GKarsEye
Regular
Whoo, boy. Well, this thread is certainly a doozy.
First thing's first: giffy isn't a troll. What I see on this thread is discussion on several issues simultaneously, with parties with different positions providing fact, analogies, and good explanations for their cases. What's wrong with that? Frankly, sometimes it's more interesting than having a dozen threads about which B5 captain is better, TNT is evil, and Ain't It Cool News is stupid. It's just a shame that when lively, intelligent discourse comes about, it's usually stifled.
However, I would understand moving this thread to the off-topic forum.
Ok, next:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>You can twist facts to back up any oppinion. So every oppinion has some facts behind it, regardless of how twisted and/or trivial that fact may seem. No one has a factless oppinion, the facts you have may not be real facts, but they are to you and you use them to back up your oppinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If a fact is "twisted" is not "not real," then it isn't fact, is it? It is a lie. An opinion based on lies is not valid. By definition, a fact is true. A reasonable conclusion is based on smaller, previously proven facts or axioms. No offense, but if you don't understand this, I suggest you study logic and buy a dictionary.
Here's a factless opinion: AIDS is a plague sent by God to punish sinners. It is factless, because there are no facts to support that. Therefore, we can safely call that stupid opinion.
By the way, it's opinion, not oppinion.
Solaris, I know you mean well, and I also want this place to be friendly and fun. But stifling good dialogue and creating personal conflict where none existed are just as bad as flame wars.
Next:
Of course it takes a community to arrive at truths, I never said or meant anything to the contrary. In fact, I believe it is quite clear the I support the scientific method as the only tool that can allow humanity to discover the true nature of the physical world. The scientific method, by definition, involves a community of learned peers and scholars. It is a checks and balances. Of course, an individual researcher could be subjective, but his or her peers, as a whole, will not be.
And of course it takes a long time to arrive at these conclusions. If anything, that's a good sign. Would you want someone to build your house in two days? Why should determining the very nature of the universe be any different?
Jaguar's example of the Big Bang is a good point. It is not accepted by everyone, and even those who do will never even pretend they know much about it. In fact, the idea of the Big Bang only came about as a logical point. The expansion of the universe is a fact (nice tie-in to my previous post, eh?), so the logical conclusion is that the universe was infintely small. Thus, a Big Bang.
So, it is not correct to say, "The Big Bang was an event that definitely happened." It is equally incorrect to say, "The Big Bang theory is a lode of malarkey and just plain wrong."
The problem with a concept like the Big Bang is that people misunderstand. Most laymen think of it as a giant explosion, like dynamite. Since this seems like a silly idea, they conclude it couldn't have happened. Of course, the Big Bang was not an explosion. That requires matter, air, etc, all of which wasn't around. I myself am not clear on the whole thing, but I acknowledge it. There is nothing wrong with not knowing. There is something wrong with making up your stuff and calling it fact. People do the same thing with evolution: "What do you mean humans come from monkeys? That's absurd, it can't be true." Of course, because that's not what evolution is!
The Big Bang is not a historical event, like the formation of earth and the signing of the Declaration of Independance are. The universe has dimensions in which it operates. Before the universe, there were no dimensions, logically. Time is a dimension. So, you can't really talk about the Big Bang as a historical event.
Jaguar, I don't get your last thing about red-shifting. You provided an alternate explanation for it, then said it means the universe is expanding "more slowly." More slowly than what? You're still saying that the universe is expanding, which is exactly what I said.
Red-shifting and universe expansion have been proven extensively by scores of other means, by the way. I just used it as an easy example. What isn't known is the rate of expansion or the "shape" of the universe (hyperbolic, parabolic, circular) which determines whether or not it will contract eventually.
Yes, in the future things like this may be proven and it will be known as fact. So, what's wrong with that? I thought that was the point.
------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."
First thing's first: giffy isn't a troll. What I see on this thread is discussion on several issues simultaneously, with parties with different positions providing fact, analogies, and good explanations for their cases. What's wrong with that? Frankly, sometimes it's more interesting than having a dozen threads about which B5 captain is better, TNT is evil, and Ain't It Cool News is stupid. It's just a shame that when lively, intelligent discourse comes about, it's usually stifled.
However, I would understand moving this thread to the off-topic forum.
Ok, next:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>You can twist facts to back up any oppinion. So every oppinion has some facts behind it, regardless of how twisted and/or trivial that fact may seem. No one has a factless oppinion, the facts you have may not be real facts, but they are to you and you use them to back up your oppinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If a fact is "twisted" is not "not real," then it isn't fact, is it? It is a lie. An opinion based on lies is not valid. By definition, a fact is true. A reasonable conclusion is based on smaller, previously proven facts or axioms. No offense, but if you don't understand this, I suggest you study logic and buy a dictionary.
Here's a factless opinion: AIDS is a plague sent by God to punish sinners. It is factless, because there are no facts to support that. Therefore, we can safely call that stupid opinion.
By the way, it's opinion, not oppinion.
Solaris, I know you mean well, and I also want this place to be friendly and fun. But stifling good dialogue and creating personal conflict where none existed are just as bad as flame wars.
Next:
Of course it takes a community to arrive at truths, I never said or meant anything to the contrary. In fact, I believe it is quite clear the I support the scientific method as the only tool that can allow humanity to discover the true nature of the physical world. The scientific method, by definition, involves a community of learned peers and scholars. It is a checks and balances. Of course, an individual researcher could be subjective, but his or her peers, as a whole, will not be.
And of course it takes a long time to arrive at these conclusions. If anything, that's a good sign. Would you want someone to build your house in two days? Why should determining the very nature of the universe be any different?
Jaguar's example of the Big Bang is a good point. It is not accepted by everyone, and even those who do will never even pretend they know much about it. In fact, the idea of the Big Bang only came about as a logical point. The expansion of the universe is a fact (nice tie-in to my previous post, eh?), so the logical conclusion is that the universe was infintely small. Thus, a Big Bang.
So, it is not correct to say, "The Big Bang was an event that definitely happened." It is equally incorrect to say, "The Big Bang theory is a lode of malarkey and just plain wrong."
The problem with a concept like the Big Bang is that people misunderstand. Most laymen think of it as a giant explosion, like dynamite. Since this seems like a silly idea, they conclude it couldn't have happened. Of course, the Big Bang was not an explosion. That requires matter, air, etc, all of which wasn't around. I myself am not clear on the whole thing, but I acknowledge it. There is nothing wrong with not knowing. There is something wrong with making up your stuff and calling it fact. People do the same thing with evolution: "What do you mean humans come from monkeys? That's absurd, it can't be true." Of course, because that's not what evolution is!
The Big Bang is not a historical event, like the formation of earth and the signing of the Declaration of Independance are. The universe has dimensions in which it operates. Before the universe, there were no dimensions, logically. Time is a dimension. So, you can't really talk about the Big Bang as a historical event.
Jaguar, I don't get your last thing about red-shifting. You provided an alternate explanation for it, then said it means the universe is expanding "more slowly." More slowly than what? You're still saying that the universe is expanding, which is exactly what I said.
Red-shifting and universe expansion have been proven extensively by scores of other means, by the way. I just used it as an easy example. What isn't known is the rate of expansion or the "shape" of the universe (hyperbolic, parabolic, circular) which determines whether or not it will contract eventually.
Yes, in the future things like this may be proven and it will be known as fact. So, what's wrong with that? I thought that was the point.
------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."
