Lol, so she wasn't the tiniest bit perturbed by the fact that her ex-husband had essentially put on a 10 YEAR act? What exactly was there to fix??

I support the divorce. The rest of the letter reeks of sensationalism, and I for one would love to hear her ex-husband's account. There has to be a reason a she lost all custody of their kids. I highly suspect he was the primary caregiver.

I find the format of the letter a bit comical

I like this conversation more and more, I must say.

Nonso23:

No. If tomorrow the world is proven to be flat by scientific methods, it would be stated that '' it was believed that the world was round in the year 2014 because the available 'knowlegde' could only prove it to be so''. The fact then will be 'the earth is flat'. Science is dynamic.

This is a very unlikely fantasy scenario but I get your point.

Another example:
If a glass slips from your hand, it will fall down and break on a hard ground, right or wrong?
Assumption or fact?

Thanks for the info, by the way.

Wrong. The theory
being that:
Two people chat when they exchange information in an informal manner. Any linguisti revision of the meaning makes the fact false. As chatting is no longer 'chatting' but something else.

Wrong.

chat

chatting, chatted
1 [intransitive] to talk in a friendly informal way to somebody
chat (to/with somebody)
My kids spend hours chatting on the phone to their friends.
chat away (to/with somebody)
Within minutes of being introduced they were chatting away like old friends.
chat about something/somebody
What were you chatting about?
2 [intransitive]
chat (away) (to/with somebody)
|
chat (about something/somebody)
to exchange messages with other people on the Internet, especially in a chat room
He's been on the computer all morning, chatting with his friends.

http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/chat_1

We are exchanging messages on the Internet, aren't we?
Is it an assumption or a fact?

I know a lot more about Sir Isaac Newton that you give me credit for.

No, I think I know where you are coming from.

The above write up is best regarded as accolades. Sir Isaac Newton's scientific methods have been regarded as only acceptable for models based upon his assumptions. E.g
He believed that a scientist is not part of the enviroment studied. That in science is false.
He believed that motion was absolute. That again is false.
He believed time was absolute. Recent studies trump that.
His laws of motion don't work for small bodies/particles. Nanotech is the future. It deals with atomic/subatomic particles.
Many of his laws have been modified or changed entirely
as they are at best approximations to the realio dealio.
In his time those were facts. Right now. Nope.
Not to take anything away from his contributions though.

Even with my restricted high school knowledge on physics, I can tell that his knowledge has not become obsolete.
And remember that I have never said that scientists cannot err.

I am not an expert on physics but I know the difference between assumption and fact.

Science assumes and believes a lot about the universe. I haven't seen anyone who has been to jupiter or why someone believes that since gravity holds earth to the sun then it holds any body in orbit. There could be thousands of other forces in the universe. Have they felt pluto? It could be an illusive image in our galaxy too and not a planet.
Are those not assumptions.

I have never seen anyone who has been on the sun but I know it exists.

It is a question of faith in assumptions.

In assumptions, yes. I never said anything else.

Ok.

Actually, I said science just like religion is a belief system. Religion call theirs dogmas/doctrines.
Science call theirs 'assumptions' . Worthy equivalents.

There is a difference between an assumption and a fact.
Even if some facts turn out to be wrong assumptions in the future, which happens, there is a difference between facts and assumptions.

I have given you examples above.

Maybe they are reffered to as claims now. They were regarded as facts even though erroneously. Sir Isaac Newton is believed to have been an alchemist too.

ok.

It was a fact. Keyword being 'was'. It is a joke now.
You just commited a scientific blunder. You do not regard scientific facts as truths.

I am not a scientist but I know the difference between science and religion.

Your initial statement was "Actually science just like religion is a belief system as it is based on a set of unverifiable assumptions." and this is wrong.

Like I said, it is not an assumption that pill A will relieve headache due to the neurological processes it triggers off in a human being's brain.
This is not an unverifiable assumption.

