Remember me
▼ Content

Scientific Challenge



Page 2 of 3<123>
24-07-2017 01:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
still learning wrote:
StarMan wrote:

.....Heat CANNOT be withdrawn from a container without lowering its temperature below 0.......



To freeze any ice in that zero degree container of water thermal energy must be withdrawn. About 80 calories of thermal energy must be withdrawn for every gram of ice formed.

One way that can be done even when the surroundings are also at zero degrees is by evaporation of the water. Even at zero degrees water does have a vapor pressure, about 4.6 torr. If the container has an open top (not specified initially) and the humidity of the surrounding air low enough (not specified initially) then there will be evaporation. Slow, but still some evaporation. That evaporation carries away thermal energy from the container of water. (The molecules of water leaving the surface of the water are the faster moving ones, the "hotter" ones, leaving behind "cooler" ones.) Carries away about 596 calories for every gram of water evaporated at 0 degrees. Will form over 7 grams of ice for every gram of liquid water vaporized.


Err, what has that to do with the original question? "Will pure water freeze in a container at 720 Torr and 0 degrees Centigrade?" He made an error in typing 720 Torr instead of 760 Torr but that makes no difference anywhere near one atmosphere.
24-07-2017 05:27
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
The entire point of the challenge was presented as a stable system, if not closed, then certainly not being vented by some sort of fan. In other words, any vapor pressure would likewise remain in equilibrium, precluding further evaporation. Everyone has "learned" that water freezes at 0 Centigrade, when in fact it does not, any more than ice melts at the same temperature. Equilibrium prevails.

The additional lesson is that some people prefer to argue, no matter what. You could give away a million dollars and some smartass would condemn you for not giving away two million, and to a (some) "better" recipient(s).
24-07-2017 17:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
StarMan wrote:
The entire point of the challenge was presented as a stable system, if not closed, then certainly not being vented by some sort of fan. In other words, any vapor pressure would likewise remain in equilibrium, precluding further evaporation. Everyone has "learned" that water freezes at 0 Centigrade, when in fact it does not, any more than ice melts at the same temperature. Equilibrium prevails.

The additional lesson is that some people prefer to argue, no matter what. You could give away a million dollars and some smartass would condemn you for not giving away two million, and to a (some) "better" recipient(s).


Those who cannot answer the original question prefer to make up their own question and then answer it.

This is the knowledge display upon this group.
24-07-2017 17:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
StarMan wrote:
The entire point of the challenge was presented as a stable system, if not closed, then certainly not being vented by some sort of fan. In other words, any vapor pressure would likewise remain in equilibrium, precluding further evaporation. Everyone has "learned" that water freezes at 0 Centigrade, when in fact it does not, any more than ice melts at the same temperature. Equilibrium prevails.

The additional lesson is that some people prefer to argue, no matter what. You could give away a million dollars and some smartass would condemn you for not giving away two million, and to a (some) "better" recipient(s).


Those who cannot answer the original question prefer to make up their own question and then answer it.

This is the knowledge display upon this group.

The problem with the original question is that too little information is given to answer it.

As has been explained, whether water at 0 C and atmospheric pressure freezes or not depends on other factors that were not specified in the original question, such as the temperature and humidity of the surrounding air, whether the container is open or not, and whether nucleation centres are present.

Also, the OP is simply wrong to claim that water does not freeze and ice does not melt at 0 C. In fact, both statements are true. He or she has clearly failed to understand the concept of latent heat of fusion.
24-07-2017 18:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote: The problem with the original question is that too little information is given to answer it.


The problem is that you either cannot read or will seek ANY way of excusing your inability to understand a question.
24-07-2017 18:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The problem with the original question is that too little information is given to answer it.


The problem is that you either cannot read or will seek ANY way of excusing your inability to understand a question.

