The Offtopic, A17 thread.

[lazdeuce]

More to the point (sorry, this is a bugbear of mine), that things like gravity, relativistic effects, and evolution exist are simple facts. The theory part is that our hypothesised models of how they work have stood up to scrutiny (so far).

 

That these things have the word "theory" in them doesn't mean we don't know if they exist or not. Their existence is not "just a theory" (and therefore up for debate). Their existence is observed fact. They may not work quite the way we think they do (although the fact that they are all theories rather than just hypotheses is an indicator that we're pretty sure they do in fact work like we think) but whether or not we've got the mechanisms behind them correct doesn't mean that the phenomena themselves are in any doubt.

 

 

I'd hate to be the poor bastard observing the fact of evolution. Worse than watching paint dry.

[Aldranon]

More to the point (sorry, this is a bugbear of mine), that things like gravity, relativistic effects, and evolution exist are simple facts. The theory part is that our hypothesised models of how they work have stood up to scrutiny (so far).

 

That these things have the word "theory" in them doesn't mean we don't know if they exist or not. Their existence is not "just a theory" (and therefore up for debate). Their existence is observed fact. They may not work quite the way we think they do (although the fact that they are all theories rather than just hypotheses is an indicator that we're pretty sure they do in fact work like we think) but whether or not we've got the mechanisms behind them correct doesn't mean that the phenomena themselves are in any doubt.

 

Peoples opinions are not substitutes for the proven steps of the scientific method.

 

You can believe anything is a fact (and it might be so) but if it can't be proven by the scientific method, it will remain a hypothesis (an opinion). Even Theories (which are proven by that method) are not considered FACT (Law) until all other possible explanations are exhausted.

[wolffblood]

Is that company still in business?

 

Lol, yes they are. They make a few hundred million a year, so any kind of shut down for them costs them millions even if just for a day. So they apparently were trying to find the best time to do it. I think the machine just finally gave up is why it was "shut down". That's the thing about doing industrial contracting, you always deal with these people that make so much money, you do things on their time, or at least hope to.

[A Nice Cup of Tea]

Peoples opinions are not substitutes for the proven steps of the scientific method.

 

You can believe anything is a fact (and it might be so) but if it can't be proven by the scientific method, it will remain a hypothesis (an opinion). Even Theories (which are proven by that method) are not considered FACT (Law) until all other possible explanations are exhausted.

 

Hypotheses are invented to explain the observed facts - the facts must come first.

 

To bring this full circle (and back on topic), the original post that started this tangent was someone posting their hypothesis ("the devs are working on something else") about the cause of A17 having not yet been released.

 

But the entire premise on which that hypothesis was based was the fact that A17 has indeed not yet been released. That A17 has not yet been released is a fact, not just an opinion. We do not need to invoke the scientific method to prove that A17 has not been released, and we certainly don't need to refrain from calling its unreleased status a fact until we have exhausted all other possible explanations for why we are not currently playing it.

[Guppycur]

More to the point (sorry, this is a bugbear of mine), that things like gravity, relativistic effects, and evolution exist are simple facts. The theory part is that our hypothesised models of how they work have stood up to scrutiny (so far).

 

That these things have the word "theory" in them doesn't mean we don't know if they exist or not. Their existence is not "just a theory" (and therefore up for debate). Their existence is observed fact. They may not work quite the way we think they do (although the fact that they are all theories rather than just hypotheses is an indicator that we're pretty sure they do in fact work like we think) but whether or not we've got the mechanisms behind them correct doesn't mean that the phenomena themselves are in any doubt.

 

It's only a fact until it isn't.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

I love it, but straight off I can see two problems

 

1) undermining a city like this would cause SI problems in the buildings above and

 

2) Madmole has said that they are removing the turds from A17

 

Concrete tunnels would probably help si.

[Gnomaana]

Did.. did i misread something and crouk stated that his opinion was true? it was a thought and decided to post it on the forum and you want to attack? Crouk's opinion is just that, not speaking for anyone but himself.

 

Just calm down a bit, if you disagree, just say that rather than putting words into his mouth.

 

He came on TFP's forums and accused them of lying about why A17 is not out yet. He then tried to play it off as him just stating his "opinion". That's not how opinions work.

[Aldranon]

Hypotheses are invented to explain the observed facts - the facts must come first.

 

To bring this full circle (and back on topic), the original post that started this tangent was someone posting their hypothesis ("the devs are working on something else") about the cause of A17 having not yet been released.

 

But the entire premise on which that hypothesis was based was the fact that A17 has indeed not yet been released. That A17 has not yet been released is a fact, not just an opinion. We do not need to invoke the scientific method to prove that A17 has not been released, and we certainly don't need to refrain from calling its unreleased status a fact until we have exhausted all other possible explanations for why we are not currently playing it.

