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.
A top 20 university in the world, that is well renowned for producing excellent research.
Tell me what your credentials are? Because you’ve been a condescending prick this entire time, and are acting like a teenager who just took their first science class and thinks they know shit.
I haven’t actually, that’s you who’s been a condescending prick from the beginning. I’ve tried as hard as possible to be civil regardless, but I can’t stand your science fundamentalism. It makes real scientists look wishy-washy when they properly cite their uncertainty.
Which university is that? I’m sure I can find an article they’ve released on scientific certainty.
Hydrogen and Oxygen reacting together to form water is not going to be discarded.
And evolution is a absolute fact in that is occurs. We know it occurs with absolute certainty. What remains to be modified is the mechanism by which it occurs.
Gravity is a fact. It exists with absolute certainty, and that fact will never be discarded. The exact mechanism by which it works is what may be modified or discarded.
You have repeatedly failed to understand this distinction.
The facts are that we have overwhelming evidence to support the existence of gravity, evolution, and the reaction of hydrogen and water.
It is extremely unlikely that we will find evidence to contradict any of those statements. It is very safe to make those assumptions when doing work that builds upon them. The probability of finding evidence to contradict any of those statements is vanishingly small, infinitesimal, for all intents and purposes we can treat them as “facts” in our daily lives.
But, scientifically, that probability is not, and cannot ever be, 0%. If it’s not, in theory, falsifiable, it’s not science.
You have repeatedly failed to understand that distinction.
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.
A top 20 university in the world, that is well renowned for producing excellent research.
Tell me what your credentials are? Because you’ve been a condescending prick this entire time, and are acting like a teenager who just took their first science class and thinks they know shit.
I haven’t actually, that’s you who’s been a condescending prick from the beginning. I’ve tried as hard as possible to be civil regardless, but I can’t stand your science fundamentalism. It makes real scientists look wishy-washy when they properly cite their uncertainty.
Which university is that? I’m sure I can find an article they’ve released on scientific certainty.
Nope, you’ve been a prick.
And I’m not doxxing myself to you.
You still haven’t given me any of your credentials? Cause right now I still think you’re just a bratty teenager.
And all scientists rely on established facts for their research. Science is full of facts, you need to stop denying that.
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow
Hydrogen and Oxygen reacting together to form water is not going to be discarded.
And evolution is a absolute fact in that is occurs. We know it occurs with absolute certainty. What remains to be modified is the mechanism by which it occurs.
Gravity is a fact. It exists with absolute certainty, and that fact will never be discarded. The exact mechanism by which it works is what may be modified or discarded.
You have repeatedly failed to understand this distinction.
The facts are that we have overwhelming evidence to support the existence of gravity, evolution, and the reaction of hydrogen and water.
It is extremely unlikely that we will find evidence to contradict any of those statements. It is very safe to make those assumptions when doing work that builds upon them. The probability of finding evidence to contradict any of those statements is vanishingly small, infinitesimal, for all intents and purposes we can treat them as “facts” in our daily lives.
But, scientifically, that probability is not, and cannot ever be, 0%. If it’s not, in theory, falsifiable, it’s not science.
You have repeatedly failed to understand that distinction.