and concisely is a worthwhile goal that sometimes comes in conflict with the first goal. I don't think Branmakmuffin is off base defining science as he did, and he did take pains to be clear in what he meant by it.

[Krago]

Fact: 2 objects with mass are attracted to one another.
Not-Fact: Our definition of gravity.
Fact: (on earth) Gravity (as we know it) is measured at 9.8 m/s^2 up till it reachs terminal velocity.

But I think that is Bran's counter arguement, that he is using some Universal truth or measurement as fact, not the view of things here on earth. So what we as Earthlings view as some immovable truth might actually not hold elsewhere in the Universe so it cannot be true (fact) until proven everywhere, which is impossible. (Kinda makes my head hurt thinking about it all)

So our (Earthling) definition of truth or fact cannot apply universally.

So I used the term gravity which you nicely defined as two objects attracted to one another, but how we quantify that measurement cannot be viewed as a universal truth.

[Timjc86]

I'm going to attempt to make this a little more clear:

I read this whole thing from start to finish, straight through. I did not realize what branmakmuffin meant by "science" until page 11. I had an idea of what Borror0 meant by "fact" around page 5 (although he didn't use the word much until later) and then he explicitly stated it on page 7. As such, it was much more difficult to follow bran's argument.

This only reinforces Borror0's point back around page 2ish that it's important to define common ground.

As for the human-centric bit, I don't think Borror0's saying that humans decide what is true, but merely that we decide what we consider facts. He's not tying fact to truth the same way bran is. I'm sure you'll correct me if I am wrong.

Just a few observations of mine that may clarify this a little bit, especially for any first-and-last-page-only readers (like me, usually ); at least as long as this is the last page.

[Borror0]

This only reinforces Borror0's point back around page 2ish that it's important to define common ground.

LOL, I was thinking that when bran defined science as he did.

Also, you got my definition of fact right.

[oogly54]

EVERYONE, SHUT UP!! And leave people alone when they give their opinion and it differs from yours.

[Aspenor]

EVERYONE, SHUT UP!! And leave people alone when they give their opinion and it differs from yours.

You aren't the boss of me.

[Borror0]

But I think that is Bran's counter arguement, that he is using some Universal truth or measurement as fact, not the view of things here on earth. So what we as Earthlings view as some immovable truth might actually not hold elsewhere in the Universe so it cannot be true (fact) until proven everywhere, which is impossible.

That seems to be bran's point of view, but it's still proves my point.

Once we define fact as objective truth that may be known or unknown to humans, sentences like "It's a fact!" become opinions as we have no ways of knowing if it actually a fact (using the word fact by bran's definition, no mine). If by saying "It's a fact!" we mean is "It's a laws of our universe that is indubitably true, and will never be disproved." then we are expressing our opinion, as there is no way to be sure a statement is 100% true.

We can agree it's true, or a justified assumption given our current knowledge, but we can't know it's true.

[Ustice]

Actually that would be wrong using bran's point of view

Fact: 2 objects with mass are attracted to one another.
Not-Fact: Our definition of gravity.
Fact: (on earth) Gravity (as we know it) is measured at 9.8 m/s^2 up till it reachs terminal velocity.

With our current knowledge of the way the universe works gravity is a fact but tomorrow we could find a different reason for this attraction that could prove our definition of gravity wrong. So in this case gravity is not a fact using only that portion of the definition of a fact.

However the word fact would rarely be used if that was its actual deffinition. People in general us the word fact to represent "something having objective reality that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation." as pulled straight from Wikipedia.



Milolyen

Milo, you're making my head hurt.

g (defined as the rate of acceleration of bodies of mass due to gravity at sea level) ≈ 9.8 m/(s^2) , ALWAYS.

Terminal velocity is the velocity at which the force of drag on an object reaches -g, counteracting the acceleration and it maintains a relatively constant velocity.

As for gravitational models, none claim to be exact, but all work within an acceptable accuracy within their frame of reference.

Newtonian theory is useful for projectiles, and will work great when you want to shoot some object from one place to another.

Relatavistic Gravity theory works with all macro scales, but breaks down at a quantum level.

Those won't be proven wrong. They work within their defined bounds. What can happen is that they can be expanded upon. For instance if we can ever get the LHC up and running, then maybe we can answer the question of what happens to gravity on a quantum level.

So, gravity is a fact. Our definition of it is a model. (Ie, when I dropped an apple, it fell and hit my foot is a fact, saying that when I let go of an apple it will always drop is prediction from a model.)

If however you want to say that there is no facts, since the universe may just be information, or a dream or whatever, that is going into the realm of philosophy and being extremely nit-picky.

To sum up:
FACT: An account of past physical events.
MODEL: A description of a system that can used to make accurate predictions.
OPINION: An interpretation of a subjective nature. (Widely known to resemble anuses in that everyone has them, and some stink more than others. )

[Krago]

Once we define fact as objective truth that may be known or unknown to humans, sentences like "It's a fact!" become opinions as we have no ways of knowing if it actually a fact (using the word fact by bran's definition, no mine). If by saying "It's a fact!" we mean is "It's a laws of our universe that is indubitably true, and will never be disproved." then we are expressing our opinion, as there is no way to be sure a statement is 100% true.

So, you are both saying the same thing then? There is no spoon?

[Mindspat]

I am a regular forum reader and post somewhat often. I like reading most of the points some make and some of the ignorance of others. What annoys me most about these forums is all the people claiming this or that as fact. You come off looking like a jerk. "You are wrong, no YOU are WRONG." Please, both are stating opinions, which means nobody is wrong. Make your point, as your opinion and stop bashing someone else's opinion as though you are giving pure fact.

That is all.

(FYI, it seems some of the more prominent forum posters do this constantly)

I'm sure I've victimized someone's posts in the past. Thankfully these things aren't as prelevant in-game as they are throughout the forums.

Do you feel you've done this too, on the forums or in game?

[Desteria]

Actually, it's an oblate spheroid.

ya that the word i was tryign to rember the oen that means a slightly oval sphear

[GlassCannon]

You aren't the boss of me.

Until you find work under my employ