 

How do you KNOW A17 has not been released to some people? It's your guess you are calling a fact.

 

Scientifically proven facts sometimes take decades of hard work and observation, they are the crowning achievements of mankind.

 

The only thing simple about "Simple facts" are the people who believe them.

[beerfly]

 

The only thing simple about "Simple facts" are the people who believe them.

 

Just like Flat Earth. Fact. I expect quantium physics involved in A17 release date soon.

[Aldranon]

Just like Flat Earth. Fact.

 

Thanks. I didn't realize I had been triggered until your post.

 

I guess we all are on our last nerve and the best day in a year for many of us will be when A17 drops! I'll be ooh'ing and ahh'ing the streamers like a noob even.

 

 

***At Al's Marina and Science Warehouse, we are very... very sorry for releasing the Zombie Virus. Please accept our sincere... and humble apology for the slow and painful deaths of billions. ***

[Telosbudo]

Okay gents, you guys seem a little bonkers spiting supposed truths about what science is what the terms it uses means. Here's a snapshot that isn't riddled with inaccuracies. Hypotheses make certain observations more or less probable. hypotheses also contain certain predictions. The greater the prediction's "unexpectedness", the more compelling they are in support of a given hypothesis. There are also epistemic or cognitive or theoretical values that scientists consider in rational theory choice: explanatory power, scope, fruitfulness, internal consistency, elegance/simpleness. If you're still interested, you can check out my MA paper on the topic of objectivity in science titled The Likelihood Principle: Objectivity and the Values and Science Debate. Cheers.

[meganoth]

How do you KNOW A17 has not been released to some people? It's your guess you are calling a fact.

 

"To some people" is not a release. If we use your definition of fact then even the existence of other people is not a fact because Solipsism could be true.

 

Scientifically proven facts sometimes take decades of hard work and observation, they are the crowning achievements of mankind.

 

Yes, but even in science fact means just practically proven or observed beyond reasonable doubt. "fact" can't be absolute because no knowledge is absolute, all observation could have been in a bubble as small as you want, see Solipsism as one of the most "effective" bubbles.

 

Gravitation, heliocentricity, evolution (which is directly observable in the genes of short lived organisms by the way), law of conservation of energy, ... are in practice scientific facts even though no real scientist would every stop testing them. If you deny one of them the label "fact", you should deny all scientific knowledge the label "fact" and call everything "theory".

[Aldranon]

Okay gents, you guys seem a little bonkers spiting supposed truths about what science is what the terms it uses means. Here's a snapshot that isn't riddled with inaccuracies. Hypotheses make certain observations more or less probable. hypotheses also contain certain predictions. The greater the prediction's "unexpectedness", the more compelling they are in support of a given hypothesis. There are also epistemic or cognitive or theoretical values that scientists consider in rational theory choice: explanatory power, scope, fruitfulness, internal consistency, elegance/simpleness. If you're still interested, you can check out my MA paper on the topic of objectivity in science titled The Likelihood Principle: Objectivity and the Values and Science Debate. Cheers.

 

Your Philosophy paper was interesting, I think you know that Likelihoodism is favored more by statisticians than the empirical, scientific model community.

[Aldranon]

"To some people" is not a release. If we use your definition of fact then even the existence of other people is not a fact because Solipsism could be true.

 

 

 

Yes, but even in science fact means just practically proven or observed beyond reasonable doubt. "fact" can't be absolute because no knowledge is absolute, all observation could have been in a bubble as small as you want, see Solipsism as one of the most "effective" bubbles.

 

Gravitation, heliocentricity, evolution (which is directly observable in the genes of short lived organisms by the way), law of conservation of energy, ... are in practice scientific facts even though no real scientist would every stop testing them. If you deny one of them the label "fact", you should deny all scientific knowledge the label "fact" and call everything "theory".

 

With Evolution, don't confuse speciation with mutation. People even tried to change the definition of what speciation meant. But you can believe whatever you want, have at it.

[Telosbudo]

"To some people" is not a release. If we use your definition of fact then even the existence of other people is not a fact because Solipsism could be true.

 

 

 

Yes, but even in science fact means just practically proven or observed beyond reasonable doubt. "fact" can't be absolute because no knowledge is absolute, all observation could have been in a bubble as small as you want, see Solipsism as one of the most "effective" bubbles.

 

Gravitation, heliocentricity, evolution (which is directly observable in the genes of short lived organisms by the way), law of conservation of energy, ... are in practice scientific facts even though no real scientist would every stop testing them. If you deny one of them the label "fact", you should deny all scientific knowledge the label "fact" and call everything "theory".

