Scientific Proof Is A Myth

[Timothy]

Just now, Will Due said:

Dude, this isn't a Urantia Book thread. 

This thread is about proof. That there are myths about it. And that scientific proof needs to be taken a little less seriously, in some circumstances. 

I know, apply scrutiny to UB though and see how it stacks up.

[RAyMO]

5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

And that scientific proof needs to be taken a little less seriously, in some circumstances

Scientific 'Proof' is just that. It needs to be taken no more or less seriously than intended by the terminology. 

It is as it says it is.

Edited November 28, 2017 by RAyMO

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, Timonthy said:

I know, apply scrutiny to UB though and see how it stacks up.

For thirty five years I've been doing exactly that Timonthy.

I dont take the UB lightly. I've reread it innumerable times. It's literally the A to Z all in black and white. 

What keeps reinforcing the truth of what it says is what I keep finding out about what the latest findings are. The history of man especially. But the science is also very interesting, to see how more and more, the things the UB says are getting validated.

 

 

[seeder]

7 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 I've reread it innumerable times.

 

 

AKA...self brainwashing...

 

[Will Due]

6 minutes ago, seeder said:

 

AKA...self brainwashing...

 

 

You can't ever say anything nice.

 

 

[seeder]

37 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

You can't ever say anything nice.

 

 

 

Oh Im sorry cupcake... what would you like me to say?

[Timothy]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

For thirty five years I've been doing exactly that Timonthy.

I dont take the UB lightly. I've reread it innumerable times. It's literally the A to Z all in black and white. 

What keeps reinforcing the truth of what it says is what I keep finding out about what the latest findings are. The history of man especially. But the science is also very interesting, to see how more and more, the things the UB says are getting validated.

The things which were accepted knowledge at the time?

[Tatetopa]

Will, I wish you well. I feel that we stand on opposite sides of a chasm though.  I find it fascinating to study the development of science in the twentieth century.  It has been an extraordinary time in human thought.  We have produced Einstein, Bohr, Rutherford,  Pauli, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Planck, Dirac, De Broglie, and many others.  There has been theory, testing, mathematics, contention, prediction and verification.  And that was all before 1940. Thirty years later we were talking about quarks, quantum electrodynamics, and then quantum chromodynamics.   Scientific proof is not a myth. None of it is infallible, yet it seems to lead from one testable step to another in an understanding of the universe.   I think Feynman said that if you have an elegant theory that does not agree with observable facts, it is worthless.  I am content to follow this trail.  I freely admit that I am not the match for any of these folks, but I can follow their logic if they speak slowly. I really want to understand this process and refrain from looking at the answers in the back of the book.  As we have said in other threads, that is just me.  

Are you looking for infallibility and ultimate truth? If so, I agree you won't find it in science.

[ChrLzs]

I did ask quite nicely for an EXAMPLE.  It better be a good one after all this....

 

Will, are you here to discuss... or troll and avoid, and post one line 'jokes' (term used so loosely that, like an old pair of underpants, it fell down long ago and embarrassed the owner).

Edited November 28, 2017 by ChrLzs

[+Hammerclaw]

Reminds me of the Hubologists in Fallout 4.

[Will Due]

7 hours ago, Timonthy said:

The things which were accepted knowledge at the time?

No. The things the UB says about how the different people of the world blended and how they migrated. 

Genetic studies are validating this and no one in the 30"s new anything about that. The science of genetics hadn't been developed then.

 

 

[XenoFish]

I sense the need for citations in this thread. 

[Timothy]

8 hours ago, Will Due said:

No. The things the UB says about how the different people of the world blended and how they migrated. 

Genetic studies are validating this and no one in the 30"s new anything about that. The science of genetics hadn't been developed then.

Can you link to that part of the book please? Wanna have a peruse

[Will Due]

1 hour ago, Timonthy said:

Can you link to that part of the book please? Wanna have a peruse

 

The Urantia Book narrates how the races blended from about 35 thousand years ago to the present starting in the 78th paper through the 81st. But there are snippets of relative information that are parts of other papers throughout.

