No, in no way am I implying that. I am just trying to say that if you want to point out something, do it intelligently (i.e. give reasonings) as to allow us to simulate our thinking. Not just ridicule someone. Yes, ridiculing someone ALWAYS works, but, if so, then you are no different from MLM etc.
I'm in this thread to seek for intelligent argument, not people attacking each other.

fair enough

i am a believer. a muslim specifically. by learning science, it help me to increase my faith to God where i can see the greatness of His creation in universe. each of the creation amaze me on how it impossibly be done by human

?? How can you say you're not saying there's no absolute truth, at the same time say, truth is not absolute?

Filling in the blanks for you,
so you're saying there exist some truth which are absolute and some truth which are not absolute?

Ironically, I took that saying from a theist.
Ok, in the scenario I mention, it may be possible.

But I assure you it's not so.

Truth does not change, only the angle that changes. it's like a crossword puzzle. Across, "S" spells super. Down "S" spells stupid. The truth does not change, only the conditions change.

For eg. Ali goes to the dentist, John goes to the dentist. Ali says it's pain, john says it's not.

Does this mean that truth differs? No. The truth is, Ali felt pain because he went for a tooth extraction, and the doctor did not use any relief medication. Whereas John simply went for a check up. It is one truth, one not so simple truth, which answer depends on the premise.

A 100 year old person, is old, depending on the definition of "old".This is the absolute truth. In the definition that Old, as in reaching the last 10% of the average lifespan of homosapiens on planet earth during the year 2010? Then the answer becomes clearer.

Can you think of anything else where truth is not absolute?

---

Added on October 13, 2010, 2:56 pmI'm guilty, I bought a deck of tarrots there.

---

Added on October 13, 2010, 3:01 pmFair enough,

You sound like a reasonable person.

I understand Kal-el's grief though, his probably frustrated, because most statements from theist get more and more "out of this world" so to speak.

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 13 2010, 03:01 PM

Okay, let's say this
Mathematically,
absolute truth => truth
however, converse is false, truth =/=> absolute truth
I am merely saying, there are more than just absolute truth. Absolute truth is a subset of truth. Truth consist of many other type of truth. Just like the example I gave you, which is a relative truth.
I mean, imagine someone who is 1000 years old, will the person think that 100 years old is old? Yes, the 100 years old guy is still within 10% group. But to the 1000 years old guy, he is not old.
Einstein Theory of Relativity also implies that there are many truth which are relative.
Okay, let's define 1000 kg as heavy. Now, a book is only 500gram, which is not heavy. However, if a book is travelling near light speed, then its mass increases by many many many times. So, now, the book is defined as heavy. So, question is, is the book heavy? In this case, isn't it conditional truth?

This post has been edited by Searingmage: Oct 13 2010, 03:22 PM

Science too many assumption where the assumption close to the black box behaviour - that is what I believe start from foundation after read the Scientific Blunders and my New Scientist age.

Note what I mentioned:
You will have to redefine the statement in that case.

A 100 year old man is considered old, for the average human being, without consideration of the existence of a 1000 year old man. For the freak occurance of a 1000 year old man, 100 years is indeed not old. But for the rest 100 years is considered old.

This is the absolute truth. It's multi dimensional. The only reason we do not understand it, is because we do not know the premise: There is a man who is 1000 years old and the question was the relative age of the man compared to 100 year old man.


Does a 100 year old man, call a 99 year old man, old? Yes, because the premise, is a certain percentage of the average lifespan of human beings within his knowledge. This is the premise he used to answer the question.

As long as the premise remains the same, the truth will forever be the same. It is absolute. The only difference is a lack of knowledge, lack of premise.

A lack of knowledge, a lack of premise, does not change the truth, it only obscures it.

---

Added on October 13, 2010, 4:54 pm

People tend to think of Truth as either having 1 answer, or is ever changing. But they are neither.

It is a single tree with numerous branches. Each never changing.

People who see things in black & white tend to think, that in an argument, definately 1 person is wrong.

People who see truth as being relative, accepts both parties in the argument as being true.

A person who sees the truth as being a fix conclusion to a combination of premises, will try to see what premises are missing, and what premises are applicable to our case, in order to make a decision.

Eg.

A goes down the road, and sees that the road is block.
A turns around and goes the otherway, along comes B.

B doesn't believe A and continues to go down the road.

