|
|
 Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I think you're overstepping here.
Given that's perfectly non-insulting or offensive criticism of me, which came from spoonitnow of all people, I'll have to seek the truth in it.
Am I wrong about fanaticism? I understand fanaticism as the adherence to a belief despite any and all contrary evidence which may or may eventually come to light.
As such, any statement which expresses, "You'll never convince me otherwise," is inherently, and definitively fanatical.
If I'm misusing the word, I apologize.
If something else, you have my attention.
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Cold, unbiased, provable, repeatable, irrefutable facts are compelling to me.
Do physicists feel differently?
There is no such thing as a scientific fact, or if there is, the "scientific" part makes it not a "fact" in the colloquial usage.
Nothing can be considered a scientific result unless it describes the means by which it can be shown it is false.
Newton said, paraphrasing, F = ma. Einstein showed that is definitely false, without special treatment of m, which Newton definitely did not say or mean to say.
So any assertion that F = ma and "nothing could convince me otherwise," is a perfectly unscientific statement.
No matter how true it seemed for a couple hundred years, eventually, more information came to light, and showed it was not true.
This is the exact difference between science and fanaticism.
|
Reply With Quote