No, the problem is that many questions are ill-defined and do not have straight yes or no answers. I know that conservatives such as yourself do have a tendency to view the world in black-or-white terms, especially as cognitive ability declines with age, but I'm afraid reality is more complicated than that.
24-07-2017 20:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
StarMan wrote:
The entire point of the challenge was presented as a stable system, if not closed, then certainly not being vented by some sort of fan. In other words, any vapor pressure would likewise remain in equilibrium, precluding further evaporation. Everyone has "learned" that water freezes at 0 Centigrade, when in fact it does not, any more than ice melts at the same temperature. Equilibrium prevails.

The additional lesson is that some people prefer to argue, no matter what. You could give away a million dollars and some smartass would condemn you for not giving away two million, and to a (some) "better" recipient(s).


Those who cannot answer the original question prefer to make up their own question and then answer it.

This is the knowledge display upon this group.

The problem with the original question is that too little information is given to answer it.

As has been explained, whether water at 0 C and atmospheric pressure freezes or not depends on other factors that were not specified in the original question, such as the temperature and humidity of the surrounding air, whether the container is open or not, and whether nucleation centres are present.

Also, the OP is simply wrong to claim that water does not freeze and ice does not melt at 0 C. In fact, both statements are true. He or she has clearly failed to understand the concept of latent heat of fusion.

Agreed.


The Parrot Killer
24-07-2017 20:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The problem with the original question is that too little information is given to answer it.


The problem is that you either cannot read or will seek ANY way of excusing your inability to understand a question.


Trying to justify assumptions now?


The Parrot Killer
24-07-2017 20:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The problem with the original question is that too little information is given to answer it.


The problem is that you either cannot read or will seek ANY way of excusing your inability to understand a question.

No, the problem is that many questions are ill-defined and do not have straight yes or no answers. I know that conservatives such as yourself do have a tendency to view the world in black-or-white terms, especially as cognitive ability declines with age, but I'm afraid reality is more complicated than that.


Wandering into bigotry there, dude.

Attaching 'black and white' thinking to conservatives is a compositional error and a fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
24-07-2017 23:53
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Surface Detail wrote:

As has been explained, whether water at 0 C and atmospheric pressure freezes or not depends on other factors that were not specified in the original question, such as the temperature and humidity of the surrounding air, whether the container is open or not, and whether nucleation centres are present.


"Surrounding air" is certainly higher in temperature, and therefore extermal humidity is higher as well.k So your little game is of no use. To pretend that a vacuum pump or some similar device withdraws 4.7 Torr of water vapor is the height of nonsense. That atmosphere would have to be replaced with the external source which would be even higher, not lower, than 4.7 Torr.

Also, the OP is simply wrong to claim that water does not freeze and ice does not melt at 0 C. In fact, both statements are true. He or she has clearly failed to understand the concept of latent heat of fusion.


I did not say that water "does not freeze" at 0 C. You misquote and misunderstand. I specified the "container". What part of "container" temperature do you not comprehend?

For you to play silly games that ice will melt while water freezes in the same container under the same identical conditions is the height of ignorance and game-playing.

Tell the audience what happens at the Triple Point, please. No, on second thought, don't. You'll only spin and prevaricate.

At the Triple Point, steam, water, and ice are at perfect equilibrium. The same is true for the Double Line for water and ice.


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night
25-07-2017 01:07
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
StarMan wrote:
"Surrounding air" is certainly higher in temperature...

It is? You didn't specify that. In that case, the water certainly will not freeze; it will immediately start warming and continue to warm at an exponentially decreasing rate as the temperature of the water approaches that of the surrounding air. If the surrounding air is saturated with water vapour, then the water will eventually reach the same temperature as the air, otherwise it will stabilise at a slightly lower temperature due to evaporative cooling. Of course, I'm assuming here that the unspecified air temperature is less than 100 C!
Edited on 25-07-2017 01:08
25-07-2017 01:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Surface Detail wrote:
StarMan wrote:
"Surrounding air" is certainly higher in temperature...

It is? You didn't specify that. In that case, the water certainly will not freeze; it will immediately start warming and continue to warm at an exponentially decreasing rate as the temperature of the water approaches that of the surrounding air. If the surrounding air is saturated with water vapour, then the water will eventually reach the same temperature as the air, otherwise it will stabilise at a slightly lower temperature due to evaporative cooling. Of course, I'm assuming here that the unspecified air temperature is less than 100 C!