If A and B were ppl who believe that there is only 1 truth, they'd think each other are idiots, and only themselves as being right.

If A and B thought that truth is relative, and let each other be, then heck, they may have missed out on something.

If A and B realise that truth is absolute, and that there is missing information between the 2 of them, then they might start discussing it.

A: I saw a tree fell over, you won't be able to pass.
B: Oh really? I think you mean that banyan tree at the curve?
A: Yes.
B: I guessed it. It was scheduled to be brought down. There is actually a detour, but not many people knows about it, it's down this way too.

Is truth absolute? Or limited to ones perception?

---

Added on October 13, 2010, 5:04 pmok, another example with relative truth.

A, wishes to measure his house, he ask for some long measuring tape from his friend B.
B, takes his longest tailor's measuring tape.

A: "That's not long you dipstick."
B: "Yes it is, just look, you can extend it way beyond arms length."

Both of them are right, but the truth is not interchangeable. It is fixed, based on the premise.

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 13 2010, 05:04 PM

Yes, if the premise remains the same, the truth will be the same. But in reality, the premise always change. Hence, a truth cannot be absolute. A truth is only absolute at that moment, for that premise.
I guess it boils down to, how do we define absolute truth?
Okay, for me, absolute truth is the answer, that no matter the circumstances, the answer would not change. Even if the premise change, absolute truth would not change.
One example of absolute truth in my opinion would be:
MATHEMATICALLY, "1+1=2".
So, no matter what the circumstances, 1+1 will still be 2. The equation will work under all circumstances in mathematics.

When we talk about absolute, ain't it mean that it will always be the same, never changing?

So, in your opinion, if we have ultimate knowledge, then all truth will be absolute? Btw, your 1st example is not relative truth. For that case, there's already one true answer, just that neither know.
Your second example, however, is relative truth. Yes, I admit that if you define every single detail, then perhaps truth will be absolute.
However, in your case, truth is very strictly defined. If truth in our world is that strictly defined, then your argument on absolute truth will be true. But when I say RM1 million is a huge sum of many, I doubt people will say I am not telling the truth. So, in my definition of truth, your truth falls under a subset of my truth.

---

Added on October 13, 2010, 6:05 pmHypocrite!!

---

Added on October 13, 2010, 6:24 pmAdd-on,
regarding the 100 years old thing. I am trying to imply, our definition for old, is relative to the other people. As you say, percentile.
If average life-span increased to 200 years old, 100 years old is no longer old. We say 100 years old is old because we compare with people around us.
If there's no young people, neither will there be old people. That's what I mean relative. It is true because relative to other people, 100 years old is old.

This post has been edited by Searingmage: Oct 13 2010, 06:25 PM

i tought this thread discuss our societies outlook on science. It turn out to be theist vs atheist tered.

well I noticed that quite a portion of public just take everything around them for granted without having to consider or appreciate the role the science played in creating them, e.g. electronic stuffs, technology,
for example one might post on lowyat with his computer and internet access yet he claimed science is rubbish.

at first I can't believe the fact that there is still human that don't believe in science.
one of the reason that give rise to this situation, i think, is the failure of education.
what is being taught is just not enough.
in science text one is never taught 'you must believed in what you learn in your science classes'
they just learn it like any other subjects, such as moral?
learning it doesn't mean necessary to practice it,
and too little they get to learn in school,
what they learnt are just simple facts, which I think is not enough powerful enough to establish science as the central believe in them.
to them science might just as well be like religion,
and you can choose between different ones to believe in and practice.

we have to emphasize more on d structure and also nature of science, besides learning all the vital components of it,
we have to teach our man the real meaning of science and differentiate it from religion and other teaching,
and show them that science is the real truth, and establish a correct set of scientific-based 'logic' in their mind.
only then our man will be cleared of the mist and confusion that trapped them in the false beliefs.

---

Added on October 16, 2010, 11:29 amand of course there are always people who tends to misinterpret scientific facts, this contribute to the branch of pseudo-science, and when our people is not well equipped with sufficient and mature knowledge, they will get the wrong teaching as well

This post has been edited by KeNGZ: Oct 16 2010, 11:29 AM

I vote for worse
Other than people just wan to against the science, there are also people who mislead people using all types of scientific terms, especially to those who weak in science.

