PC The Offtopic, A17 thread.

Not Theory, Proven.
Thats why smart kettles come with a coffee button that heats it to 95C exactly now :p

Breville-BKE830-1.7L-Smart-Kettle-Pure-Controls-high.jpeg
Click to expand...
My name is "A Nice Cup of Tea" and I approve of this message.

 
Like the theory of gravity? Theory of relativity?An unproven statement is an hypothesis. Once experimentally proven in different places, peer-reviewed and a consesis is emerging, you can start talking about a theory.

"Theory" means model in science.
Click to expand...
I think he meant Hypothesis, its a hair splitting thing, but it did lead to erroneously calling Evolution a theory and not the correct term, hypothesis.

The scientific model works for anything and everything... except people... who are crazy. :)

 
Scientific fact requires 100% reproducible results, otherwise it's theory.
Click to expand...

Like the theory of gravity? Theory of relativity?An unproven statement is an hypothesis. Once experimentally proven in different places, peer-reviewed and a consesis is emerging, you can start talking about a theory.

"Theory" means model in science.
Click to expand...

I think he meant Hypothesis, its a hair splitting thing, but it did lead to erroneously calling Evolution a theory and not the correct term, hypothesis.
Click to expand...
More to the point (sorry, this is a bugbear of mine), that things like gravity, relativistic effects, and evolution exist are simple facts. The theory part is that our hypothesised models of how they work have stood up to scrutiny (so far).

That these things have the word "theory" in them doesn't mean we don't know if they exist or not. Their existence is not "just a theory" (and therefore up for debate). Their existence is observed fact. They may not work quite the way we think they do (although the fact that they are all theories rather than just hypotheses is an indicator that we're pretty sure they do in fact work like we think) but whether or not we've got the mechanisms behind them correct doesn't mean that the phenomena themselves are in any doubt.

 
More to the point (sorry, this is a bugbear of mine), that things like gravity, relativistic effects, and evolution exist are simple facts. The theory part is that our hypothesised models of how they work have stood up to scrutiny (so far).
That these things have the word "theory" in them doesn't mean we don't know if they exist or not. Their existence is not "just a theory" (and therefore up for debate). Their existence is observed fact. They may not work quite the way we think they do (although the fact that they are all theories rather than just hypotheses is an indicator that we're pretty sure they do in fact work like we think) but whether or not we've got the mechanisms behind them correct doesn't mean that the phenomena themselves are in any doubt.
Click to expand...
This.

 
More to the point (sorry, this is a bugbear of mine), that things like gravity, relativistic effects, and evolution exist are simple facts. The theory part is that our hypothesised models of how they work have stood up to scrutiny (so far).
That these things have the word "theory" in them doesn't mean we don't know if they exist or not. Their existence is not "just a theory" (and therefore up for debate). Their existence is observed fact. They may not work quite the way we think they do (although the fact that they are all theories rather than just hypotheses is an indicator that we're pretty sure they do in fact work like we think) but whether or not we've got the mechanisms behind them correct doesn't mean that the phenomena themselves are in any doubt.
Click to expand...

I'd hate to be the poor bastard observing the fact of evolution. Worse than watching paint dry.

 
More to the point (sorry, this is a bugbear of mine), that things like gravity, relativistic effects, and evolution exist are simple facts. The theory part is that our hypothesised models of how they work have stood up to scrutiny (so far).
That these things have the word "theory" in them doesn't mean we don't know if they exist or not. Their existence is not "just a theory" (and therefore up for debate). Their existence is observed fact. They may not work quite the way we think they do (although the fact that they are all theories rather than just hypotheses is an indicator that we're pretty sure they do in fact work like we think) but whether or not we've got the mechanisms behind them correct doesn't mean that the phenomena themselves are in any doubt.
Click to expand...
Peoples opinions are not substitutes for the proven steps of the scientific method.

You can believe anything is a fact (and it might be so) but if it can't be proven by the scientific method, it will remain a hypothesis (an opinion). Even Theories (which are proven by that method) are not considered FACT (Law) until all other possible explanations are exhausted.

