-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Subjective Proof
- Thread starter Willamena
- Start date
The idea is that there is the inherent capability that anyone can know it, which is engendered by it being objective. It's not the intent that anyone actually would, or has, duplicated that proof. One person alone can have proof.
Perhaps the last line of the OP needs reworking now.
That would depend on whether John's fun was measurable.
O
Yes!!! but now you are talking artist language and religion as in science tends to be pretty much dominated by non artists arguing.
Measurement is relative to the system predetermined to be the measurement. An inch and a second are two very subjectives that come to mind. So scientific "fact" is often predicated on fiction such as one inch one second. If we have a system that starts with fiction as fundemental is it objective? I say no it's not.
9 out of 10 sciences agree their interpretation is correct and the other 8 are wrong.
A history and philosophy professor. Geewiz, are science professors in such short supply?
Ahh right so changing the properties of water changes the boiling point? Do you thinks that is not obvious? We did that on first year science at school.
I am not interested in modified water, just pure, unmodified water at measured pressures.
Do you actually have anything new?
Sure based on the scientific fact that all atoms and molecules are different if you go out enough decimals you couldn’t even record 2 boiling temperatures of water the same number. You are subjectivily determining the importance of an acurate temperature. This is usually based on use or technology. As technology gets better so does our accuracy. Go out to the sixth sigma and run your test 100 times. How many times do you believe you will actually get 100 degrees. If you say 100 times you don’ t understand science.
Gotcha. Perhaps it's my background in the sciences that leads my mind to go in the direction of replicability. There's definitely something to the notion of one person alone being able to bear proof (or truths for that matter). On the other hand, humans are largely social animals, so bearing such things only on one's own doesn't always carry much weight. I don't know if any of that suggests that proofs are objective. I'm not sure that matters?
How many decimals?
No two atoms vibrate at the same frequency. Several billions of atoms have an average vibration to an accuracy of billions of decimal places. So im guessing that point is moot even if you misunderstood it
No scientific measurement is precise and the accuracy will be stated in the write up for whatever experiment. Depending on the subject i would say an average of between 3 and 6 decimal places of accuracy is ok for typical measurements. If thats wrong im sure a scientist would correct me.
Have you any idea of what 0.001 or 0.000001 of a degree accuracy represents?
As for me not understanding science, kind of hypocritical considering you have shown that trait several times, the last in the very post i am answering here in your misunderstanding of scientific accuracy.
At 101.325 kilopascals of pressure (sea level), pure water will boil at 100c to within the accuracy of most scientific thermometers.
And you still haven't provided evidence for your claim that water boils at different temperatures depending on the material of the containing vessel.
Now... if you have scientific evidence to show that pure water at sea level does not boil at 100c (to within the accuracy of the measuring instruments) please feel to present it because without that i am done banging my head.
Subjective by definition.
Augustus
…
The experiments were documented in the link he provided.
Another way to state this is linear vs. non-linear. Linear perception, science, has its place and is included in the non-linear, but it is not the end-all-be-all Truth of reality. Linear language has its functions, but to mistake that as defining Reality is an error of perception.
WalterTrull
Godfella
Mmmm…. Maybe not.
You want definition?
Subjective : based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Objective : not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Which does not exist. All views of reality originate in the subjective, which includes "objectivity".
'personal' seems to be the key here. So, what is that exactly? And what is personal freedom for objectivity?
Personal : belonging to or affecting a particular person rather than anyone else.
Do you want a link to google?