This is correct. The water will not even begin to freeze unless the air immediately above it is also cold. That energy to cool that air goes into the colder water until they are the same temperature.

Fortunately for ice trays and the like, air is a pretty good insulator in general. Heat conductivity through dry air is fairly low. Heat mostly moves through air as convective heating. All you need to cool is the layer immediately above the water.

Evaporative cooling is also an energy loss for the water, lowering its temperature.


The Parrot Killer
25-07-2017 03:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
StarMan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

As has been explained, whether water at 0 C and atmospheric pressure freezes or not depends on other factors that were not specified in the original question, such as the temperature and humidity of the surrounding air, whether the container is open or not, and whether nucleation centres are present.


"Surrounding air" is certainly higher in temperature, and therefore extermal humidity is higher as well.k So your little game is of no use. To pretend that a vacuum pump or some similar device withdraws 4.7 Torr of water vapor is the height of nonsense. That atmosphere would have to be replaced with the external source which would be even higher, not lower, than 4.7 Torr.

Also, the OP is simply wrong to claim that water does not freeze and ice does not melt at 0 C. In fact, both statements are true. He or she has clearly failed to understand the concept of latent heat of fusion.


I did not say that water "does not freeze" at 0 C. You misquote and misunderstand. I specified the "container". What part of "container" temperature do you not comprehend?

For you to play silly games that ice will melt while water freezes in the same container under the same identical conditions is the height of ignorance and game-playing.

Tell the audience what happens at the Triple Point, please. No, on second thought, don't. You'll only spin and prevaricate.

At the Triple Point, steam, water, and ice are at perfect equilibrium. The same is true for the Double Line for water and ice.


Remember you put him on your ignore list for good reasons.
25-07-2017 04:41
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
StarMan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

As has been explained, whether water at 0 C and atmospheric pressure freezes or not depends on other factors that were not specified in the original question, such as the temperature and humidity of the surrounding air, whether the container is open or not, and whether nucleation centres are present.


"Surrounding air" is certainly higher in temperature, and therefore extermal humidity is higher as well.k So your little game is of no use. To pretend that a vacuum pump or some similar device withdraws 4.7 Torr of water vapor is the height of nonsense. That atmosphere would have to be replaced with the external source which would be even higher, not lower, than 4.7 Torr.

Also, the OP is simply wrong to claim that water does not freeze and ice does not melt at 0 C. In fact, both statements are true. He or she has clearly failed to understand the concept of latent heat of fusion.


I did not say that water "does not freeze" at 0 C. You misquote and misunderstand. I specified the "container". What part of "container" temperature do you not comprehend?

For you to play silly games that ice will melt while water freezes in the same container under the same identical conditions is the height of ignorance and game-playing.

Tell the audience what happens at the Triple Point, please. No, on second thought, don't. You'll only spin and prevaricate.

At the Triple Point, steam, water, and ice are at perfect equilibrium. The same is true for the Double Line for water and ice.


Remember you put him on your ignore list for good reasons.

Yes, you should always ignore people who have opinions different to your own lest it induce uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. It's the intellectual equivalent of Zaphod Beeblebrox's Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.
25-07-2017 17:40
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Remember you put him on your ignore list for good reasons.

Yes, you should always ignore people who have opinions different to your own lest it induce uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. It's the intellectual equivalent of Zaphod Beeblebrox's Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.


It's no surprise that you think the world around you works like a science fiction novel.
25-07-2017 17:41
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Wake wrote:


Remember you put him on your ignore list for good reasons.


Exactly so. I apologize.

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."

"Answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou be like unto him."

"A lion does not turn around when a small dog barks." - Nigerian Proverb


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night
25-07-2017 17:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
StarMan wrote:
Wake wrote:


Remember you put him on your ignore list for good reasons.


Exactly so. I apologize.

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."

"Answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou be like unto him."

