The Black Vault

Well....

Alright then.


But what if the result is something that the discoverer is not only NOT happy with, but unhappy with?

Satisfaction is equivalent to being content, no?

THAT would be arguing for the sake of arguing.

hehe


well...

if i say to you, "the mammal lung cannot breathe water and continue to sustain life", and you say "i do not believe this", and so i take a puppy and drown him in the water to "prove" this....your mind will be "satisfied" that water can indeed not be breathed and sustain life, though you may not be particularly "happy" that i have just drowned a puppy to demonstrate this.

lol

Or, you could hypothesis that a dogs lungs can extract oxygen from water and be unsatisfied to learn that your hypothesis was incorrect. It depends on the person, not everyone is satisfied with the truth. Some go so far as to downright deny it.

Tairaa wrote:lol

Or, you could hypothesis that a dogs lungs can extract oxygen from water and be unsatisfied to learn that your hypothesis was incorrect. It depends on the person, not everyone is satisfied with the truth. Some go so far as to downright deny it.

Well, a hypothesis is one thing, but the point of "proof" is to differentiate one hypothesis as incorrect, and one as correct (or more correct)...so long as it is verifiable and repeatable, then it "satisfies" the scientific mind....

I could look at the sky and say, the sky is blue, but my colorblind friend standing beside me might say "no way, the sky is clearly purple!"....clearly I could demonstrate that the truth was that the sky was blue and his eyes were malfunctioning....but then again, in reality, "blue" is only a manifestation in the mind anyway!

Tairaa wrote:lol

Or, you could hypothesis that a dogs lungs can extract oxygen from water and be unsatisfied to learn that your hypothesis was incorrect. It depends on the person, not everyone is satisfied with the truth. Some go so far as to downright deny it.

A dog's lung indeed CAN extract oxygen from the water, it is just that the lung requires vastly more oxygen than can be extracted from the water, compared to say, a fish lung, which requires less.

Yes I'm aware.. Same as you're aware of my point.

It satisfies the scientific mind, but not all minds like science and truth. A vast group of religious people are very content with thinking science is evil and that their religions are correct above all else, they would not be satisfied with something being proven to go against their religion for instance. Hence the two things, proof/truth and satisfaction while they may have a solid correlation are in the end still operate independent of one another.

well...i do agree that there are some who would refuse to believe they smelled smoke while their pants were on fire....but i think that more times than not, folks such as myself are unimpressed by certain "proofs" offered by science, especially when such seems to be geared PURPOSEFULLY to try and discourage a belief in the spirit or God, at least in some cases.

Or even on a less malign level, lets say, there are things such as "black holes" and "multi-verse" which many scientists, and dare I say MOST, accept as solid fact, and offer a variety of mathematics and theoretical physics as "evidence" (if not outright proof suggested in some cases), which I, even after reading volumes of material on (as i am very excited and interested in such things) still don't accept as "real", simply "interesting theories".

So as for things such as macro-evolution, lets say, I don't really buy a large part of the "scientific thought" involved, while at the same time I accept that it is a good and sound theory in and of itself.

In short, for intents and purposes of science it is grounded and fair enough to believe in the possibility, but i think they've stretched the conclusions a bit based on a handful of things that they go on to elaborate heavily with.

Or even on a less malign level, lets say, there are things such as "black holes" and "multi-verse" which many scientists, and dare I say MOST, accept as solid fact

No.

Black holes, yeah. Multiverses no.

People always confuse evidence for proof.

In short, for intents and purposes of science it is grounded and fair enough to believe in the possibility, but i think they've stretched the conclusions a bit based on a handful of things that they go on to elaborate heavily with.

There is no shortness of evidence, I dunno... It's not as though we have a limited amount of evidence and kind of just think well "this is the way it could be" and call it a theory. That's just not the way it works.
Like, for instance, check this out:
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=observed+instances+of+speciation&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=observed+instances+of+speciation&fp=2e6e289080ce88e
And it's also not like scientists have a mountain of evidence and we conclude that it must be fact either. We don't call the theory of evolution a fact. We call the phenomena of evolution a fact because we are readily observing it, and it is a fact. And the theory of Abiogenesis, we have no better ideas for how life came to be, but we don't call it fact.

but it doesnt matter tai...



for one thing, evolution is not "being observed". now perhaps "micro-evolution" within things such as viruses, as well as clearly observed ongoing variation....but the popularist concept of evolution (at least the way it is thought of in the mind of public), i have to stand in opposition to the suggestion it is being "observed" now or ever....

as you know a "theory" in science is not quite the same thing as a "theory" to the comon person....

I might say "my theory is that elvis did not die, but was taken to another planet".

but when science speaks of "evolutionary theory" it is not quite the same thing and is based on a very specific definition which includes actual "proof"....this is the mistake christians make when they argue 'its the THEORY of evolution, doesnt make it a fact' they dont understand what the word "theory" in the context of science, actually means.

that being said....

as for abiogenesis....a WHOLE other topic.

fortwynt wrote:but it doesnt matter tai...



for one thing, evolution is not "being observed". now perhaps "micro-evolution" within things such as viruses, as well as clearly observed ongoing variation....but the popularist concept of evolution (at least the way it is thought of in the mind of public), i have to stand in opposition to the suggestion it is being "observed" now or ever....

as you know a "theory" in science is not quite the same thing as a "theory" to the comon person....

I might say "my theory is that elvis did not die, but was taken to another planet".

but when science speaks of "evolutionary theory" it is not quite the same thing and is based on a very specific definition which includes actual "proof"....this is the mistake christians make when they argue 'its the THEORY of evolution, doesnt make it a fact' they dont understand what the word "theory" in the context of science, actually means.

that being said....

as for abiogenesis....a WHOLE other topic.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... #abstract0

Read