RJG wrote:Where did we say this particular "truth of science" contradicts simple logic? ...you are making up stuff again.
I think the point when we stop these kinds of discussions generally tends to be the point when they stop being interesting to us. In my view, in order to be interesting they don't necessarily need to lead to a definite conclusion or agreement (which is just as well because they rarely do), but the arguments that we use have to continue to be non-trivial and to not simply get stuck endlessly in very small loops. It's a bit like a game of chess. A game of chess often stops being interesting when the players each repeat the same 1 or 2 moves over and over again. In fact, in chess, I may be wrong but I think there's a rule whereby if the players repeat the same simple moves 3 times the game is deemed to be a stalemate. I think that's the point we've reached here.
In my view, we have reached the point where, for some reason, you deny saying things that you said pretty explicitly in the previous post, or few posts.
If these "truths of science" ("laws"), and their constant changes (revisions; modifications) contradict simple logic, then I have no appreciation for these "fairy tales" whatsoever.
This came after I attempted to start a discussion as to why
scientific laws/theories are deemed to require modification, by using a specific example of a scientific law, in order to examine your proposition that "scientific laws change constantly". It fits with many comments you've made in the past seemingly expressing the view that the discoveries of science (and, by extension, any process of creating a generalisation from a set of specific empirical observations) have no truth-value, which I take to mean that they have no information content. I have to assume that you mean they are, as you've put it, just some stuff that we've read and heard, of no more or less value than anything else that we might read or hear. You appeared to confirm this with your comments about the example of climate change, offering the opinion that all arguments on that subject, on either side, are equally truth-value-free because they are just a bunch of stuff we've read.
In the above quoted sentence you reference two concepts which you appear, judging by the structure of the sentence, to see as linked to each other: "the truths of science" and "their constant changes". The sentence is then a simple "IF X THEN Y" structure about these two concepts. The X is that the two concepts contradict simple logic. The Y contains two propositions in one. The first is that the two concepts (the truths of science and their constant changes) can be given the label "fairy tales" and the second is that you have no appreciation of them.
Therefore, the inevitable conclusion from this sentence, combined with your previous words, is that, in your view "the truths of science" change constantly and contradict simple logic. Since you don't qualify the expression "the truths of science" I have to assume that you mean all of them, including the example I chose. If you didn't meant that, then presumably you would have said something like this:
"The example you gave doesn't change constantly and contradict simple logic. But some of the propositions of science do. I propose that the subset of scientific propositions that change constantly and contradict simple logic should be given the label 'fairy tales' and I do not regard them as having any valid information content."
Now, I don't really want to have to do all of the above analysis of your words. It's not very interesting to have to try to examine why you say something and, when challenged over it, deny having said it. It will just lead to one of the small, uninteresting loops that I mentioned earlier. That's why I decided to leave it here.