"A lion does not turn around when a small dog barks." - Nigerian Proverb


What we are observing is that after every claim they made was debunked they are simply trying to start all over from the beginning. They seem to be following the Mark Twain adage: "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure."
25-07-2017 17:57
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Remember you put him on your ignore list for good reasons.

Yes, you should always ignore people who have opinions different to your own lest it induce uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. It's the intellectual equivalent of Zaphod Beeblebrox's Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.


It's no surprise that you think the world around you works like a science fiction novel.

You clearly didn't appreciate my humorous analogy!

I wasn't referring to the world around me; I was making a point about the stupidity of ignoring opinions that differ from your own. It might make you feel better, but it's also a guaranteed way to remain ignorant.
25-07-2017 17:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
StarMan wrote:
Wake wrote:


Remember you put him on your ignore list for good reasons.


Exactly so. I apologize.

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."

"Answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou be like unto him."

"A lion does not turn around when a small dog barks." - Nigerian Proverb


What we are observing is that after every claim they made was debunked they are simply trying to start all over from the beginning. They seem to be following the Mark Twain adage: "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure."

Which of my claims has been debunked?
25-07-2017 18:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Remember you put him on your ignore list for good reasons.

Yes, you should always ignore people who have opinions different to your own lest it induce uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. It's the intellectual equivalent of Zaphod Beeblebrox's Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.


It's no surprise that you think the world around you works like a science fiction novel.

You clearly didn't appreciate my humorous analogy!

I wasn't referring to the world around me; I was making a point about the stupidity of ignoring opinions that differ from your own. It might make you feel better, but it's also a guaranteed way to remain ignorant.


What you were doing was showing that you believe science to be a matter of opinion and not truth.
25-07-2017 18:06
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Remember you put him on your ignore list for good reasons.

Yes, you should always ignore people who have opinions different to your own lest it induce uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. It's the intellectual equivalent of Zaphod Beeblebrox's Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.


It's no surprise that you think the world around you works like a science fiction novel.

You clearly didn't appreciate my humorous analogy!

I wasn't referring to the world around me; I was making a point about the stupidity of ignoring opinions that differ from your own. It might make you feel better, but it's also a guaranteed way to remain ignorant.


What you were doing was showing that you believe science to be a matter of opinion and not truth.

The process of science is a cooperative effort in which scientists discuss and build on one another's knowledge in order to better understand reality. Communication is essential to that process, and a person who refuses to communicate will, as I said, remain ignorant.
25-07-2017 18:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Remember you put him on your ignore list for good reasons.

Yes, you should always ignore people who have opinions different to your own lest it induce uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. It's the intellectual equivalent of Zaphod Beeblebrox's Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.


It's no surprise that you think the world around you works like a science fiction novel.

You clearly didn't appreciate my humorous analogy!

I wasn't referring to the world around me; I was making a point about the stupidity of ignoring opinions that differ from your own. It might make you feel better, but it's also a guaranteed way to remain ignorant.


What you were doing was showing that you believe science to be a matter of opinion and not truth.

The process of science is a cooperative effort in which scientists discuss and build on one another's knowledge in order to better understand reality. Communication is essential to that process, and a person who refuses to communicate will, as I said, remain ignorant.


And here you are again telling us that science has nothing to do with truth but with OPINION and you actually believe that your opinion should have some bearing. Communication means NOTHING - do you have that you insufferable ass? Most especially communication from someone that is entirely ignorant of the scientific method.
25-07-2017 20:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Remember you put him on your ignore list for good reasons.

Yes, you should always ignore people who have opinions different to your own lest it induce uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. It's the intellectual equivalent of Zaphod Beeblebrox's Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.


It's no surprise that you think the world around you works like a science fiction novel.

You clearly didn't appreciate my humorous analogy!

I wasn't referring to the world around me; I was making a point about the stupidity of ignoring opinions that differ from your own. It might make you feel better, but it's also a guaranteed way to remain ignorant.


What you were doing was showing that you believe science to be a matter of opinion and not truth.


What is Truth?

