Emeralds are not green

[Amethyst Phoenix]

I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us.

 

I'll consider a rebuttal when you stop being a pompous watermelon.

 

I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us.

 

I believe it has some deeper meaning behind it' date=' something to do with proving things, possibly.

 

Interesting, but, is there any research you can find? A link, a copypasta'd article? This seems quite interesting.

[/quote']

 

First Part: DING DING DING, WE HAVE A WINNER

 

Second Part: I'm not actually saying Emeralds are green, I'm here to discuss what seperates Science from non-Science. What makes any theory better than any other. Not really a debate, more of a friendly discussion.

 

Hmmmmmm, what makes one thing better than the other.

 

Whichever one makes more sense? Whichever one matches up with all the pieces of the puzzle.

 

But, then maybe if it's just a theory, whichever one makes the most sense, whichever one is just more appealing.

 

See, the way I sea it, it's not one is actually better than the other, because they are both theories, which means there are no supporting facts yet, just theories.

 

So, it comes down to the eye of the beholder, and which one makes the most sense to the people listening to the theories.

 

Oh thank god, there is still hope for YCM.

 

This post is good.

 

So, theories can't be decided upon fact, what can they be decided upon?

 

The most logical conclusion, which can be reached by rational thought and evidence.

 

Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief

 

 

Note the word "tends".

[Icy]

Emeralds are not green.

 

Their emerald.

 

*slap*

 

Ooh and ITT: Science is just a bunch of theories with MORE evidence to back it up than anything else.

[BehindTheMask]

ITT: Science is just a bunch of theories with MORE evidence to back it up than anything else.

 

Well, yeah, it is. This is a problem with Science. We cannot completely prove something is completely correct. There are also 2 other problems, the usage of terms, and the usage of Universally quantified sentences.

 

The usage of terms in science is quite bad. There are two types: Theoretical and Observational. Science tries to explain the unknown observations they see with both terms. Take, for example I have a red round rubber ball. I release the ball from my hand. It falls to the ground. Science uses the theoretical term "gravity" to describe the theoretical term "force" to explain why the ball reaches the ground.

 

Problem 2: Universally quantified sentences(UQS): Science uses UQS to describe what will happen based on our knowledge. In my Grue example, the word "All" was used. The problem with this is if I see one emerald that is Orange then my theory fails. Why is this bad for science? Science wants to COMPLETELY PROVE things. If we cannot describe what will happen in a domain, then what is the use?

 

 

In Conclusion: So, we see science has these flaws. So, what separates Non-Science from Science, YCM?

[Altαir]

Okay. A true statement is "Emeralds are Green". A true fact is that "Emeralds will be Blue". Lets say, this is because the pigment in the emerald will adapt to the outside enviroment. This is a change, and just as you can't say: "There is no water today, but the cup will be half-full tomorrow. Therefore, the cup is half-full." If the Emeralds are blue in 4000 A.D., then you can say: "The color of the emerald is grue because it use to be green, but now is blue. Just as you can say: "The water is not half-full because I drank out of it." You cannot name something based on future events, that is how science goes. All you can do is make predictions of the future from the past.

 

Did I help? Probably not.

[Icy]

ITT: Science is just a bunch of theories with MORE evidence to back it up than anything else.

 

Well' date=' yeah, it is. This is a problem with Science. We cannot completely prove something is completely correct. There are also 2 other problems, the usage of terms, and the usage of Universally quantified sentences.

 

The usage of terms in science is quite bad. There are two types: Theoretical and Observational. Science tries to explain the unknown observations they see with both terms. Take, for example I have a red round rubber ball. I release the ball from my hand. It falls to the ground. Science uses the theoretical term "gravity" to describe the theoretical term "force" to explain why the ball reaches the ground.[/quote']

 

Yet at the same time, it is not common or wise practice to openly admit this until you have a firm grasp on what is 'fact'. Otherwise you run into other problems, and may result in a new kind of religion/society off this. Therefore, such knowledge is public and open; should not be taught right away.