Consider 2012 or doomsday,
we can find alot of articles talking about how true it is.
But along the article, we can find alot of scientific terms supporting how disaster happen,
and we wont know how those terms actually work.
While we can see alot of beleivers of 2012 and keep increasing all the time.

I have the same question but unfortunately, it seems many just ignorant about how science actually revolve around them.

Speaking of how science revolve all around us, we have to know that:
- We eat medicine when we get ill for faster recovery, or go for operation for serious injury; we can pray to recover faster but our condition will get worst if we dont go through medical recovering.
- We have to use vehicle to transport to one place to another; we cant just pray and hope that we can reach one destination, and in the next moment, tadah, we are there.
- We all know that people come and go in this world. Sometimes we hope that people will stay on in this world but we all know that praying or not, those who have to go will still go. Consider a terminal patient with last stage of cancer. Those who dont go after praying or not, always has scientific explanation.

Even all of us understand that science and logics work all around us,
sometimes people just dont wan to accept that but choos to throw away their rationality to think that those reasons are just lied and excuses to against the idea of someone much omnipotential on the above.

Science is not somewhat anti-religion at the first place.
It just that when there are too many theories and facts against the concept of religion,
people tend to get offended and against science and everything related to it.
Many even go as far as thinking that science is another religion, those who believe in it are just lack of intelligent like others.



I dont think education plays a part in people fail to accept science.
I know there are lot of people who distrust science can actually score a good grade in science, as well as people who got a good grade in maths says that problem solving is rubbish methodology.

This post has been edited by anti-informatic: Oct 16 2010, 02:42 PM

I do think that the public understanding of science is improving (largely due to the mainstreaming of education) but it seems that there are clusters of ignorant people who will never embrace the truth that science brings. Not surprisingly, a large proporton of these people are those who have been indoctrinated by religion.

I've read so many comments on various discussion boards all over the internet, saying things like 'science reaffirms my belief in God' or 'science proves that God exists' but really, that just shows how perverse religious indoctrination is in warping our prized reasoning capabilities. If science does not go hand in hand with religion, they will either try and force science to take the shape of religion, or discard that scientific theory outright regardless of the sheer mountain of evidence behind the scientific theory.

Let me give you this classic example I had while debating with a creationist. After typing out close to 2000 words on evolution, the undeniable proof of its validity and providing solid examples on it, the creationist replied "If evolution is true, why don't we see monkeys giving birth to humans?" People like this make me lose all hope in humanity.

And btw, Richard Dawkins ftw

C'mon people, this thread is not just about religion/faith/whatever vs science...
What about:
- Movies & tv shows potrayal of the science nerd/mad professor/crazy scientist?
- teen culture -cool crowd (athletes, artists) vs uncool nerd/class geek
- (as posted by several other posters) the failure of education system -producing talents or slaves
- political systems -democratic processes that can outvote/outlaw scientific facts
etc.

Again my plea: no more creationist vs evolutionist or atheist vs theist or Quran/Bible/Veda vs quantum theory etc.
:sigh:

The distrust of science is increasing. Environmental problems, the Korean cloning scandal, super viruses and diseases, the slowing pace of breakthrough discoveries...

It seems the common person on the street is getting more and more frightened about the practical applications of science.

Correction to your statement: "So in my definition of truth, my definition of absolute truth falls under a subset of my truth.

to which I have to agree, our definitions are different, that is why our conclusion is different.

What I am trying to say is that, truth overall is absolute, it is not 1 Dimensional like how many perceive it. If we do think in that way, then we are damn to think that anything is possible. Alas it is not true, and I see you do agree with me. 1 + 1 will forever remain as 2.

Back into context of our discussion. In my definition: Truth is absolute, therefore, if science explains something to be this way, and we have no other premise to say otherwise, then the most reasonable way to come to a conclusion is to conclude that 1 + 1 =2 and nothing else, until the premise has been updated.

We can't say. God exist relative to.... something.

The prob is, woo believers use "presupposition"

They first come with an answer (the moon is bright) then work their way back to an answer (there must be a moon goddess whose power makes the moon shine). Even though science has adequately explained the phenomena, and holes have been poked into their reasoning, they choose to believe it, and think that truth is subjective.

It is not!

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 18 2010, 09:43 AM

I find it disturbing that some ppl who believed in God and condemn science (namely evolution and big bang) is being selective to start with, without realising it is the same discipline n principle being used in daily scientific application such as - the internet - how electric signals travels thru cables from one end to the other - uses the same scientific workflow as evolution and big bang).