Science is a set of falsifiable theories about nature. Each theory is formed as an opinion. That is, after all, what all theories are, whether scientific theories or otherwise.

What makes a scientific theory more than just the circular argument it starts as is the test of falsifiability.


The Parrot Killer
25-07-2017 20:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Remember you put him on your ignore list for good reasons.

Yes, you should always ignore people who have opinions different to your own lest it induce uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. It's the intellectual equivalent of Zaphod Beeblebrox's Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.


It's no surprise that you think the world around you works like a science fiction novel.

You clearly didn't appreciate my humorous analogy!

I wasn't referring to the world around me; I was making a point about the stupidity of ignoring opinions that differ from your own. It might make you feel better, but it's also a guaranteed way to remain ignorant.


What you were doing was showing that you believe science to be a matter of opinion and not truth.

The process of science is a cooperative effort in which scientists discuss and build on one another's knowledge in order to better understand reality. Communication is essential to that process, and a person who refuses to communicate will, as I said, remain ignorant.


There is no 'process' of science. The 'method' of science has one and only one purpose: To satisfy the demands of the definition of science.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


The Parrot Killer
26-07-2017 02:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:

What is Truth?

Science is a set of falsifiable theories about nature. Each theory is formed as an opinion. That is, after all, what all theories are, whether scientific theories or otherwise.

What makes a scientific theory more than just the circular argument it starts as is the test of falsifiability.


You get stupider by the minute. "What is truth?" and then you say that truth doesn't exist but false does.
26-07-2017 02:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

What is Truth?

Science is a set of falsifiable theories about nature. Each theory is formed as an opinion. That is, after all, what all theories are, whether scientific theories or otherwise.

What makes a scientific theory more than just the circular argument it starts as is the test of falsifiability.


You get stupider by the minute. "What is truth?" and then you say that truth doesn't exist but false does.


False is not the opposite of Truth. False is the opposite of true. The words 'true' and 'Truth' mean different things.

'False', 'true', and 'Truth' do exist. That's why we have words for them. I never said they don't exist. Why do you keep jumping to false dichotomies like this?

You still haven't answered the question:

What is Truth?


The Parrot Killer
26-07-2017 02:21
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

What is Truth?

Science is a set of falsifiable theories about nature. Each theory is formed as an opinion. That is, after all, what all theories are, whether scientific theories or otherwise.

What makes a scientific theory more than just the circular argument it starts as is the test of falsifiability.


You get stupider by the minute. "What is truth?" and then you say that truth doesn't exist but false does.


False is not the opposite of Truth. False is the opposite of true. The words 'true' and 'Truth' mean different things.

'False', 'true', and 'Truth' do exist. That's why we have words for them. I never said they don't exist. Why do you keep jumping to false dichotomies like this?

You still haven't answered the question:

What is Truth?


And this is why Starman quoted the paper, "A Crisis of Confidence" in which the opening statement includes, " far too many college graduates have not
learned to write effectively, they can not read and comprehend any reasonably complex book, they have not learned to reason, and their basic knowledge of the history and institutions of the society in which they live is lamentably poor. "
26-07-2017 03:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

What is Truth?

Science is a set of falsifiable theories about nature. Each theory is formed as an opinion. That is, after all, what all theories are, whether scientific theories or otherwise.

What makes a scientific theory more than just the circular argument it starts as is the test of falsifiability.


You get stupider by the minute. "What is truth?" and then you say that truth doesn't exist but false does.


False is not the opposite of Truth. False is the opposite of true. The words 'true' and 'Truth' mean different things.

'False', 'true', and 'Truth' do exist. That's why we have words for them. I never said they don't exist. Why do you keep jumping to false dichotomies like this?

You still haven't answered the question:

What is Truth?


And this is why Starman quoted the paper, "A Crisis of Confidence" in which the opening statement includes, " far too many college graduates have not
learned to write effectively, they can not read and comprehend any reasonably complex book, they have not learned to reason, and their basic knowledge of the history and institutions of the society in which they live is lamentably poor. "

Going for the strawman argument eh? Redirections like this are also a fallacy, dude.