 

Imagine the repercussions if you told a kid this? Say... 4-9yrs old. He would be terribly confused, and so would you not being able to make sense. So we do not differentiate until a person is deemed ready by their own selves.

 

Problem 2: Universally quantified sentences: Science uses UQS to describe what will happen based on our knowledge. In my Grue example' date=' the word "All" was used. The problem with this is if I see one emerald that is Orange then my theory fails. Why is this bad for science? Science wants to COMPLETELY PROVE things. If we cannot describe what will happen in a domain, then what is the use?

 

 

In Conclusion: TO BE ADDED

[/quote']

 

Are you sure science wants to completely prove, or does it just want to explore and find a way to use this knowledge? Even if it turns out to be wrong. Being able to use it now, is the whole point of it is it not?

 

Such as Steam Power was once deemed the best energy source (for lack of a better term), until coal and gasoline came along. Not sure what you're getting at lol.

 

EDIT: Lol @ Cephus, bringing nothing new into this.

[BehindTheMask]

ITT: Science is just a bunch of theories with MORE evidence to back it up than anything else.

 

Well' date=' yeah, it is. This is a problem with Science. We cannot completely prove something is completely correct. There are also 2 other problems, the usage of terms, and the usage of Universally quantified sentences.

 

The usage of terms in science is quite bad. There are two types: Theoretical and Observational. Science tries to explain the unknown observations they see with both terms. Take, for example I have a red round rubber ball. I release the ball from my hand. It falls to the ground. Science uses the theoretical term "gravity" to describe the theoretical term "force" to explain why the ball reaches the ground.[/quote']

 

Yet at the same time, it is not common or wise practice to openly admit this until you have a firm grasp on what is 'fact'. Otherwise you run into other problems, and may result in a new kind of religion/society off this. Therefore, such knowledge is public and open; should not be taught right away.

 

Imagine the repercussions if you told a kid this? Say... 4-9yrs old. He would be terribly confused, and so would you not being able to make sense. So we do not differentiate until a person is deemed ready by their own selves.

 

Yes, it would cause repercussions, however that is not my purpose. It's mainly to get people to think about what is science and what is non science. I would not expect anyone who doesn't have a basic understanding of certain scientific knowledge to understand Grue.

 

Problem 2: Universally quantified sentences: Science uses UQS to describe what will happen based on our knowledge. In my Grue example' date=' the word "All" was used. The problem with this is if I see one emerald that is Orange then my theory fails. Why is this bad for science? Science wants to COMPLETELY PROVE things. If we cannot describe what will happen in a domain, then what is the use?

 

 

In Conclusion: TO BE ADDED

[/quote']

 

Are you sure science wants to completely prove, or does it just want to explore and find a way to use this knowledge? Even if it turns out to be wrong. Being able to use it now, is the whole point of it is it not?

 

Such as Steam Power was once deemed the best energy source (for lack of a better term), until coal and gasoline came along. Not sure what you're getting at lol.

 

Read my "In Conclusion" That I added.

[Icy]

Haha... This ended quick.

 

In Conclusion: So' date=' we see science has these flaws. So, what separates Non-Science from Science, YCM?

[/quote']

 

What separates Non-Science from Science, is what we choose to believe as "facts" and what we believe is not a fact. Though, this is not to be confused with faith.

[Amethyst Phoenix]

Based on that, faith makes more sense.

 

Since absolute proof is something we can observe...

Science = sight, Faith = other senses.

 

Faith has a 5 sense advantage XD

[HORUS]

Suppose' date=' you were to say "All emeralds are green."

 

This is wrong.

 

Emeralds are not green, they are "grue".

 

What I mean by "grue" is that the emeralds are green, until 4000 A.D., then they will be blue.

 

Can you prove me wrong, YCM?

 

Also, discuss how science is not completely true.