Like I said, we have been chatting on NL. It is not an assumption, it is a a fact.

I have learned a thing or two from you but I will not agree that religion and science are both based on a set of unverifiable assumptions. Many assumptions can EASILY be verified.

Nonso23:

I never said facts are assumptions. I said the scientific methods, processes used to derive these facts are based on assumptions.
I did my best to clarify the blurry portions on them too.

You said that science is, like religion, based on a set of unverifiable assumptions.
And I argued that this is not (entirely) true by distinguishing between assumptions and facts.

Even if the process of deriving facts is based on assumptions (hypotheses), the aim is to verify or to disprove these assumptions to create knowledge.
Scientists will strictly distinguish between a hypothesis and a "verified hypothesis", which then no longer is a hypothesis but a fact.

Then you went on to argue that what is a fact today may be proven to be an error tomorrow and that therefore there is nothing like an "objective truth". And I guess that you are a supporter of relativism. Correct me if I made a wrong assumption.

No. That is very correct. The basic assumptions of science require metaphysical explanations and verifications which are unavailable unfortunately.

This again is not entirely true.
Metaphysicians explore the nature of things, both physical and abstract and how they relate to each other.
If we take an apple, for instance, then we can describe its "nature" and inductively and deductively make universal statements about the nature of apples.

E.g. the objective reality part. Reality on its own is another different kettle of fish. How can one prove objective reality is possible? It is beyond the scope of science but it is a fundamental assumption that
all scientific knowledge are based upon.

I was right when I said that you come from the school of relativism, wasn't I?

Relativism, as you know, claims that all knowledge depends on context and that consequently there is no such a thing as universal knowledge , which I, to a great extent, consent to. If we, however keep the context constant, then the knowledge we have, remains.

There is a difference between objective reality and universal knowledge, which I think you missed to distinguish from each other. As long as the conditions, under which we see the Earth, remain the same, the Earth will be known to be round. This is an objective reality because it can be proven, under the given and current conditions. Human beings perceive the Earth's shape as round, under the given, current conditions.

It is not universal knowledge because we do not know whether this knowledge is eternal, given the possibility that our perception can be changed under changing conditions. And everybody knows, I hope, that everything is in constant change.

Consequently we must distinguish between objective reality, which MAY be temporal (as it depends on a number of different factors) and universal knowledge, which only exists regardless of time and space.

Like i've been trying to say before the drug was synthesized certain basic unverifiable assumptions were made. The dispensing machine, packaging and sealing machines were all designed based on a couple of unverifiable assumptions that involve and even transcend physical. That the drug works means those assumptions hold in that realm given those conditions. A little slip into another realm where they don't hold will prove fatal.

There we go again, the difference between objective truth and universal knowledge. Pill A helps relieve headache most of the time (=objective reality), pill A may not relieve headache in future as human beings evolve and change (no universal knowledge for the effect of pill A as nobody can says whether it will stand the test of time).

What helped in the past, doesn't help in the present because conditions underlie changes. This doesn't mean that it didn't help in the past. It helped in the past, this is a fact based on objective reality.

Currently. Thank you. You had better accept it. Take a step back from the scientific circle, consider the methods of other systems and objectively look back into science objectively. It did it for me.

I assume that you want me to see that science is not omniscient and that there is no such a thing as universal knowledge and I agree with you on this. Science is not omniscient but there is something like objective reality. It is an objective reality that we are chatting, isn't it?

Many assumptions can easily be verified? Imagine verifying an assumption using a method of verification which is based on the common assumptions of both the hypotheses and the method of verification? It's a loop. That's why science cannot criticize science. You will definitely get a positive 'verified' feedback. To scrutinize science the required knowledge must be higher. Hence philosophy is used.

The assumption that a certain substance will trigger off a neurological process in your brain can be verified.
The assumption that human beings can communicate with each other even when they are in different places was once an assumption which was proven and became a fact with the invention of telephones and then the Internet.
The assumption that human beings can fly, with the help of objects, has been verified with the invention of planes.
The assumption that animals have the ability to learn has been verified through observation and experiments.

