I am referring to the most efficient use of a word. Knowledge of evidence is knowledge of evidence but it is not knowledge of the crime, it is just knowledge of the evidence.

As I said before, knowledge of a crime does not have the same meaning as evidence of a crime.

JennieBean...again you are avoiding the question....tell of one thing in existence that is not knowledge.....tell of one piece of evidence that would not be regarded as being knowledge

If it is known, then it is knowledge. If it is not known, then it is not knowledge.

I cannot tell of a thing that is not known.

so if evidence is not known is it still evidence?

you guys are fighting over the meaning of the word now?

You are asking a question that has already been answered....

Peter_Pan .....if it was answered then I wouldn't be asking....perhaps the question is beyond you ....so please allow JennieBean to answer it

the same as "not" pregnant or a "little" pregnant

Nothing make me think that. We're speaking philosophy remember? You said that you thought the problem wasn't even worth working on because we're nowhere near the solution and I said you have to work on something to get anywhere near the solution. Too hard to understand?

Though I still haven't ever heard any mention of what exactly it is that you did. Care to share or do you just say that you used to be a scientist so that you sound more like you know what you're talking about?

Without protons we'd never have the declaration of independence either but the properties of particles don't make much sense on the scale of government models.

If it's too hard to explain in layman speak go ahead and lay down the full technical explanation of what mysteries in neurology are waiting on quantum mechanics to become accessible, please.

How is this releveant to the questions I have raised?

Now you're just repeating yourself.

What aspect of inertia do we not understand well enough to deal with electrons?

Macro properties that we are already familiar with.

Yes, I've talked about this before.

You're vague. Tell me specifically something we don't know but hope to find out with improved comprehension of quantum mechanics.

If they affected electrons in a significant way that we did not already understand why would we bother with particle accelerators instead of just observing electrons and extrapolating from that?

Ya but the Higgs boson is the one that the standard model relies on.

Once again, what good will understanding those particles do for figuring out if walks lighten people's moods or not?

I don't acknowledge it to people with a poor grasp of what it signifies. This is essentially an expert's detail that holds no meaning at a layman's level and is in fact counterproductive to their comprehension.

If everyone was excited by science and wanted to learn this would be a different story.

As you've said to me: I already know about that.

The issue here is not what you've chosen to say but the reason you've chosen to say it. What relevance do the newest frontiers of knowledge have on thoroughly explored ground?

From what I've seen of how you work it seems that they are just a scarecrow to divert attention from questions you do not want answered.

Typo right? You left out the word don't somewhere in there I think.

It's phrases like this that show your true character. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes it clear what you want.

We have a great deal of understanding of what's going on. Newtonian mechanics explain 99% of the things people will ever come across. To say that we didn't have a clue what was going on even back in his day would have been a bald faced lie.
Now we know 99.9999% of what there is to know about the world in the mechanical sense.

You seem to want to equate things like the knowledge of how many hairs are on a person's head with the comprehension of how hairs grow (inhibitor that is it's own promoter and promoter that inhibits the inhibitor by the way,) but the desire to justify belief trumps honesty I suppose.

Replace both of those with hiding your motives if you value honesty.

But it's so much easier to say that you're just a biased jerk than to actually think about why a proposal has failed. Much easier to say that anyone that does not accept my arguments is only doing so because they subscribe to a false faith.

gotcha!

Here is an example for "evidence".


I'll make a statement. In the Sirius star cluster, there is a planet just like Earth.

I have no evidence, because we don't have the technology yet to see what is in the sirius star cluster.

does it mean there is no Earth like planet in the Sirus cluster?

No, but neither the opposite. With the lack of evidence, but also the lack of necessary tools and technology we cannot tell what is going on there.

So how should we treat this statement?

"A possibility".

Unfortunately it's hard for many people to process this, because we are used for the "yes" or "no" and that's it and whether you say "yes" or you say "no", you just sided yourself and laid back comfortably, and locked out curiosity and interest and became either a "believer" or a "denier" never realizing that both sides are wrong, due to the lack of evidence to support, whether it's a "yes" or "no".

With all due respect sir, you have never even seen me work. So you have absolutely no clue what you are even talking about. All you have ever seen is my sharing of my profound wisdom on an internet dating sight and not charge for it.

Believe whatever you like about science and quantum mechanics. I couldn't care less. I perfer to think like the most brilliant scientists in history have to say:

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" - Stephen Hawking

Most truly brilliant scientists recognize that there is far more going on than just the dry mathematical description of non-existent billiard balls.

So I'm in great company and the way I work is in perfectly harmony with the way the greatest minds in all of science have worked.

Someday you may also become enlightened to the fact that nature is far more than just a mathematical description of non-existent billiard balls. And, after all, science is the studying of nature. So to ignore things like human intuition, emotion, and psychic wisdom would be silly since that too is very much a part of nature.

Get your head out of the microscope and look around at the big picture. Smell the roses and realize that the very experience of that is undefinable by the scientific method.

Without spirituality, science is lame.

it would not be referred to as a possibility because as you said you have no evidence therefore it would be assumption and/or faith

also you have nothing to lose by making such an assumption ...for example....let's say that there were a billion clusters and only one of them contained an Earth-like planet that you could survive on and you had to leave Earth immediatly ....now explain out of all the billions of clusters why would you pick the cluster "sirus" to go to

If it is not known of that question becomes a moot point.

therefore anything not known or revealed can not be used as proof until it is known and/or revealed and this is why "Unrevealed Evidence" is not proof but faith ...

Wrong. As expressed earlier, if someone is shot, there is a gun that did the shooting. The bullet is the proof of the gun, along with chemical traces of the gunpowder and the bullet wound of the one who was shot.

I once went to the Exploratorium in San Francisco where they had demonstrations of holography.

Sitting on a pedestal there appeared to be a wine glass. When I reached out to touch it, I could not. My hand passed right through it.

In other words, my sense of touch could not detect the wine glass. But my sense of sight could detect it.

Now consider this from the perspective of a blind man...

As far as he’s concerned, there is no evidence of the existence of the wine glass. He simply cannot detect it by any means.

So where does that put the notion of “objective evidence”?

In this hypothetical situation, the “objective evidence” is entirely dependent on the abilities of the observer.

In other words, unless the blind man agrees with some explanation put forth by the sighted person, there is no basis or reason for accepting the existence of the wineglass. (Note that accepting the sighted man’s explanations, must be done on pure faith alone.)

So in this situation, what would constitute “objectivity” on the part of the blind man?

Would denial of the existence of the wineglass be considered an “objective” position? (There is, after all, no evidence.)

Would acceptance of the existence of the wineglass be considered an “objective” position? (This would have to be done on pure faith alone, since there is no evidence.)

Would assuming that the existence of the wineglass was unknowable be considered an “objective” position? (This would mean that “knowability” would have to be entirely subjective – i.e. based on the capabilities of the observer.)

Or is it even possible for the blind man to be objective about the wineglass at all?


Of course we could just fall back on the reliability of the perception of the sighted person and say that the wineglass exists regardless of whether or not the blind man can perceive it. But note that that position really has no more intrinsic merit than falling back on the reliability of the blind man and saying that the wineglass doesn’t exist, regardless of whether or not the sighted man can perceive it.

blue pill or red pill?
the question you should ask yourself is how far down the rabbit hole your willing to go.....

I am willing to go all the way.

Ditto. I'm always interested in what's at the bottom - if there is any bottom.

So I'll take both pills if you please.