[/quote']

 

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

I dismiss your claim that emeralds are not green on basis of thy lack of evidence.

[Willieh]

What makes any theory based on purely hypothetical support "valid" or "invalid" is the use of common sense. If an alternative theory holds more objective than subjective evidence, it automatically is the more sensible choice.

[ihop]

Surely everyone knows emerald are pink with orange polkadots?

[Mehmani]

Science can never prove something 100%.

[-Griffin]

I would like to go back to the point someone raised earlier.

It said something along the lines of, "science aims to prove [...]".

Personally, I believe that "science," is not an entity which aims to do anything, but a process by which certain people attempt to achieve their own goals, regardless of if that goal is complete proof or just reasonable evidence.

[BehindTheMask]

Haha... This ended quick.

 

In Conclusion: So' date=' we see science has these flaws. So, what separates Non-Science from Science, YCM?

[/quote']

 

What separates Non-Science from Science, is what we choose to believe as "facts" and what we believe is not a fact. Though, this is not to be confused with faith.

 

But, what if I have a wacky theory. "Quietude is the center of wholeness." This is true if flowers bloom in spring, and rivers flow down stream. I have facts. Is this a science?

 

Based on that' date=' faith makes more sense.

 

Since absolute proof is something we can observe...

Science = sight, Faith = other senses.

 

Faith has a 5 sense advantage XD

[/quote']

 

Why does Faith make more sense?

 

Suppose' date=' you were to say "All emeralds are green."

 

This is wrong.

 

Emeralds are not green, they are "grue".

 

What I mean by "grue" is that the emeralds are green, until 4000 A.D., then they will be blue.

 

Can you prove me wrong, YCM?

 

Also, discuss how science is not completely true.

[/quote']

 

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

I dismiss your claim that emeralds are not green on basis of thy lack of evidence.

 

I do have proof. All the emeralds are green right now, before 4000 A.D. How can you say that my theory has no evidence?

 

What makes any theory based on purely hypothetical support "valid" or "invalid" is the use of common sense. If an alternative theory holds more objective than subjective evidence' date=' it automatically is the more sensible choice.

[/quote']

 

But both my theory of Grue and your theory "All Emeralds are green" make perfect sense though.

 

Science can never prove something 100%.

 

Raelen was right. Science can't prove something 100%.

[J-Max]

It's how YOU see it. I think Rubies are Red, Topaz is Yellow/Orange. Emeralds to me are Green.

[BehindTheMask]

It's how YOU see it. I think Rubies are Red' date=' Topaz is Yellow/Orange. Emeralds to me are Green.

[/quote']

 

Not really, "color" is the ability to reflect or absorb light. A "red" object absorbs every frequency of visible light, except red, which it reflects. A "blue" object absorbs every frequency of visible light, except blue, which it reflects...etc

[-Griffin]

And on the emerald subject, try and prove this wrong:

All emeralds are not Green OR Grue, they are Bleen, and would be blue if they had been observed earlier, specifically, before the earth was created.

[Cyndaquil]

Suppose' date=' you were to say "All emeralds are green."

 

[b']This is wrong.[/b]

 

Emeralds are not green, they are "grue".

 

What I mean by "grue" is that the emeralds are green, until 4000 A.D., then they will be blue.

 

Can you prove me wrong, YCM?

 

Also, discuss how science is not completely true.

We are still right,

we are talking in the present tense saying that they are green. We will be wrong when 4000 A.D comes. >_>

[BehindTheMask]

Suppose' date=' you were to say "All emeralds are green."

 

[b']This is wrong.[/b]

 

Emeralds are not green, they are "grue".

 

What I mean by "grue" is that the emeralds are green, until 4000 A.D., then they will be blue.

 

Can you prove me wrong, YCM?

 

Also, discuss how science is not completely true.

We are still right,

we are talking in the present tense saying that they are green. We will be wrong when 4000 A.D comes. >_>

 

No, you are wrong.