You might try to actually answer the question put to you.


The Parrot Killer
26-07-2017 03:07
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Into the Night wrote:


Going for the strawman argument eh? Redirections like this are also a fallacy, dude.

You might try to actually answer the question put to you.


Stop your one-upmanship. This thread has been exhausted, having made the point I intended, notwithstanding all the attempts to circumvent the plainly obvious with worthless rhetoric.


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night
26-07-2017 03:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
StarMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Going for the strawman argument eh? Redirections like this are also a fallacy, dude.

You might try to actually answer the question put to you.


Stop your one-upmanship.
STILL evading the question eh? Perhaps you can't answer it?
StarMan wrote:
This thread has been exhausted, having made the point I intended,
You never made your point. Your 'point' was based on the fallacy of a false equivalence. This was pointed out to you when you tried to make your point by a couple of people (including me).
StarMan wrote:
notwithstanding all the attempts to circumvent the plainly obvious with worthless rhetoric.

Since you won't answer the question, I must assume you don't know the answer. This is ok, since few people could answer this question. It does get down to the guts of the discussions of what science is, what religion is, and how philosophy handles both.


The Parrot Killer
26-07-2017 15:41
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed:....was debunked...

The only thing old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiners can debunk is falling out of the upper bunk.
26-07-2017 16:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

What is Truth?

Science is a set of falsifiable theories about nature. Each theory is formed as an opinion. That is, after all, what all theories are, whether scientific theories or otherwise.

What makes a scientific theory more than just the circular argument it starts as is the test of falsifiability.


You get stupider by the minute. "What is truth?" and then you say that truth doesn't exist but false does.


False is not the opposite of Truth. False is the opposite of true. The words 'true' and 'Truth' mean different things.

'False', 'true', and 'Truth' do exist. That's why we have words for them. I never said they don't exist. Why do you keep jumping to false dichotomies like this?

You still haven't answered the question:

What is Truth?


And this is why Starman quoted the paper, "A Crisis of Confidence" in which the opening statement includes, " far too many college graduates have not
learned to write effectively, they can not read and comprehend any reasonably complex book, they have not learned to reason, and their basic knowledge of the history and institutions of the society in which they live is lamentably poor. "

Going for the strawman argument eh? Redirections like this are also a fallacy, dude.

You might try to actually answer the question put to you.


My wife has been a teacher all her life. I love to show her your postings and they are everything that she has told me that education has become - a group of people that do nothing more than sit around a classroom telling themselves how smart they are.

She particularly liked your idea that true and truth were not the same.

Now you show that you haven't even the idea what a straw man argument is by making one yourself while accusing someone else.
26-07-2017 21:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

What is Truth?

Science is a set of falsifiable theories about nature. Each theory is formed as an opinion. That is, after all, what all theories are, whether scientific theories or otherwise.

What makes a scientific theory more than just the circular argument it starts as is the test of falsifiability.


You get stupider by the minute. "What is truth?" and then you say that truth doesn't exist but false does.


False is not the opposite of Truth. False is the opposite of true. The words 'true' and 'Truth' mean different things.

'False', 'true', and 'Truth' do exist. That's why we have words for them. I never said they don't exist. Why do you keep jumping to false dichotomies like this?

You still haven't answered the question:

What is Truth?


And this is why Starman quoted the paper, "A Crisis of Confidence" in which the opening statement includes, " far too many college graduates have not
learned to write effectively, they can not read and comprehend any reasonably complex book, they have not learned to reason, and their basic knowledge of the history and institutions of the society in which they live is lamentably poor. "

Going for the strawman argument eh? Redirections like this are also a fallacy, dude.

You might try to actually answer the question put to you.


My wife has been a teacher all her life. I love to show her your postings and they are everything that she has told me that education has become - a group of people that do nothing more than sit around a classroom telling themselves how smart they are.

She particularly liked your idea that true and truth were not the same.

Now you show that you haven't even the idea what a straw man argument is by making one yourself while accusing someone else.