We can go on and on.

Nonso23:

It is ENTIRELY TRUE.
Let me make an analogy.
Before you say for a fact, that if i jump up, i definitely will land due to gravity, as a scientist, you first must consider and believe the following as 'facts'.
1) That there is objective reality: In this context you believe that no matter who looks at me, where they look at me from, how they look at me and when they look at me; given the prevailing conditions they will see me jump up and land back on earth. That is completely unverifiable as the scientist is not an omnipresent observer from all parts of time and space. Hence no matter how small the uncertainty that that objective 'reality' may be wrong is, just the presence of that tiny bit of that uncertainty still makes it a relative reality based on that assumption.

I don't have to see you jump to know that you will fall. No need to complicate matters.
And like I said, it is an objective reality that you will fall, not a universal knowledge. I am sure you understand me.
No need for anyone to be omnipresent to know that it is an objective reality for men to fall when they jump.

2) That every force acting on me to pull me down is natural and hence can be studied naturally: We do not know for sure if our 'reality' is the only reality there is. We cannot state for sure that there are no spiritual dimensions or that there are. We cannot say with all certainty that spiritual force can affect the physical or otherwise. This UNCERTAINTY ultimately make the method of experiment and observation of science a process based on the above assumption which again is completely unverifiable.

What we cannot say is if the natural laws that things work according to are made by a spiritual power.
Even if we assume that they are caused by a spiritual force, we can still say that this spiritual power makes things function according to some pattern / laws and we can discover and understand these laws that underlie them.

I can say that all men and women are mortal.
Therefore I can say that you and I are mortal.
I cannot say if there is an afterworld but I know that when a person dies, he / she does not exist in the same way s/he has existed before.

3) That Universe/Nature is orderly: This is another unverifiable claim as again the scientist isn't and cannot be omniscient. The reason why science must believe this assumption in every case is simple. The percieved order of nature is the backbone of the scientific method. That it is in the study of an orderly system that a law can be generated, a theory propounded. A chaotic Universe cannot be studied nor can facts be gotten from it. As it stands now the 'UNCERTAINTY' that the universe may be chaotic as opposed to their 'orderly model' makes any law or theory you make about my jumping and falling a 'relative' conclusion based on the assumption above. Honestly, I can go on and on.

You have used the word "unverifiable claim" which shows that scientists are well aware of the difference between claim / assumption and facts.
Unlike a pastor who will tell you that you will burn in hell if you don't go to church or don't believe in God, they distinguish between claims / assumptions and facts. A pastor believes that what he says is true and this is subjective, even though he may have doubts.
Scientists do not seek to explain the world based on belief. They seek objective reality, not subjective convictions, they want to know.

Think about this:
Science claims that they use deduction to generate knowledge i.e from known to unknown but they start from the above assumptions/premises (for every law/theory) .Assumptions that are neither 'known' nor verfiable to study other stuffs ie gravity, time, forces etc. How does assumptions become 'truths' and suddenly qualify as a worthy base for the methods of science?? This is what i meant by 'shaky' foundation.

Example of deduction:

All men / women are mortal.
Therefore Nonso and Carefree are mortal.

This is a fact until proven otherwise. It is an objective reality because nobody has ver, regardless of space and time, seen any person who has not died sooner or later.

It is not universal knowledge because nobody can say if such a person will exist in future.

What I'm saying in essence is this:
science may develop laws, theories etc that work now but these laws are not considered as truths because science itself believe that every theory is only as good as long as it lasts.

This is why distinguished between objective reality and universal knowledge.

In case you do not know the reasons why planes fly is because that is the only way it can 'fail' (crash) and consequently the only way a realm where the assumptions that form the base of the laws of aerodynamics may be proven wrong and therefore revisited for advancement and modifications. Same for other sci/tech products.

