Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
How can a fact be wrong?
When new evidence is found that is inconsistent with the fact.
How can a fact be wrong?
Yes but not about Gods. Many uncritical thinkers believe that because he gives a POV on the subject that he is saying something scientific.Yeah Hawking isn't a philosopher. He's actually said stuff that was useful and meant stuff.
And his opinion is based on his scientific work (and the scientific work of others).No it isn't. It's an article about his opinion.
ftfyNo it isn't. It's an article about hisopinion[conclusion based on his scientific work].
If she doesn't believe in a god she is an atheist. Again the "confusion" arises because people treat atheism as being a statement of knowledge regarding god or gods; it isn't it is a statement about belief, in the case of atheism not having a belief in a god or gods.I have a friend who's actually kind of in the middle. She says she "seriously suspects" there "might" be some sort of god, but she doesn't exactly actively believe in one, either.
eta:
I put the probability of there being some sort of deity out there at around .2%. I put "brain in a vat" theory at .1%. There are some people who put both at literally 0%.
When new evidence is found that is inconsistent with the fact.
Now you're putting the existence of gods into the philosophical category and outside the physical world?Classic appeal to authority. Hawking may be a great scientist but he is no philosopher. Yet many are being sucked in.

If she doesn't believe in a god she is an atheist. Again the "confusion" arises because people treat atheism as being a statement of knowledge regarding god or gods; it isn't it is a statement about belief, in the case of atheism not having a belief in a god or gods.
Now you're putting the existence of gods into the philosophical category and outside the physical world?
BTW, an expert in a field giving an opinion within that field is not what the appeal to authority fallacy is. You might want to look that one up.
What strange word twisting is this?It was about humans being factually wrong. Not facts as facts. But a human being factually wrong. Can you explain how that is?

Science is not reality. Science and what scientists can do, is a part of reality, but it is not all of reality.
I call it a process, not a person or set of facts. So?
Yes but not about Gods. Many uncritical thinkers believe that because he gives a POV on the subject that he is saying something scientific.
Now you're putting the existence of gods into the philosophical category and outside the physical world?
BTW, an expert in a field giving an opinion within that field is not what the appeal to authority fallacy is. You might want to look that one up.
Many uncritical thinkers believe that because he gives a POV on the subject that he is saying something scientific.
Q.E.D.And his opinion is based on his scientific work (and the scientific work of others).
But she kind of believes in a god. She's 50/50 or 51/49 on it.
So?Science is not the only human process.
There is more that science, because if there was only science, there would no humans. There was humans, before there was science. Even there was life in general, before science.
Humans or life in general don't need science.
You pretending (yes pretending, I don't buy this for a second) that you don't understand the difference between physical things and conceptual ideas is growing rude.
Please, what gibberish do you have for me to respond to this?