Science is Based on Faith like Theism?

[rootseeker]

And, 'you' ARE AWARE and AGREE THAT there ARE MANY dictionaries and ALL have and hold DIFFERENT 'definitions', right?


Is an 'assertion' more of what IS 'a fact' or more of just what one 'thinks or believes is true'? Or, an 'assertion' can be both, and it is ONLY ON FURTHER 'investigation' what the ACTUAL Truth IS here COMES-TO-LIGHT?


They COULD BE, but WHY BOTHER. Obviously if some 'thing' IS A 'Fact', then 'it' can NOT be REFUTED in ANY way or shape. Whereas, if some 'thing' is just what one thinks or BELIEVES is true, ONLY, then what the ACTUAL Truth IS WILL have to be WAITED FOR, and SEEN.


But, to me, 'mathematics' just involves invented and created 'numbers', and NOT necessarily 'rooted in' 'axioms' AT ALL. Unless, OF COURSE, 'you' are using a particular definition for the word 'axiom' here, which I am UNAWARE OF.


I HAVE and USE a completely DIFFERENT definition here for the 'science' word.

The reason I bothered mentioning the fact-opinion dichotomy is because I don't have a binary answer to your factuality question. There are multiple definitions of words, so context is important, as is using the definition of highest communication utility for the context to avoid confusion. An assertion can be both a fact and/or what one thinks or believes is true with further investigation being warranted, similar to a proposal or hypothesis.

When you say and use the 'fact' word are you talking about or referring to an irrefutable to EVERY one 'truth'?

Truth values of mathematics, with mathematics proof, are expressed by mathematicians with endpoints of axioms. "prove that x is true" is always a question of axioms for a mathematician.

But "mathematicians' can ONLY work with 'numbers' and with 'endpoints' ending with 'numbers' as well.

Which can sometimes be really useless when considering or dealing with ideas, and 'words'.

So, there may be aspects of math that are not axiomatic but when it comes to truth values, those values are axiomatic. Science is a method of determining truth, and scientists claim "truth" in terms of quantity measurements, statistical probability, mathematical formulas, curve-fitting, and other mathematical concepts. What are truth values of science that are not based in mathematics or quantifiable metrics?

I have NO idea.

But 'science', itself, to me, deals with only 'that', which is not yet known. To me, 'science' deals with presumptions, theories, hypotheses, and/or guesses only, and considering 'this' it could then be said or argued that 'science', itself, being also based on 'these things' is then also 'faith based' just like 'theism' IS.

A fact is a categorization of something as the truth. Irrefutable truth is something that is only known with absolute knowledge by an omniscient person. I could claim irrefutable truth as relative knowledge in that I don't have one iota of doubt in any way, and furthermore maximum confidence that no further changes to my mind about that topic are possible, but even then I am a fallible person. So if I were to claim irrefutable truth it would be as relative knowledge unless stated otherwise. So, I do consider facts as irrefutable truth(s) only in the context of relative knowledge.

[Age]

The reason I bothered mentioning the fact-opinion dichotomy is because I don't have a binary answer to your factuality question. There are multiple definitions of words, so context is important, as is using the definition of highest communication utility for the context to avoid confusion. An assertion can be both a fact and/or what one thinks or believes is true with further investigation being warranted, similar to a proposal or hypothesis.

When you say and use the 'fact' word are you talking about or referring to an irrefutable to EVERY one 'truth'?

Truth values of mathematics, with mathematics proof, are expressed by mathematicians with endpoints of axioms. "prove that x is true" is always a question of axioms for a mathematician.

But "mathematicians' can ONLY work with 'numbers' and with 'endpoints' ending with 'numbers' as well.

Which can sometimes be really useless when considering or dealing with ideas, and 'words'.

So, there may be aspects of math that are not axiomatic but when it comes to truth values, those values are axiomatic. Science is a method of determining truth, and scientists claim "truth" in terms of quantity measurements, statistical probability, mathematical formulas, curve-fitting, and other mathematical concepts. What are truth values of science that are not based in mathematics or quantifiable metrics?

I have NO idea.

But 'science', itself, to me, deals with only 'that', which is not yet known. To me, 'science' deals with presumptions, theories, hypotheses, and/or guesses only, and considering 'this' it could then be said or argued that 'science', itself, being also based on 'these things' is then also 'faith based' just like 'theism' IS.

A fact is a categorization of something as the truth. Irrefutable truth is something that is only known with absolute knowledge by an omniscient person. I could claim irrefutable truth as relative knowledge in that I don't have one iota of doubt in any way, and furthermore maximum confidence that no further changes to my mind about that topic are possible, but even then I am a fallible person. So if I were to claim irrefutable truth it would be as relative knowledge unless stated otherwise. So, I do consider facts as irrefutable truth(s) only in the context of relative knowledge.

Okay.