 

Something cannot be "green" and "not green" at the same time.

[Cyndaquil]

Suppose' date=' you were to say "All emeralds are green."

 

[b']This is wrong.[/b]

 

Emeralds are not green, they are "grue".

 

What I mean by "grue" is that the emeralds are green, until 4000 A.D., then they will be blue.

 

Can you prove me wrong, YCM?

 

Also, discuss how science is not completely true.

We are still right,

we are talking in the present tense saying that they are green. We will be wrong when 4000 A.D comes. >_>

 

No, you are wrong.

 

Something cannot be "green" and "not green" at the same time.

TBH, I couldn't care less

[Infinitus]

ITT: Science is just a bunch of theories with MORE evidence to back it up than anything else.

 

Well' date=' yeah, it is. This is a problem with Science. We cannot completely prove something is completely correct. There are also 2 other problems, the usage of terms, and the usage of Universally quantified sentences.

 

The usage of terms in science is quite bad. There are two types: Theoretical and Observational. Science tries to explain the unknown observations they see with both terms. Take, for example I have a red round rubber ball. I release the ball from my hand. It falls to the ground. Science uses the theoretical term "gravity" to describe the theoretical term "force" to explain why the ball reaches the ground.

 

Problem 2: Universally quantified sentences(UQS): Science uses UQS to describe what will happen based on our knowledge. In my Grue example, the word "All" was used. The problem with this is if I see one emerald that is Orange then my theory fails. Why is this bad for science? Science wants to COMPLETELY PROVE things. If we cannot describe what will happen in a domain, then what is the use?

 

 

In Conclusion: So, we see science has these flaws. So, what separates Non-Science from Science, YCM?

[/quote']

 

What seperates non-science from science?

 

Science is made up of mostly theories. Things we cannot know for sure, so we decide to find facts and supporting evidence, which could actually be related to something entirely different.

 

Things that we could not, can not, and will not witness, even with evidence, is a theory, because that evidence could belong to a theory yet to come.

 

EX: The Big Bang. No one was there to see it, we can't send probes to see if it really happened, we cannot reverse time to see if it happened. So, we tried to find backround radiation, and we did. However, it could still belong to other things, and the Big Bang may not have happened, and be simply a theory.

 

Non-science is theories. Science is 100% true, and completely proved theories, which have become facts.

 

What seperates them, is fact. The completely true theories are facts, and until proven, the theories are mere fairy tales, waiting to be called "true".

 

Of course, this matter is completely opinional, as to what seperates science and non-science, as well as the definition of both (In some ways), so this is merely my opinion on the subject.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

HEY GUYS.

 

ON A SLIGHTLY RELATED NOTE.

 

MY GRUE COULD BE YOUR RED.

 

AND YOUR GRUE COULD BE MY PINK.

 

AND YOU'D HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING.

 

BECAUSE EYE CELLS ARE LIKE THAT.

 

^_______^

[Cowboy Dan]

Can I prove you wrong? Yes.

 

You see [insert random BS here] and there you have it.

[Dark]

BehindTheMask is actually a 70-year old pedophile who abducts 71-year old ladies, rapes them, forces them to marry him, kills them, and picks up their insurance policy money.

 

Can you prove me wrong?

 

Using the logic stated in your first and subsequent posts, no, you cannot prove me wrong.

 

Anyone can make blatant and stupid claims and ask for proof that the claim is untrue.

 

But if you are making the claim, shouldn't it be your duty to prove to us that your claim is, in fact, true?

 

Here is another example, one done before in a religion thread on YCM:

 

"I am actually invisible. It's true. As long as no one can see me, and there are no video cameras around, I am always invisible. Once someone sees me, I automatically turn visible. And you cannot prove me wrong, can you?"

[HORUS]

I do have proof. All the emeralds are green right now' date=' before 4000 A.D. How can you say that my theory has no evidence?[/quote']

 

That is not proof that emeralds will change colour.