There is also the history of what happened before 35 thousand years ago, and I'll post the link to the 64th paper too. There it narrates what happened with all who descended from the two first human beings who differentiated from their direct primate ancestors, the twin brother and sister who were born almost a million years ago. 

But the 78th through the 81st narrate those things that I think you're probably more interested in. You can also see what happened just previous to 35 thousand years ago in the 73rd thru the 77th paper.

 

To navigate the book's website, when you get to the end of paper 78, at the bottom you can advance (or go back) to the next paper. If you want to back out to the title page, go up to the top and tap "Part 3" and then again tap "Main" 

 

https://bigbluebook.org/78/

 

http://bigbluebook.org/64/

 

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Will Due

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

On 27/11/2017 at 0:53 PM, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Since it is Will Due we are talking about the answer to any question is allways "The Urantia Book". 

 

On 27/11/2017 at 0:57 PM, Will Due said:

 

Come on, that isn't fair, and it isn't true either.

But you already knew that. 

Yeah you sure aren't obsessed about the Urantia Book. Silly me for making such a baseless suggestion. 

[GlitterRose]

It's the law of gravity, not a theory. 

Unless, of course, someone wants to jump off a roof and prove it wrong. 

[psyche101]

On 27/11/2017 at 8:55 PM, Will Due said:

 

What do you think about the point of the article ChrLzs?

That's the point of this thread.

The article speaks for itself doesn't it? 

 

 

The article says things might change, it does not say that what we know is in doubt:

This doesn't mean it's impossible to know anything at all. To the contrary, in many ways, scientific knowledge is the most "real" knowledge that we can possibly gain about the world. But in science, nothing is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. 

This is correct, science second guesses itself as new information become available, but as for not being beyond a shadow is a doubt,  a rogue planet could crash into the sun and destroy our solar system, but I can say with confidence the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Beyond a shadow of a doubt at that 

As others have said, the title is misleading. I suspect it is a good thing as fringers might be teased by the title but still have to face reality at the end of the article.

[badeskov]

On 11/26/2017 at 6:50 PM, Will Due said:

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/#11ecd1ee2fb1

 

 

Pretty obvious. Proof only exists in math. In natural sciences we work with evidence. 

Cheers,

Badeskov

[badeskov]

On 11/27/2017 at 7:41 PM, Will Due said:

For thirty five years I've been doing exactly that Timonthy.

I dont take the UB lightly. I've reread it innumerable times. It's literally the A to Z all in black and white. 

What keeps reinforcing the truth of what it says is what I keep finding out about what the latest findings are. The history of man especially. But the science is also very interesting, to see how more and more, the things the UB says are getting validated.

 

 

You need to brush up on your critical thinking skills and your common sense. 

[Will Due]

22 minutes ago, badeskov said:

You need to brush up on your critical thinking skills and your common sense. 

What? No cheers this time?

 

 

[Will Due]

12 hours ago, badeskov said:

Pretty obvious. Proof only exists in math. In natural sciences we work with evidence. 

Ok, but evidence isn't necessarily proof.

 

 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

3 hours ago, Will Due said:

Ok, but evidence isn't necessarily proof.

 

 

Which is what badeskov said, so what is your point ?

[badeskov]

8 hours ago, Will Due said:

Ok, but evidence isn't necessarily proof.

That is the whole point. You don't have proof in the natural sciences, only evidences with some probabilities associated. Always been like that. Only mathematics operate with proofs.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[badeskov]

20 hours ago, Will Due said:

What? No cheers this time?

 

 

I was on my phone and I *hate* that interface.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, badeskov said:

I was on my phone and I *hate* that interface.

Cheers,
Badeskov

 

I want you to know that I like that you're debating me. I think however, and if I may be so bold, that the debate would flow a lot better if you wouldn't throw in some things that border on being insulting. I know you can understand what I mean.

The fact that you're a teacher leaves me to respect that you have a lot of responsibility to your students. And I want you to know that every time you post something, even in other threads, I learn something. 

 

All the best,

Will