When does theory become fact?

[Thief]

What else could I think?

You might consider an item as real.....though you have no 'proof'.
Join the discussion....is gravity real?
Do you think you need numbers to prove it?
Need an experiment to take belief out of theory?
Or can you say it's real......can you say it's a fact.....
not having taken that leap.

 

[Yerda]

Are we all quite content that theories don't become facts now?

 

[Thief]

Are we all quite content that theories don't become facts now?

Not sure just yet.
I mean to say....I got a handle on it.
To say it's theory would be the good explanation.
To have proof it's real.....takes the notion into fact.

But some things don't need the proving.
It's real enough...without the photo, the equation, the fingerprint or the experiment.

 

[LuisDantas]

You might consider an item as real.....though you have no 'proof'.
Join the discussion....is gravity real?
Do you think you need numbers to prove it?
Need an experiment to take belief out of theory?
Or can you say it's real......can you say it's a fact.....
not having taken that leap.

Why would I consider souls, afterlives or gods real? They are just dead weight concepts, when it comes to me personally.

 

[Thief]

Why would I consider souls, afterlives or gods real? They are just dead weight concepts, when it comes to me personally.

And without a soul, expectation of an afterlife or belief in God.....
are you not already?........a dead weight.

 

[Sapiens]

And without a soul, expectation of an afterlife or belief in God.....
are you not already?........a dead weight.

No, not dead yet.

 

[gnostic]

Gravity is real...that is a fact...even though we often call it theory.

Theory is explanation...we agree.
Proof of God won't happen.

Excuse me, but where did this "god" come into the picture. I did not say anything recently in this thread about looking for evidence about "god".

I am saying that you, bobhike, don't seem to understand the scientific definitions for "proof" and "evidence". You both use it interchangeably, when in fact they don't mean the same things, in the realms of science and mathematics. .

They are not synonymous words, in the realms of both science and mathematics.

Evidence, is more physical or tangible, in which one could verify or test to be true or not. Evidences are what make a theory "factual", or not. If "not", then the theory has been "refuted".

Proof is logical or mathematical statements, like a mathematical equation: for instance, special relativity of energy and mass: E = mc2. Proof is more symbolic representation.

This equation is proof, not evidence. Evidence, as I said it something that can be physically verified or tested.

To understand Einstein's equation, Einstein had predicted that mass and energy are related to one another; that one can test his prediction in which you can turn mass into energy, or vice versa.

To give you one example where one can test energy = mass, meaning mass can convert into energy, is the effect of nuclear explosion of the atomic bomb, at New Mexico, the first test. At the sites of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we can see the effects it had on the survivors in the fallout, eg. ionising radiation, like gamma rays.

As to your god, you are right, there is no proof for god, because there are no equation for god. But there is also evidence for god too, which essentially mean God don't exist, and that would make God, heaven and afterlife all meaningless.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Let's be practical...

I was. I was giving a simple way to do this:

Prove to the world that Thief does not know the nature of gravity.......Go take that leap.

..just nod your head.....gravity is real.

I should take on faith a concept from physics as you conceptualize it when you don't know physics? Why?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Are we all quite content that theories don't become facts now?

One would hope.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Excuse me, but where did this "god" come into the picture.

Gravity and god both start with g. Ergo, gravity is real and god is...who knows. But that's the nature of the logic of the "argument" we're dealing with.

 

[Thief]

I was. I was giving a simple way to do this:





I should take on faith a concept from physics as you conceptualize it when you don't know physics? Why?

Don't assume my ignorance.
And it would not be to your advantage anyway.

Taken that leap yet?
Still won't go for it?

 

[Thief]

Gravity and god both start with g. Ergo, gravity is real and god is...who knows. But that's the nature of the logic of the "argument" we're dealing with.

You seem to understand.
So how about you?
Can you believe in what cannot be proven?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Can you believe in what cannot be proven?

I can't prove I'm typing on a computer or that I'm not dreaming. So yes.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Don't assume my ignorance.

I didn't. I asked you a question to provide you with a way to demonstrate that you aren't ignorant on this subject.

 

[Thief]

I can't prove I'm typing on a computer or that I'm not dreaming. So yes.

I have proof you have been typing.
I believe in you.

That's not much said, however.

 

[Thief]

I didn't. I asked you a question to provide you with a way to demonstrate that you aren't ignorant on this subject.

I need not proof my prowess to your satisfaction.

Still don't believe in gravity ? (the point at hand).....then take that leap and report the results.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I need not proof my prowess to your satisfaction.

First you say:

Prove to the world that Thief does not know the nature of gravity.......Go take that leap.

So I asked you a question. After you refused to answer it, you later state:

Don't assume my ignorance.

Again, I didn't assume it. I responded to your request (however sarcastic, disingenuous, insincere, or filled with veiled condescension it may have been) and asked you to show that you "know the nature of gravity". I'm inferring your ignorance based upon the fact that having goaded me into challenging you, you then dodged the question (and the two times that you claimed I made a statement about time when I mentioned spacetime, along with other indications).

Still don't believe in gravity ?

Which gravity?

 

[Ouroboros]

Are we all quite content that theories don't become facts now?

Is your statement a fact or just a theory?

 

[gnostic]

Can you explain - in your own words - what gravity is, thief?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Shouldn't a scientific outlook regard all knowledge as provisional?

Yes, but it should also recognize the weight of evidence for an idea. "All knowledge is provisional" does not imply that all hypotheses are reasonable.