 

Again, you guys are bunging it up and mincing science jargon with colloquial expression. Stop. In scientific terms, theories are huge composites of models, hypotheses, assumptions etc. They can span across many scientific fields. For example, Darwin's and Wallace's 19th c. Natural Selection and 20 c. classical genetics were married to form the Modern Synthesis. These are "Theories". Evolution by common decent is the fact.

[Telosbudo]

With Evolution, don't confuse speciation with mutation. People even tried to change the definition of what speciation meant. But you can believe whatever you want, have at it.

 

Stop. It's "Don't confuse SELECTION with mutation. SPECIATION is nested in selection and genetic drift.

[A Nice Cup of Tea]

How do you KNOW A17 has not been released to some people? It's your guess you are calling a fact.

 

Clearly the testers have it, but that's not what we're talking about. I have inferred that the release (by which I mean the general Steam release) hasn't happened yet from the available evidence - that I can look at Steam and see that it hasn't been.

 

(As an aside, this is also refuting a different Internet talking point - that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence. The strength of that evidence corresponds to the likelihood that the evidence would exist if the thing existed. Looking out of my window and not seeing an elephant isn't very compelling evidence that there are no elephants in England because I can only see a small part of England from my window so there are lots of ways that an elephant could be there without me seeing it. Looking in my fridge and not seeing an elephant there, on the other hand, is pretty compelling evidence that there are no elephants in my fridge because even a baby elephant would be visible if it were in there.)

 

Now you could digress into epistemology and solipsism and start claiming that we can never know anything for certain, but if you do that then I'll just declare that I don't know that you exist and therefore I can't trust anything that claims to have been written by you!

 

Still, at least debating whether or not we can know whether or not A17 has already been released (or even whether or not we can know whether or not A17 exists at all) makes a change from trying to guess when it will be released.

 

Scientifically proven facts sometimes take decades of hard work and observation, they are the crowning achievements of mankind.

 

The only thing simple about "Simple facts" are the people who believe them.

 

There are huge numbers of simple facts that are believed - quite rationally - by even the most erudite and sophisticated of people based solely on personal observation and inference. For example, I believe the simple fact that the bottle of water on my desk that I'm looking at is the same one that I put there a few minutes ago. No-one has provided me scientific proof that it's the same bottle, but I believe it is anyway based on the fact that it's been in my field of vision for the whole time.

 

You don't have to be simple to believe a simple fact without scientific proof.

[Telosbudo]

Guys, please stop trying to correct people with you're own inaccuracies. If you're interested in getting yourself straight on the business of science, I highly recommend the philosopher of science, Elliott Sober. he covers a wide range of topics and can give you a basic overview as well as a deep dive into contemporary philosophical problems in science, if you're up to it. Cheers

[Guppycur]

You can't "prove" anything in science, you can only disprove other possibilities. What's so hard about this.

[Aldranon]

Stop. It's "Don't confuse SELECTION with mutation. SPECIATION is nested in selection and genetic drift.

 

Without Speciation (not in a watered down definition) there is no evolution. Mutations (genetic drift) don't prove evolution in creating new species.

 

Believe what you want.

[Cazmyr]

Without Speciation (not in a watered down definition) there is no evolution. Mutations (genetic drift) don't prove evolution in creating new species.

 

Please stop. This is a forum for a video game and you are going on and on and on and on about evolution. People have asked you to stop and you continue. Are you trolling? Are you trying to invoke anger and see how far it can go?

 

I am asking you to please stop. Go to a forum on evolution and talk about it there.

[Telosbudo]

You can't "prove" anything in science, you can only disprove other possibilities. What's so hard about this.

 

This is Karl Popper’s view, that science is strictly prohibitive; a hypothesis can be falsified given a genuine counter-instance, but it is exceedingly rare for a hypothesis to be logically verified in virtue of an inference (Modus Ponens). This is because Modus Ponens involves stating that an observation deductively entails some hypothesis and yet observations very rarely entail the hypotheses that scientists test. Observations are typically deductively compatible with alternative hypotheses as well.

 

But scientific realists (a metaphysical view, as oppose to strict empiricists(most scientists are realists these days btw) commit to their empirically well-grounded and rigorously tested theories as true (e.g. General and Special Relativity, Modern Synthesis (pertaining to evolution) etc.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

Without Speciation (not in a watered down definition) there is no evolution. Mutations (genetic drift) don't prove evolution in creating new species.

 

Believe what you want.

 

You're writing is obscure and confusing. And mutation is not equivalent to genetic drift.

[Guppycur]

And I would call that hubris.

 

But, I like to keep it simple.

[wolffblood]

When did I sign up for a science journal forum?

[TSBX]

Wow this sounds like an interesting topic! I'll bet you'd get a lot more participation if you were to start a thread in Off-Topic Discussion!

[Guppycur]

When did I sign up for a science journal forum?

 

A few days ago.