Double_R

So says you who continues to hide from the spot where I left off with you when you failed to rationally explain how you arrived at your irrationally convoluted post #89 explanation as I inquired of you in my post #136, so I disregarded your followup post 140. If you want to engage further, then explain yourself, first. I explained this to you last Thursday, and I can continue acting like your posts to me are like the Big Bang, that is, nonexistent!

What an unbelievable coward. The only one hiding here is you. Since you want to play games with all the posts pretending it's all being hidden somewhere, let's recap our entire discussion:

Me #10: My rolling-ball analogy. The point was simple: if you observe a ball's direction and speed, can you use that information to determine where it was before you first observed it?

You #24: You responded that I was confusing human observation of a rolling ball with the absence of human observation of the Big Bang.

Me #33: I explained that you were taking a simple analogy designed to establish one logical principle and demanding that it explain all of Big Bang cosmology at once. I then expanded the analogy to seven additional balls, explaining that if their trajectories all traced back to the same source, and predictions based on that source were subsequently confirmed, we would have a reasonable basis for concluding that source caused the observed events.

You #35: You responded with your three-ball analogy, where the observer doesn't know which ball hit his foot, where any of the balls came from, or what caused them to start moving.

SkepticalOne #39: Even another person pointed out that you had twisted the analogy to avoid the question and specifically noted that you weren't answering the question being asked.

Me #46: I stripped the analogy back down to its simplest form and asked you two very straightforward questions:

Q1: Can you deduce the backwards path in which that ball rolled prior to your initial observation at point A?

Q2: Can you calculate where in that path the ball would have been 5 seconds earlier given that you have observed both its path and its speed?

Me #65: I asked whether there were any responses to #46.

You #74: Instead of answering Q1 and Q2, you accused me of hypocrisy and doublespeak because I had expanded the analogy to multiple balls while objecting to your expansion.

But that's not what I objected to. I objected to you changing the variables of the analogy and then claiming that the resulting scenario disproved the original point.

Me #76: I explained that distinction and again asked the same two questions. I also explained that your three-ball scenario didn't refute my point because determining where an object came from and determining what caused it to start moving are separate questions.

You #89: You explained that you were proceeding chronologically and therefore your #89 response to #65 had been written before you reached #76.

Fine. But that still didn't answer #76.

Me #113: I pointed out the chronology:

46: My rolling ball analogy

65: My reminder to you about 46

74: Your response to 46

76: My rebuttal to 74

89: Your response to 65, as if 74 came before 65 and as if 76 didn't exist

And I told you I was happy to hear your response to #76.

You #114: You again claimed that you had already answered my questions in #24 and #35.

But #24 was simply: You confused human observation (rolling ball) with the absence of human observation (Big Bang).

And #35 was your three-ball analogy.

Neither one answered Q1 or Q2.

You #136: You then explained at length why your #89 response was chronologically legitimate, because #76 came later.

You also introduced the CMBR argument and claimed my logic was broken because I supposedly misunderstood the direction of temperature change.

Again, we're now deep into the thread and the two questions from #46 still haven't been answered.

Me #140: I explained again that your analogy was attacking a problem you had introduced rather than the point my analogy was making.

Then I asked you a much simpler question:

Yes or No, are all jury verdicts merely expressions of faith?

Me #353: You still hadn't responded to #140, so I reposted the entire thing for you.

You #386: You said you disregarded #140 because I hadn't first addressed your #136.

Then you repeated your three-ball argument and concluded: The Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.

Still no answer to the jury question.

Me #388: I asked you again:

Is every guilty jury verdict that has ever been rendered a matter of faith? Yes or No?

Me #417: After watching you continue to respond to everyone else while skipping over my posts, I asked the same question again:

Are all jury verdicts derived on faith? Yes or No?

You #427: And here we are.

Instead of answering it, you're back to #136.

You say I need to explain my response to your chronology argument before you'll engage with anything else.

So let's be clear about what's happening here.

I am not asking you a new question.

I'm asking you the same question I asked in #140.

I'm asking you the same question I repeated in #388.

I'm asking you the same question I repeated again in #417.

And now, rather than answer it, you're pointing back to another post and telling me that I need to respond to that one first.

You have spent far more effort explaining why you don't have to answer the question than it would take to actually answer it.

You keep responding as though the sheer number of post references somehow constitutes an answer. It doesn't.

So let's forget #136.

Let's forget #114.

Let's forget #89.

