Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Pixel42]

It means, fact is just as assumption in science sense?

No. A fact is a repeatable observation or measurement.

The more times the fact is confirmed by observation or measurement the more confident we become that future observations and measurements will not give a different result. But we can never be 100% certain circumstances will not one day arise which will yield a different observation or measurement.

The classic example of a case where repeated observations were eventually contradicted is "all swans are white". That was an accepted fact, until it wasn't.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

All includin me are indisputable in non A&F atmosphere, here. So all are in same boat.

You don't believe that.
Because if you really believed that, I could claim that you are in fact a buffalo. A big old buffalo trying to type with his hooves. And no amount of evidence could sway me, not that buffalo don't type, not your picture, your ID, your entire family tree, because 'non A&F, all in same boat'.

Your silly tricks don't work Kumar. You don't get to claim that anything you say should be taken seriously because none of us are omniscient.
Sometimes a big ol' sentient buffalo is just some guy from Pakistan lying about homeopathy.

 

[Kumar]

No. A fact is a repeatable observation or measurement.

The more times the fact is confirmed by observation or measurement the more confident we become that future observations and measurements will not give a different result. But we can never be 100% certain circumstances will not one day arise which will yield a different observation or measurement.

The classic example of a case where repeated observations were eventually contradicted is "all swans are white". That was an accepted fact, until it wasn't.

Whether fact is not truth, free from all wit any doubt, delusion or misapprehension, if and buts,?

 

[Dancing David]

Idiocy of one may not be applicable on other. Every face in nature is different, so need to be dealt accordingly. Best justification is already provided. Nothing more to discuss.

Another, my way or the highway statement

"I will not consider multi sided views that disagree with my multi sided view"

 

[Dancing David]

Best Justification already provided relevant to nature of substance. Nothing more to add or discuss. Whatever you in joint think, is your problem not mine. Otherwise bring Time Machine, I shall accompany and show practically.

I disagree that you have provided best justification

 

[Dancing David]

Lie. Nothing was provided as A&F proofs.

Remember when you point a finger, three are pointing back at you

 

[abaddon]

Whether fact is not truth, free from all wit any doubt, delusion or misapprehension, if and buts,?

Wait a moment. Is it your claim that all of us may accept that you are a buffalo because it is not A&F what you actually are?

OK.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Whether fact is not truth, free from all wit any doubt, delusion or misapprehension, if and buts,?

No. A fact is basically the best of our knowledge, because Kumar, what else IS there, except ... the best of our knowledge?

I'm serious, here: The only thing you can ever get is the best of our knowledge.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

No. A fact is basically the best of our knowledge, because Kumar, what else IS there, except ... the best of our knowledge?

I'm serious, here: The only thing you can ever get is the best of our knowledge.

Hans

Whether I am not entitled to this best of knowledge? Even it result anyway but still it is best of my knowledge. Should you then not agree on it in cavéat to this definition?

 

[Kumar]

Remember when you point a finger, three are pointing back at you

Not A&F. Few people may not be having 4 fingers intact.

 

[abaddon]

Whether I am not entitled to this best of knowledge? Even it result anyway but still it is best of my knowledge. Should you then not agree on it in cavéat to this definition?

Well no. Your "best of knowledge" appears to be trivially wrong. And that is not hyperbole. Everything you say is actually wrong. You are frequently caught out about it, just check how you were caught out about the evil that is PETA. You had no clue that PETA is the most prolific proponent of animal euthanasia worldwide.

Everyone else did.

The PETA motto should be "Kill them. Kill them all." Yet somehow, you entirely missed that this was their agenda.

So why exactly would anyone give any credence to whatever your next claim might be?

 

[Peregrinus]

Not A&F. Few people may not be having 4 fingers intact.

Stop trying for humor; you're not good enough with English to get away with it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Whether I am not entitled to this best of knowledge? Even it result anyway but still it is best of my knowledge. Should you then not agree on it in cavéat to this definition?

No. I did not say the best of YOUR knowledge or the best of MY knowledge.

The best of OUR knowledge means the best science can provide.

Hans

 

[Mojo]

All includin me are indisputable in non A&F atmosphere, here. So all are in same boat.

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/going-nuclear.html

 

[Mojo]

Whether I am not entitled to this best of knowledge?

Yes, you are; but you clearly don't want it. Rather, you want your opinions to be regarded as facts.

 

[Dancing David]

Wait a moment. Is it your claim that all of us may accept that you are a buffalo because it is not A&F what you actually are?

OK.

If enough of us agree they are a buffalo for a long enough time it is obious

 

[Kumar]

No. I did not say the best of YOUR knowledge or the best of MY knowledge.

The best of OUR knowledge means the best science can provide.

Hans

How we can say it best when it can still be modified--added or subtracted, even with potential harms?

 

[Kumar]

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/going-nuclear.html

Under such non-A&F anticipation, no one can be supreme authority i.e A&F.

 

[Kumar]

Yes, you are; but you clearly don't want it. Rather, you want your opinions to be regarded as facts.

No one can be supreme or deciding or A&F authority on non A&F anticipation or existence.

 

[Kumar]

If enough of us agree they are a buffalo for a long enough time it is obious

It has great relevance with that secondary naturals can be false. Even though, we feel, we are Buffalo for million trillion years, we can bot become Buffalo.