It doesn't change the fact they they used to fly even if some of them crashed.

Nonso23:

Uhm, i do not actually think that I belong to any school of thought. If at all i belong to any then it must be of science.
I am a supporter of pragmatism but objective pragmatism. Relativism is too indepth.


Exactly! It is entirely true. I hope you do not take the 'universal' in the 'universal knowledge' literally?
Metaphysicists do not make claims nor are their methods based on assumptions. They employ a case by case study method. I.e using conditional statements like if, if not, when it is, when it's not etc. That is why it is regarded as a superior knowledge to science.
When a metaphysicist says ''this apple tastes good'' and calls it a universal knowledge this is exactly what he means:
At this moment, at this location in the universe, given the nature of my tastebuds, the physical and metaphysical forces acting on me and this apple .... This apple tastes good!
You see the conditions? The time when it becomes 'universal' knowledge is if a lot of people unanimously agree with that premise and eventual syllogism. 'Universal' in the sense of 'acceptable'
The moment someone says ''an apple is bitter'' a metaphysicist will reason from the perspective of the possibility of the change of the metaphysical forces that condition the taste of the apple.
That knowledge ceases to be acceptable or 'universal' immediately. The beauty of metaphysics.

I don't think so o.

That right there is another assumption of science. We cannot keep the context of appraisal of situations constant.
Whether we agree or not change will change.
Metaphysicists understand this principle, science? Not very much.

Yot actually have both of them mixed up. 'universal' knowledge is based on prevailing conditions. Objective reality remains constant through time, space and dimensions.
'An apple is sweet' is a universal knowledge. If something happens and suddenly all apples taste awkward, that universal knowledge is immediately corrected. To start with, you cannot create an objective reality. Objective in the sense of absolute, complete and total. Not subject to change nor space. That is the difference. Never the other way around
Universal knowledge are subject to conditions and hence are demonstrable, objective reality can not be demonstrable.

The concept of "universal knowledge" can be discussed.
I define "universal knowledge" as the knowledge that stands the test of time.
Objective reality may however change with changing conditions.

We can agree or disagree on definitions but I think you got what I was trying to say.

Nonso23:

Actually, those words have their own definitions in philosophy already. You shouldn't attempt to redefine them unless you want to create the 'next paradigm shift' in the quest for knowledge.

Objective reality: The stark world, independent of our thoughts, our perceptions, our actions, inactions, choices, definitions e.t.c
In summary. The 'unfiltered' world.

Universal knowledge:
Acceptable knowledge, depends on our definitions, perception, perspective, change, paradigm shifts and methods of investigation.
In summary. It is Conditional reality.

Can you please provide a source where I can check it?

Nonso23:

If by source you mean the internet then honestly, I would have loved to. But again, I consider the internet the worst place to get any form of deep knowledge from. It's too open and may consist of many tainted or modified ideas. That's the reason i don't ever quote evidence, stats etc from it.

I will do better though.

Check out the works (books) of the following philosophers.

Francis Bacon

Rene Descartes

St. Thomas Aquinas.
(i'm not good with titles but with a little effort on your part you'll surely get them)
I think their books are regarded as some of the best sources of the knowledge you seek.

I was actually referring to the Internet and books.
You can use the Internet wisely. It's a great tool and source of information.
Come on, you are too smart to be unable to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources.

I know all of the guys you mentioned. I will try to find the time to refresh my knowledge.

Thanks for the conversation and inspiration.

Where were you educated?

I came across Dr. Godday email address online how he has fixed broken relationship without delay. and i was really happy to contact him because i and my husband has been apart for the past 9 months and it was really killing me so after i have contacted Dr. Godday he cast the love spell for me and make my lover to come back to my arms within 9 hours with full appreciation i want to thank Dr. Godday for his good works in my life. in case you need his help just contact via email address: goddayspiritualhome@gmail.com or Whats App no +2349018437588.