Let's forget the three-ball analogy.

Let's forget the CMBR.

Just answer the question you've now been asked 3 times, and now 4:

Are all jury verdicts derived on faith? Yes or No?

The aesthetics of the water bottle is how the water is presented; I care only about the quality of my water (and that means if I focus on a good-looking bottle, then it takes energy away from where it matters; the quality of the water).

The issue is not that you don't care how the water is presented, it's that you purposefully try to make it look as unpresentable as possible. That difference between not caring vs trying to make it look bad is the difference between someone who is rough around the edges vs a rage bait troll.

If you want to stick with this analogy, ask yourself not whether the water is at even or even better quality, ask yourself whether you would trust the water enough to even check once you see that the person selling it to you went out of their way to make it look terrible.

People are not emotionless robots, they're not going to ignore the packaging because of some water quality test results. You have to get them to that latter point, the packaging is where that is accomplished.

I can already see you shaking your head, probably thinking this is all stupid, and that's exactly the problem. You think you're better than everyone else, and ultimately, that right there is the point. People do not need to be offended to recognize when someone is trying to rage bait them. And that effort you're obviously making tells people all they need to know about whether you are someone worth interacting with.

But all political disagreements are Rage Bait whether it's intended or not.

If it's not intended, then it's not rage bait by definition.

You're pretending as if rage bait is merely a product of how someone reacts to a post when that's not at all what's being evaluated. It's an indicator, not what determines it.

I don't intend for my opinions to be Rage Bait, I just accept that they are.

It's not your opinions that matter, it's how you're presenting them.

Seeing if any of you respond.

Wow, I wasn't even important enough to include. My feelings are hurt.

I was going to respond substantively but Savant had already addressed the main points.

You continue to pretend it's all the same by ignoring all the differences, then marvel at how others aren't being won over by your awesome logic.

The prime ingredient that turns any statement into rage bait is intent. If you can't understand that simple concept then the rest of this conversation is pointless.

The concept of the word “theory” is “faith” as per the quoted dictionary definition recorded in post #20 and repeated here, again, for convenience:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

This definition is the literal opposite of faith.

In definition 1, “accepted” is a synonym for “believed”, so “theory” arrives at “widely believed” which is faith, not fact.

It is widely believed that the earth is round, that doesn't mean our acceptance of the shape of the earth is faith based.

The phrase “Big Bang Theory” and the phrase “Big Bang Belief” are equivalents.

This is not how the English language works.

Theory is categorically different from a fact. Facts the things we recognize as uncontestably true. A theory is the framework for which a set of facts are explained. To put it another way, facts are the dots. A theory is what connects those does to form a picture.

In science, a framework for explaining facts does not get the title of theory until it can demonstrate through testing that it can generate repeated correct predictions. That's not faith.

Replying to everyone else while skipping over my posts, what a coward.

Here's my simple question yet again;

Are all jury verdicts derived on faith? Yes or No?

continuing to assert that a theory is rendered untheoretical

This is like criticizing someone for saying that "turning right is not right" all because you can't figure out that "right" had two different meanings there.

But let's just conclude amicably by agreeing to disagree

We can conclude amicably and walk away from the conversation, but this isn't a matter of agreeing to disagree on anything because it's not a matter of opinion. You're just denying how science works because you are either unwilling or incapable of absorbing it's terminology.

Therefore BIG BANG theory is still unproven, because it remains theoretical...If it was proven it would be an unequivocal fact rather than a theory.

By this point you're obviously trolling, no one is this stupid.

Nope theory is theory...I don't no how better to put it.

Usage of Theory and Hypothesis

While hypothesis and theory are both commonly used in non-technical contexts to mean "idea" or "hunch," the words function differently in the sciences. Hypothesis technically refers to an assumption that is proposed expressly so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. Theory refers to a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data; because of the rigors of experimentation and control, a theory is understood to be much more likely to be true than a hypothesis is, and is in fact relied upon for further scientific investigations. For this reason, it is an error to assert that a scientific theory is nothing more than conjecture.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

The funny thing is, even if you wanted to deny reality and just assert yourself as the arbiter of what words mean, you are still being wholly dishonest to pretend that when other people use words in a way that means something different from your accepted definition, that you get to decide what they meant when they said it.

Scientists know what the word theory actually means in the world of science, and they understand that it's being used to point to something that is in fact substantiated. You can sit here and play word games all you want, the big bang theory is still proven.

Scientist or Saxophonist, theory is theory.

Continuing to use the term theory colloquially, as in "I have a theory...", is perfectly fine, we all do at some point. But continuing to assert that because scientists use the same word that they're using you're definition, especially after being educated on what the term means in science is flagrantly dishonest and unserious.

My 3 ball example in post #35 demonstrated one does not know (science) as a matter of fact where the ball came from which rolled over the grandpa’s foot, but one may conject (theorize) about the ball

You presented an analogy where there were multiple competing explanations for a given phenomenon, all equal in terms of plausibility, and for which no experiment was conducted to test which one was most likely correct. For you to think that is even analogous to big bang cosmology demonstrates your remarkable ignorance of this subject.

How about this, instead of coming up with more excuses for not responding to my posts which addressed every relevant point you made, just answer this one simple question:

Is every guilty jury verdict that has ever been rendered a matter of faith? Yes or No?

I not sure why you are trying to grind an already sharp axe.

Because it isn't sharp at all. You continue to play word games rather than address the core fallacy you are engaging in.

I explained to you what a theory is in science because you continue to attribute the word theory to it as we use it in a colloquial sense. That's not what it means.

You claimed the big bang is based on incomplete evidence. It's not.

You argued it has not been proven. It has.

You suggested if it were proven then it should be called the big bang fact, that's not even how those words work.

Now you're saying it's theoretical, which has no real application in this context because theoretical isn't used in science the same way theory is. So again, you're fundamentally misunderstanding what all this means because you are stuck on your definitions and not the definitions science is actually applying.

Unlike Kermos, who's axe head has long since fallen off.

He tends to ignore me, let's see if he responds to my last (re)post. I think he skips over my posts because I am dragging him kicking and screaming towards answering basic logical questions that he cannot use his 10k character AI slop to hide behind.

Theory is a proposal based upon incomplete evidence

No. That's the colloquial usage of the term, which is why I specifically asked if you know what the term means in science.

In science, a theory is the graduation point at which we accept a proposed explanation for set of facts as the unequivocally accepted model for how the universe works. If explanations had ambitions, every explanation would aspire to one day become a theory.

As it stands BIG BANG is incomplete and still theoretical...Right?

No. That's why we call it the Big Bang *Theory*.

Y'all truly flunked math.

Tell me more about where Elon was going to find that $2T in waste fraud and abuse again.

Hey, Darwin has a big theory but try telling that to a religious nutcase.

And religious nutcases have theories of their own.

So a broadly accepted theory never quite cuts the mustard...Chiefly because it can never be proven.

You do know what a theory is in science right?

But are you talking about a theory or a scientific theory like the Big Bang?

We're talking about science

Frankly, surrenduring our own agency is nonsense. Why would we do that?

Because the people literally creating it are telling us it could lead to the extinction of our species within the next decade.

Is that not a good enough reason for you?

A scientific theory is different from just a theory. It has to meet the standards of science.

We're talking about science

I would suggest that the Big Bang Theory whilst perhaps employing "known facts" is itself not a known fact but a theory.

You do know what a theory is in science right?

Still going I see. I never did get a response to my post 140. Pasted it below for your convenience:

You most certainly did present poor evidence for the Big Bang.

And around we go.

An analogy designed to highlight a logical principal applicable to the current evidence is not poor evidence, it’s not evidence at all, because it’s not supposed to be.

Do you understand that when you are evaluating evidence, the tool you are using to do so is called logic?

Do you understand that logic transcends substance? In other words, the logic that you apply to one set of facts can be transferred to a different set of facts as a way of testing its validity?

I really don’t think you do.

Your hypocrisy lies in your desire for me to repeat my logically reasoned response to your analogy, again, without you producing a logically reasoned response to my analogy.

There is no reason for me to respond to your analogy when your analogy only served to present a strawman of mine.

Again, if you’re going to criticize an analogy you don’t do so by creating a new analogy. The parts of your analogy that didn’t work are the very parts you added to it. That’s not a response, that’s evasion, and there’s no reason for me to chase you down that rabbit hole.

This isn’t rocket science. my analogy was designed to establish a very simple fact; given minimal observations, we can in fact trace the backwards trajectory of an object. That’s it. That’s all. Everything else you added were just strawman’s you set up so you could knock them down.

It is faith without human witness

Yes or No, are all jury verdicts merely expressions of faith?

If you respond to nothing else I wrote, answer that question.

it's not the taxation that made me think that you're a socialist. It's the fucking typical lefty speech you used to convince us that taxation is not a socialist policy.

"Typical lefty speech"... Wow that's very informative.

I've been asking you to engage in the actual positions I've been espousing but apparently this is as deep as you are willing and/or capable of getting. Let me know when you'd like to have a real conversation, as in one where we talk about real life issues and what ideas we all have to solve them as opposed to this childishly silly conversation where you just keep hurling pajorative labels at me without any apparent interest in what these terms actually mean or why they matter.

The statement "one side is literal nazis and one side wants free healthcare" has done more harm to the democrats than anything the right could have come up with.

I would certainly question the accuracy of this statement, but to the extent there is truth to this, the harm isn't coming from the statement or the general attitude of those expressing it. The harm stems from the fact that half the population's politics orbits not around which party has better ideas to improve their lives, but by which side makes their childishness, lack of intelligence and lack of decency feel validated.

You're putting all the developed countries in the same bag when this is not true. Taxation is very different in the US and Europe.

Stay with with me here.

You argued that I'm a socialist in part because I believe in progressive taxation system.

So I explained to you that every developed nation on earth has some form of progressive taxation.

The very clear implication there is not that every tax system is the same, the conclusion is that support for progressive taxation does not make one socialist unless you are defining socialism in such a way that it applies to every developed nation on earth, at which point your definition is useless.

Do you understand?

Europe can fuck you up with high taxes while in the US you pay much less which allows you to accumulate more capital for your business. That explains why there are more technological development in the US than in Europe.

There is a plethora of reasons to explain per technological advancements over other countries, you have done nothing to show how this one factor is decisive.

you're the useful idiot of the left

A statement I might find worth examining if I were talking to someone who actually understands how all this works beyond the ability to hurl them around as pejorative labels. Unfortunately that has yet to be demonstrated.

Are you certain that you are uncertain?

Ah, so you’re going down the Sye Ten Bruggencate path. Got it.

Let’s recall the statement I made that you are reacting to and criticizing:

“You cannot be absolutely certain in everything”

So to answer your question; I am reasonably certain that I cannot be absolutely certain.

Why am I reasonably certain and not absolutely certain? Because my certainty is based on my own reasoning, and so because I’m an intellectually honest human being, that means I have to accept that my own reasoning can possibly be off. In fact, it’s possible that I’m actually a 102 year old titanic survivor staring at a wall believing I’m actually arguing on a debate site. There’s no way to know that this isn’t true.

The limits of science are what they are because science is practiced by human beings, so its limitations cannot exceed the limitations of those practicing it.

These are things any intelligent person understands. Not getting this puts you right at the heart of the Dunning Kruger effect; the dumbest person in the room is normally the person too dumb to see and understand the limitations of their own knowledge.

So your point is a self-defeating statement?

How is it self defeating? Please enlighten me.

Try explaining it to him.

I did already. The chances of him understanding it… effectively 0%

You cannot be absolutely certain in everything. There are limits to certainly.

That’s exactly the point I’m trying to make to SL

Lack of certainty or known probability is a problem.

No, it’s not. A problem is, by definition, something in need of being solved. A lack of absolute certainty in its conclusions isn’t something science has to solve for, it’s literally a feature built into science.

Again, science is about obtaining the best explanation, that requires a continuous willingness to explore alternative explanations. Certainty does not include that willingness, certainty is close mindedness by definition.

I mean, deductive logic is literally certainty of conclusions from premises.

And the premises can always be challenged…

—> or does the mindless retort of “projection” satisfy your need to feel like you sufficiently handled my post?

I hope you find all the shallowness you can owning people with your ad-homs.

So you don’t even know what an ad hom is, while appealing to it as an excuse to run away. Noted.

Well, that's all what I wanted to read. I have no more questions for you. It's pretty much clear to me that deep down you're a confused socialist who doesn't know where he stands.

What a perfect encapsulation of how unserious you are.

After starting a whole thread on the dangers socialism, you have yet to engage in a single substantive discussion about it, and after I point out the *fact* that every developed nation on earth has some form of progressive taxation you tell me that’s all you wanted to read. Exactly, that’s all you wanted. You didn’t want information, you didn’t want to understand an alternative viewpoint, you certainly didn’t want your world view challenged, you just wanted that little snippet that you could use to keep throwing around a label that you’ve been brainwashed to believe is bad with no apparent understanding of why.