I’m sure you are an excellent chemist, and a successful scholarly author, but 100% fact is not attainable. 99.999%? Sure. But there’s always a fraction of a percent chance that you’re in a simulation, or hallucinating, or that some hyper-advanced entity is playing an elaborate trick on you. All vanishingly small, infinitesimal even, but non-zero.
Sorry to burst your bubble but science is just an explanation for our reality as we perceive it. It does not matter if we are in a simulation, or collectively hallucinating. In our perceived reality evolution is 100% fact. Gravity is 100% fact. Carbon having 6 protons is 100% fact. 2+2 = 4 is 100% fact. Hydrogen reacting with oxygen at high temperature to form water is 100% fact.
Dude, there are absolute facts in science, many of them.
2+2 = 4 is 100% fact because it’s just mathematics, purely conceptual, and defined as such. Math isn’t science. Carbon having 6 protons is a 100% fact because that’s the definition of carbon, so if it doesn’t have 6 protons we don’t call it carbon. Definitions, even definitions used in science, are not themselves science. Those are human concepts, you can certainly have 100% certainty with man-made concepts.
Reality itself is not a purely human concept, we did not invent it. Extremely likely theories to explain reality with mountains of consistent evidence are the closest we can get to 100% certainty. I’d bet my life on an extremely likely theory with mountains of consistent evidence, but it is still technically a bet.
Consult your peers, see what they think about claiming 100% certainty. This conversation is going nowhere. I’m sorry for your mindset, and I hope it doesn’t affect your work.
Every scientist I know and have ever met accepts there are 100% facts within science, including evolution and gravity among others.
Because as I said, science is a tool to explain our perceived reality, and things can absolutely rise to the level of fact. It does not matter if our reality turns out to be a computer simulation, because within that reality there are established facts that are true to said reality.
Evolution and gravity are both facts and theories, but they are still 100% facts in our current reality.
You’re the one who told me to talk to my colleagues, you shouldn;ty have suggested that if you wouldn’t accept the answer.
Stop being stupid, you don’t know any scientists or science, and are making blind assumptions.
And papers state the facts they use all the time without citation, because they are established facts. And I’m not going to waste my time trying to guide you through academic journals to learn to spot those moments, as it happens in most papers so if you haven;t learned to recognize it already then it’s not worth talking to you.
You’re an idiot, so I don’t mind you being finished here.
I do talk to my colleagues about it, when we design and set up experiments, and write papers, we talk about what we know is fact, and what we are testing. There are lots of facts in science mate.
And I already told you, read any paper. Just about every paper makes claims of known facts in their introductions to establish the work they are doing.
About 100% certainty? Sufficiently established for practical work, sure. But 100%? You are not a scientist. A chemist maybe, but not a scientist. You’re an embarrassment, it’s science professionals like you that cause bullshit like vaccine denial through your arrogance. I’ve read plenty of papers, they all use language that acknowledges their uncertainty. Maybe your colleagues are all embarrassments too.
Do everyone a favor and tell us where all you unscientific glorified mixologists do your hackwork.
I’m sure you are an excellent chemist, and a successful scholarly author, but 100% fact is not attainable. 99.999%? Sure. But there’s always a fraction of a percent chance that you’re in a simulation, or hallucinating, or that some hyper-advanced entity is playing an elaborate trick on you. All vanishingly small, infinitesimal even, but non-zero.
100% certainty is incompatible with science.
It is.
Sorry to burst your bubble but science is just an explanation for our reality as we perceive it. It does not matter if we are in a simulation, or collectively hallucinating. In our perceived reality evolution is 100% fact. Gravity is 100% fact. Carbon having 6 protons is 100% fact. 2+2 = 4 is 100% fact. Hydrogen reacting with oxygen at high temperature to form water is 100% fact.
Dude, there are absolute facts in science, many of them.
2+2 = 4 is 100% fact because it’s just mathematics, purely conceptual, and defined as such. Math isn’t science. Carbon having 6 protons is a 100% fact because that’s the definition of carbon, so if it doesn’t have 6 protons we don’t call it carbon. Definitions, even definitions used in science, are not themselves science. Those are human concepts, you can certainly have 100% certainty with man-made concepts.
Reality itself is not a purely human concept, we did not invent it. Extremely likely theories to explain reality with mountains of consistent evidence are the closest we can get to 100% certainty. I’d bet my life on an extremely likely theory with mountains of consistent evidence, but it is still technically a bet.
Consult your peers, see what they think about claiming 100% certainty. This conversation is going nowhere. I’m sorry for your mindset, and I hope it doesn’t affect your work.
Every scientist I know and have ever met accepts there are 100% facts within science, including evolution and gravity among others.
Because as I said, science is a tool to explain our perceived reality, and things can absolutely rise to the level of fact. It does not matter if our reality turns out to be a computer simulation, because within that reality there are established facts that are true to said reality.
Evolution and gravity are both facts and theories, but they are still 100% facts in our current reality.
So now anecdotal evidence matters? Show me one published scientific work that claims 100% certainty of anything.
You’re the one who told me to talk to my colleagues, you shouldn;ty have suggested that if you wouldn’t accept the answer.
Stop being stupid, you don’t know any scientists or science, and are making blind assumptions.
And papers state the facts they use all the time without citation, because they are established facts. And I’m not going to waste my time trying to guide you through academic journals to learn to spot those moments, as it happens in most papers so if you haven;t learned to recognize it already then it’s not worth talking to you.
Yes, but then you didn’t do that, did you? I said to ask them, you made a sweeping anecdotal assumption instead of actually performing the test.
And then you could find one single example of a published work claiming 100% certainty.
Please let me know where you do your research so I can avoid it. Otherwise I’m finished here.
You’re an idiot, so I don’t mind you being finished here.
I do talk to my colleagues about it, when we design and set up experiments, and write papers, we talk about what we know is fact, and what we are testing. There are lots of facts in science mate.
And I already told you, read any paper. Just about every paper makes claims of known facts in their introductions to establish the work they are doing.
About 100% certainty? Sufficiently established for practical work, sure. But 100%? You are not a scientist. A chemist maybe, but not a scientist. You’re an embarrassment, it’s science professionals like you that cause bullshit like vaccine denial through your arrogance. I’ve read plenty of papers, they all use language that acknowledges their uncertainty. Maybe your colleagues are all embarrassments too.
Do everyone a favor and tell us where all you unscientific glorified mixologists do your hackwork.