Science is a tool attempting to explain any occurrence. Big bang theory and theory of evolution is currently still a theory and hence subjected to disapproval.
However, if one day, science managed to actually absolutely proved them, then I doubt anyone will argue anymore (just like the fact that Sun is the center of Solar System and Earth is round, while there were objections in the beginning, we don't find people objecting it now).
If we blindly accept what science gave us, without asking why is it so, then, science may very well provide many false information.

Imagine, this scenario,
A came up with a theory, and he showed the reasonings behind why his theory is true.
If everyone were to accept without questioning, or testing, then even if there's a flaw in his theory, no one will know the truth. Only with arguments and controversies can one attain true knowledge of a subject.

Another thing is, there are many branches of Science. One can believe in one branch and disapprove of another. Why is it disturbing? When we choose course in a university, ain't we being selective too? Just because you reject TOE or big bang doesn't mean you don't believe in science. And two fields of science can be independent or mutually exclusive.
Also, would you mind showing evidence that internet uses the same scientific workflow as evolution and big bang? I don't see any direct connections between them.

This post has been edited by Searingmage: Oct 18 2010, 08:26 PM

Evolution and Big Bang is not without evidence. And theory, is not about just making assumptions. There is a huge amount of bodily evidence to support them. A good example is Albert Einsteins 'Theory of Relativity'. As theoratical as it might sound to you (this is not like your everyday theory of how your tshirt can end up at ur ex house) its application ranges from space travel to hi-tech communication. That is how solid the theory status in science is. It is not simply given to any sort of assumptions.

Theory "denotes the most powerful status that an explanation can attain".

They dont accept it without questioning, unlike what u believe. They constantly testing the validity of the theory in order to find the ultimate truth.

Of course Science has many branches and unlike what u believe, they contribute each other instead of contradicting. They are consistent in its laws and theory. A geologist can converse with a cosmologist on how the earth being shaped up. There is of course the things that they do not know yet. Science never claim they know everything. Thus this healthy community contributed to constantly question each others approach to the problem given. They seek out for evidence and vindicating their theory, like what Einstein did.

And theory is achieved through "comprehensive frameworks for describing, explaining and making falsifiable predictions about related sets of phenomena based on rigourous observation, experimentation and logic" - quoted from QualiaSoup 'Skewed views of science'
- This workflow is used to all scientific community and its the backbone of it all. That is the relationship between studying the light behaviour travelling in the fibreoptic cables for high speed internet AND the theory of evolution and big bang.
And you are selective if u accept science when u use the internet but rebuke at evolution and big bang without bringing forward any argument to support ur doubts - because that is unscientific.

yet another "still a theory" argument. please understand what is scientific theory and what is philosophical theory then come back.

I guess you were unable to comprehend what I mentioned.
Firstly, let's ask ourselves. Why some people questioned TOE and Big Bang Theory while no one questioned Einstine theory of relativity?
If TOE and big bang has indeed been proven beyond doubt, then why is there still doubt? Do you see people doubting the earth is round? Or that the Sun is center of solar system?
Don't be mistaken, I have nothing against TOE or big bang theory. However, I view it as a possibility (a high one in fact). You, however, have concluded that they are the answer, and won't open your mind to other possibilities. TOE and Big Bang Theory still has some controversies, which leads to doubts.

Also, in which part did i mention that different branches of Science contradicts each other? I merely trying to say, selective is because people have more understanding on one branch over the other. Hence, why condemn people for being selective? They are afterall, not expert in the field(neither are we). So, are you trying to imply just because one is selective, then one shouldn't use anything at all from studies of Science?

And I am asking you to back what you said, " without realising it is the same discipline n principle being used in daily scientific application". Either your sentence is misleading, or you meant what you say. I want to know, what you mean by same discipline and principle? How are internet and big bang theory or evolution theory the same? What's your backing on your statement?

Edit: My apologies, by saying still a theory, I did not mean that all theories are questionable. I am trying to say, they still pose a space for arguments.

---

Added on October 19, 2010, 12:03 amA theory can still be disproved. For example, Newton's corpuscular theory of light is among one which has been proven false.
Also, I apologize for not choosing my words careful enough. I am not trying to use "still a theory" argument. I am trying to say, still subjected to some controversies.

This post has been edited by Searingmage: Oct 19 2010, 12:16 AM