YOU are the one that is constantly trying to redirect the conversation. YOU are the one bringing strawmen arguments. YOU are the one evading the question put to you. YOU are the one I am accusing of evasion.

Now YOU are hiding behind your wife's skirts because she is a teacher???


The Parrot Killer
26-07-2017 21:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote: YOU are the one that is constantly trying to redirect the conversation. YOU are the one bringing strawmen arguments. YOU are the one evading the question put to you. YOU are the one I am accusing of evasion.

Now YOU are hiding behind your wife's skirts because she is a teacher???


Now you're full of tears. Face it - you're stupid. You will make ANY claim to try to prove to yourself that you're brilliant.
26-07-2017 22:36
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Into the Night wrote:

YOU are the one that is constantly trying to redirect the conversation. YOU are the one bringing strawmen arguments. YOU are the one evading the question put to you. YOU are the one I am accusing of evasion.

Now YOU are hiding behind your wife's skirts because she is a teacher???


Stop your nonsense. It became tiresome long ago, and you add NOTHING to the dialogue.


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night
26-07-2017 22:55
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
StarMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

YOU are the one that is constantly trying to redirect the conversation. YOU are the one bringing strawmen arguments. YOU are the one evading the question put to you. YOU are the one I am accusing of evasion.

Now YOU are hiding behind your wife's skirts because she is a teacher???


Stop your nonsense. It became tiresome long ago, and you add NOTHING to the dialogue.


But you have to admit that he does pose comic relief with things like "truth" and "true" are different.
27-07-2017 00:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
StarMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

YOU are the one that is constantly trying to redirect the conversation. YOU are the one bringing strawmen arguments. YOU are the one evading the question put to you. YOU are the one I am accusing of evasion.

Now YOU are hiding behind your wife's skirts because she is a teacher???


Stop your nonsense. It became tiresome long ago, and you add NOTHING to the dialogue.


What dialogue?

Your original question that you presented has been answered....you attempted to make your point...done.

If you don't want to allow anyone to attempt to answer a question that he himself directed the thread into, what power do you have to enforce it?

None.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-07-2017 00:02
27-07-2017 00:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
StarMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

YOU are the one that is constantly trying to redirect the conversation. YOU are the one bringing strawmen arguments. YOU are the one evading the question put to you. YOU are the one I am accusing of evasion.

Now YOU are hiding behind your wife's skirts because she is a teacher???


Stop your nonsense. It became tiresome long ago, and you add NOTHING to the dialogue.


What dialogue?

Your original question that you presented has been answered....you attempted to make your point...done.

If you don't want to allow anyone to attempt to answer a question that he himself directed the thread into, what power do you have to enforce it?

None.


The point is that you have attempted to murder the dialog with your phony beliefs.
27-07-2017 01:16
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Wake wrote:


The point is that you have attempted to murder the dialog with your phony beliefs.


Lots of murders going on in this pathetic little hollow. How boring it must have been before I came here, eh Wake?

Yore Friend,

*


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night
27-07-2017 01:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
StarMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

YOU are the one that is constantly trying to redirect the conversation. YOU are the one bringing strawmen arguments. YOU are the one evading the question put to you. YOU are the one I am accusing of evasion.

Now YOU are hiding behind your wife's skirts because she is a teacher???


Stop your nonsense. It became tiresome long ago, and you add NOTHING to the dialogue.


What dialogue?

Your original question that you presented has been answered....you attempted to make your point...done.

If you don't want to allow anyone to attempt to answer a question that he himself directed the thread into, what power do you have to enforce it?

None.


The point is that you have attempted to murder the dialog with your phony beliefs.


Call the cops. You have a murder to report!


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Scientific Challenge:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Measurement vs. scientific principles2928-02-2020 04:21
Scientific published papers8510-02-2020 18:06
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N252624-01-2020 06:17
2020 Hackaday Challenge2525-05-2019 07:18
White House eyes nuclear weapons expert to lead challenge to climate science019-04-2019 19:15
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact