surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:01 pm
Evidence is the available body of facts demonstrating whether a hypothesis is true but it is always incomplete so is not entirely reliable
Is evidence only in relation to a 'hypothesis'?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:01 pmNew evidence can either refute existing evidence or add to it
Therefore, what was originally called "evidence" was actually in fact NOT evidence at all, to me, anyway.
See, 'you' and 'I' have two completely opposing views on this. And this helps in explaining WHY I am able to SEE and UNDERSTAND what the actual Truth of things IS, and WHY you are still looking and searching for answers.
From your perspective, what was originally called "evidence" was just some thing used to 'try to' "justify" one's already held position, already held view, already held assumption, and/or already held belief of some thing.
An OPEN person does NOT hold any position, view, assumption nor belief of ANY thing, until actual evidence comes forward, and then they still do NOT 'hold' any thing, they just remain OPEN and just express what they have observed, with the view that they have NOW, which is obviously always OPEN to change.
Also, how could an available body of 'facts' be incomplete and so not entirely reliable?
A fact is a thing known or proven to be true.
If a thing is already known or proven to be true, then how could that be incomplete, or not entirely reliable? In fact, How could a fact even change?
If some thing is a fact, then how could it suddenly not become a fact?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:01 pm but there is never a point where it becomes absolute since it is inductive
Since 'what' is inductive?
I think you have gone off track and are talking about some thing else entirely to what I was talking about.
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:01 pmWhat can not be refuted is proof for proof is absolute but this applies to mathematics not to science which has to use evidence instead
So, to you, absolutely NOTHING in science can be proven, correct?
If no, then what are you saying?
If yes, then science, literally, has nothing to with proof and truth.
Science and the scientific method, after all, only deals with what is essentially just guesses anyway, and if through science what is used to verify or falsify a 'hypothesis' is ALWAYS incomplete and NOT entirely reliable, then this would explain WHY science is so WRONG so OFTEN.
All science essentially does is just to propose more and more hypotheses, based on what was always originally incomplete and not entirely reliable to begin with.
This, combined with human beings propensity to BELIEVE what is told to them explains a tremendous amount about WHY 'you', human beings, are so far from understanding the actual Truth of things.
I use facts as the evidence to prove what IS True.
What IS True is irrefutable, absolute, complete and entirely reliable.
See, unlike science, which is all always just looking at another hypothesis, which you admit science also HAS TO use what is incomplete and so not entirely reliable at all, I CAN ACTUALLY prove absolutely what I say is
what IS True. I do this with PROOF. I use
what IS already known and proven to be True as the evidence to prove the view, which I am expressing at any given moment of NOW.