 
Is that company still in business? :p
Click to expand...
Lol, yes they are. They make a few hundred million a year, so any kind of shut down for them costs them millions even if just for a day. So they apparently were trying to find the best time to do it. I think the machine just finally gave up is why it was "shut down". That's the thing about doing industrial contracting, you always deal with these people that make so much money, you do things on their time, or at least hope to.

 
Peoples opinions are not substitutes for the proven steps of the scientific method.
You can believe anything is a fact (and it might be so) but if it can't be proven by the scientific method, it will remain a hypothesis (an opinion). Even Theories (which are proven by that method) are not considered FACT (Law) until all other possible explanations are exhausted.
Click to expand...
Hypotheses are invented to explain the observed facts - the facts must come first.

To bring this full circle (and back on topic), the original post that started this tangent was someone posting their hypothesis ("the devs are working on something else") about the cause of A17 having not yet been released.

But the entire premise on which that hypothesis was based was the fact that A17 has indeed not yet been released. That A17 has not yet been released is a fact, not just an opinion. We do not need to invoke the scientific method to prove that A17 has not been released, and we certainly don't need to refrain from calling its unreleased status a fact until we have exhausted all other possible explanations for why we are not currently playing it.

 
More to the point (sorry, this is a bugbear of mine), that things like gravity, relativistic effects, and evolution exist are simple facts. The theory part is that our hypothesised models of how they work have stood up to scrutiny (so far).
That these things have the word "theory" in them doesn't mean we don't know if they exist or not. Their existence is not "just a theory" (and therefore up for debate). Their existence is observed fact. They may not work quite the way we think they do (although the fact that they are all theories rather than just hypotheses is an indicator that we're pretty sure they do in fact work like we think) but whether or not we've got the mechanisms behind them correct doesn't mean that the phenomena themselves are in any doubt.
Click to expand...
It's only a fact until it isn't.

- - - Updated - - -

I love it, but straight off I can see two problems
1) undermining a city like this would cause SI problems in the buildings above and

2) Madmole has said that they are removing the turds from A17 :rip:
Click to expand...
Concrete tunnels would probably help si.

 
Did.. did i misread something and crouk stated that his opinion was true? it was a thought and decided to post it on the forum and you want to attack? Crouk's opinion is just that, not speaking for anyone but himself.
Just calm down a bit, if you disagree, just say that rather than putting words into his mouth.
Click to expand...
He came on TFP's forums and accused them of lying about why A17 is not out yet. He then tried to play it off as him just stating his "opinion". That's not how opinions work.

 
Hypotheses are invented to explain the observed facts - the facts must come first.
To bring this full circle (and back on topic), the original post that started this tangent was someone posting their hypothesis ("the devs are working on something else") about the cause of A17 having not yet been released.

But the entire premise on which that hypothesis was based was the fact that A17 has indeed not yet been released. That A17 has not yet been released is a fact, not just an opinion. We do not need to invoke the scientific method to prove that A17 has not been released, and we certainly don't need to refrain from calling its unreleased status a fact until we have exhausted all other possible explanations for why we are not currently playing it.
Click to expand...
How do you KNOW A17 has not been released to some people? It's your guess you are calling a fact.

Scientifically proven facts sometimes take decades of hard work and observation, they are the crowning achievements of mankind.

The only thing simple about "Simple facts" are the people who believe them.

 
Just like Flat Earth. Fact.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I didn't realize I had been triggered until your post. :)

I guess we all are on our last nerve and the best day in a year for many of us will be when A17 drops! I'll be ooh'ing and ahh'ing the streamers like a noob even. :)

***At Al's Marina and Science Warehouse, we are very... very sorry for releasing the Zombie Virus. Please accept our sincere... and humble apology for the slow and painful deaths of billions. ***

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay gents, you guys seem a little bonkers spiting supposed truths about what science is what the terms it uses means. Here's a snapshot that isn't riddled with inaccuracies. Hypotheses make certain observations more or less probable. hypotheses also contain certain predictions. The greater the prediction's "unexpectedness", the more compelling they are in support of a given hypothesis. There are also epistemic or cognitive or theoretical values that scientists consider in rational theory choice: explanatory power, scope, fruitfulness, internal consistency, elegance/simpleness. If you're still interested, you can check out my MA paper on the topic of objectivity in science titled The Likelihood Principle: Objectivity and the Values and Science Debate. Cheers.

