What to do when contradiction happens?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abrosz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Abrosz said:
But the problem is biological . Virgin birth - genetic replica of the mother - can and does exist in some species, but the offspring is always a female.
Click to expand...
Because a miracle can only violate one law of biology, right?
 
Abrosz said:
40.png
Vico:
So you are saying that the physical history of virgin birth is flatly contradicted by science?
Click to expand...
The alleged history 🙂 What you call “history” is just a legend. I have nothing against legends. Actually in pretty much every religion (back then) had a legend about a hero, or savior born to a virgin. 🙂 Virginity was revered in those days.

But the problem is biological. Virgin birth - genetic replica of the mother - can and does exist in some species, but the offspring is always a female.

Of course there many other legends like this.
Click to expand...
The alleged truth of science is just what is thought to be true so far. Science is limited to the natural, but history is not.
 
Vico said:
The alleged truth of science is just what is thought to be true so far.
Click to expand...
Only after having been tested and verified many times. If the verification fails, the theory is amended or discarded.
 
MasterHaster said:
40.png
Vico:
Science is limited to the natural, but history is not.
Click to expand...
False. Please provide evidence.
Click to expand...
Oxford Languanges definition
Science (noun)
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
“the world of science and technology”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Abrosz said:
40.png
Vico:
The alleged truth of science is just what is thought to be true so far.
Click to expand...
Only after having been tested and verified many times. If the verification fails, the theory is amended or discarded.
Click to expand...
And the theory remains subject to amendment and discard even after that verification.
 
Last edited:
Vico said:
The alleged truth of science is just what is thought to be true so far.
Click to expand...
It would be more accurate to say that the truth of science is what has been tested and withstood those tests so far.

More than just thought, but never absolute.
 
whatistrue said:
40.png
Vico:
The alleged truth of science is just what is thought to be true so far.
Click to expand...
It would be more accurate to say that the truth of science is what has been tested and withstood those tests so far.

More than just thought, but never absolute.
Click to expand...
Science is not truth but approximations of reality as we see it.
 
Vico said:
Science is not truth
Click to expand...
No one said it was as far as I am aware, so why are you arguing against a statement no one made?

It is not Truth, but it can help is discern what is true for things related to the natural world.
 
whatistrue said:
40.png
Vico:
Science is not truth
Click to expand...
No one said it was as far as I am aware, so why are you arguing against a statement no one made?

It is not Truth, but it can help is discern what is true for things related to the natural world.
Click to expand...
You wrote: “Which in no way makes science false or useless. You are arguing against something no one said.”

False means “not according with truth”, so if science is not truth, it is false or recognized as theory merely. Science is extremely useful.
 
Vico said:
False means “not according with truth”, so if science is not truth, it is false or recognized as theory merely.
Click to expand...
I said science is not Truth, not that science is not truth. See the difference? Yes, I can play word games too.

And theory, within science, is as close to definite truth as you can get. What you are referring to with “theory merely” is not what scientists mean by theory, but is at best hypothesis and is mostly what I used to refer to as SWAG. And no, I will not explain the acronym.
 
whatistrue said:
40.png
Vico:
False means “not according with truth”, so if science is not truth, it is false or recognized as theory merely.
Click to expand...
I said science is not Truth, not that science is not truth. See the difference? Yes, I can play word games too.

And theory, within science, is as close to definite truth as you can get. What you are referring to with “theory merely” is not what scientists mean by theory, but is at best hypothesis and is mostly what I used to refer to as SWAG. And no, I will not explain the acronym.
Click to expand...
I did not use capital T, I posted: “Science is not truth”. I know about the scientific method having been trained in it and having done scientific research.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I did notice that. So your reply was not to what I said, but you went your own way. So be it. Happy trails.
 
whatistrue said:
Yes, I did notice that. So your reply was not to what I said, but you went your own way. So be it. Happy trails.
Click to expand...
You asked me a question “why are you arguing against a statement no one made?” However your question assumes that I posted against a specific statement made and not in general.
 
Vico said:
However your question assumes that I posted against a specific statement made and not in general.
Click to expand...
You were (and apparently still are) arguing against a position that no one claimed. I was just trying to find out why, but that seems to have been a vain attempt as you are now pivoting to something completely different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top