 
How do you KNOW A17 has not been released to some people? It's your guess you are calling a fact.
Click to expand...
"To some people" is not a release. If we use your definition of fact then even the existence of other people is not a fact because Solipsism could be true.

Scientifically proven facts sometimes take decades of hard work and observation, they are the crowning achievements of mankind.
Click to expand...
Yes, but even in science fact means just practically proven or observed beyond reasonable doubt. "fact" can't be absolute because no knowledge is absolute, all observation could have been in a bubble as small as you want, see Solipsism as one of the most "effective" bubbles.

Gravitation, heliocentricity, evolution (which is directly observable in the genes of short lived organisms by the way), law of conservation of energy, ... are in practice scientific facts even though no real scientist would every stop testing them. If you deny one of them the label "fact", you should deny all scientific knowledge the label "fact" and call everything "theory".

 
Okay gents, you guys seem a little bonkers spiting supposed truths about what science is what the terms it uses means. Here's a snapshot that isn't riddled with inaccuracies. Hypotheses make certain observations more or less probable. hypotheses also contain certain predictions. The greater the prediction's "unexpectedness", the more compelling they are in support of a given hypothesis. There are also epistemic or cognitive or theoretical values that scientists consider in rational theory choice: explanatory power, scope, fruitfulness, internal consistency, elegance/simpleness. If you're still interested, you can check out my MA paper on the topic of objectivity in science titled The Likelihood Principle: Objectivity and the Values and Science Debate. Cheers.
Click to expand...
Your Philosophy paper was interesting, I think you know that Likelihoodism is favored more by statisticians than the empirical, scientific model community.

 
"To some people" is not a release. If we use your definition of fact then even the existence of other people is not a fact because Solipsism could be true.


Yes, but even in science fact means just practically proven or observed beyond reasonable doubt. "fact" can't be absolute because no knowledge is absolute, all observation could have been in a bubble as small as you want, see Solipsism as one of the most "effective" bubbles.

Gravitation, heliocentricity, evolution (which is directly observable in the genes of short lived organisms by the way), law of conservation of energy, ... are in practice scientific facts even though no real scientist would every stop testing them. If you deny one of them the label "fact", you should deny all scientific knowledge the label "fact" and call everything "theory".
Click to expand...
With Evolution, don't confuse speciation with mutation. People even tried to change the definition of what speciation meant. But you can believe whatever you want, have at it.

 
"To some people" is not a release. If we use your definition of fact then even the existence of other people is not a fact because Solipsism could be true.


Yes, but even in science fact means just practically proven or observed beyond reasonable doubt. "fact" can't be absolute because no knowledge is absolute, all observation could have been in a bubble as small as you want, see Solipsism as one of the most "effective" bubbles.

Gravitation, heliocentricity, evolution (which is directly observable in the genes of short lived organisms by the way), law of conservation of energy, ... are in practice scientific facts even though no real scientist would every stop testing them. If you deny one of them the label "fact", you should deny all scientific knowledge the label "fact" and call everything "theory".
Click to expand...
Again, you guys are bunging it up and mincing science jargon with colloquial expression. Stop. In scientific terms, theories are huge composites of models, hypotheses, assumptions etc. They can span across many scientific fields. For example, Darwin's and Wallace's 19th c. Natural Selection and 20 c. classical genetics were married to form the Modern Synthesis. These are "Theories". Evolution by common decent is the fact.

 
With Evolution, don't confuse speciation with mutation. People even tried to change the definition of what speciation meant. But you can believe whatever you want, have at it.
Click to expand...
Stop. It's "Don't confuse SELECTION with mutation. SPECIATION is nested in selection and genetic drift.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top