What the scientific laws and stuff actually mean.

[Clearing the Eye]

But yeah, obviously evolution is still true, we have overwhelming evidence for this.

Actually, evolution of species (micro and macro) is theory--it's the theory of evolution.

Oh for the love of-

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+fact+definition&oq=scientific+fact+definition&aq=f&aqi=g1g-bK1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i8i30.419.4267.0.4457.26.12.0.3.3.0.764.2928.3j5j1j1j0j1j1.12.0...0.0.azah4sE1R4U&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific fact[/a]: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+theory+definition&oq=scientific+theory+definition&aq=f&aqi=g-c2g1g-c1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0i7l2j0j0i7.55104.56531.1.56754.10.9.0.0.0.2.142.882.5j4.9.0...0.0.dIlY-E1JhMM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific theory[/a]:a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

The fact is what happens, the theory is why it happens.

I disagree. I believe there is a lot of well researched evidence to support the theory of evolution, but to call it a fact when you admit in your definition that it is fallible strikes me as an oxymoron.

That's because you're using an incorrect version of the word fact to then debate whether something is a fact.

Everything is, however unlikely, subject to being wrong. Gravity. That's a fact and a theory. But it might turn out that our understanding of it is wrong, and that in reality it's down to a god with millions of invisible hands all holding us on to the ground.

There is such an overwhelming onslaught of evidence for our established understanding of gravity, however, that there is no reason to not call it a fact. Same for evolution.

As I said, so long as you argue admittedly falsifiable ideas as fact, I'll disagree with you.

Then you are openly admitting you believe nothing is a fact. And I'd probably be banned for expressing my thoughts on that.

You're very aggressive, aren't you, lol.

But to reply to your point, no. I do believe there are indeed objective facts. I simply also believe what we perceive as fact does not necessarily always align with those aforementioned.

That's what he's saying. Theories are accepted as fact. They may not be correct. If they are proved incorrect we will awknowledge this and the latest theory, if validated by further testing, will become accepted as fact. I don't see your problem here. Unless you have a way to establish if something is objectively correct so we can have a practical difference for the useage of the word?

I simply refuse to describe something you say "may not be correct" as a fact.

We seem to be at the point where agreeing to disagree would be best. I don't think we will get anything positive from arguing the point further.

Ok, i'm happy to leave it. I would as a point of interest like to know a few things which you would classify as facts, but if you feel it would drag stuff out further then no biggie.

I don't think I could name anything I actually believe to be fact. No doubt I've let the word slip and have on occasion gotten carried away, but sitting here now, I don't know if I could state a fact.

 

[Woodsey]

But yeah, obviously evolution is still true, we have overwhelming evidence for this.

Actually, evolution of species (micro and macro) is theory--it's the theory of evolution.

Oh for the love of-

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+fact+definition&oq=scientific+fact+definition&aq=f&aqi=g1g-bK1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i8i30.419.4267.0.4457.26.12.0.3.3.0.764.2928.3j5j1j1j0j1j1.12.0...0.0.azah4sE1R4U&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific fact[/a]: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+theory+definition&oq=scientific+theory+definition&aq=f&aqi=g-c2g1g-c1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0i7l2j0j0i7.55104.56531.1.56754.10.9.0.0.0.2.142.882.5j4.9.0...0.0.dIlY-E1JhMM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific theory[/a]:a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

The fact is what happens, the theory is why it happens.

I disagree. I believe there is a lot of well researched evidence to support the theory of evolution, but to call it a fact when you admit in your definition that it is fallible strikes me as an oxymoron.

That's because you're using an incorrect version of the word fact to then debate whether something is a fact.

Everything is, however unlikely, subject to being wrong. Gravity. That's a fact and a theory. But it might turn out that our understanding of it is wrong, and that in reality it's down to a god with millions of invisible hands all holding us on to the ground.

There is such an overwhelming onslaught of evidence for our established understanding of gravity, however, that there is no reason to not call it a fact. Same for evolution.

As I said, so long as you argue admittedly falsifiable ideas as fact, I'll disagree with you.

Then you are openly admitting you believe nothing is a fact. And I'd probably be banned for expressing my thoughts on that.

You're very aggressive, aren't you, lol.

But to reply to your point, no. I do believe there are indeed objective facts. I simply also believe what we perceive as fact does not necessarily always align with those aforementioned.

Nothing is 100% verifiable. Nothing. Facts are simply things which have overwhelming evidence and face exceedingly little, if any, competition, based on the observations we make and the tests we can run and the investigations we can go perform.

You are contradicting yourself if you claim that you believe there are objective facts, but that anything which is potentially fallible is not a fact.

But now you're simply arguing the words and not their meanings; that is to say, I believe there do exist actual facts, just that what we consider facts don't always align with that reality.

If something is a fact, it is true and accurate, utterly infallible. I don't know that we are aware of any such truths. There are some solid sounding theories, but fact? I wouldn't think we know. I mean, if you go far enough down the rabbit hole, you end up with questions like: is the world around me real? Seems real enough, but you can't truly say beyond any doubt, no matter how small, that it is.

Facts are facts. Doesn't matter how good the idea sounds, if it can be successfully challenged, it was never a fact. I mean, the "scientific fact' that Earth was the center of the solar system was disproved, right? Then it wasn't a fact.

As someone else has pointed out, you're arguing with established definitions which science and scientists work around. Now you're just arguing ice cream isn't ice cream because your definition of ice cream is grass.

'If something is a fact, it is true and accurate, utterly infallible.'

No.

It.

Isn't.

I linked you the bloody definition and copied it out for you, how much clearer does it need to be? You're not arguing from ignorance any more, you're arguing from stubborn dogma in the face of something which has been explained multiple bloody times.

It's not a matter of opinion, you are wrong.

 

[Bradeck]

But yeah, obviously evolution is still true, we have overwhelming evidence for this.

Actually, evolution of species (micro and macro) is theory--it's the theory of evolution.

Oh for the love of-

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+fact+definition&oq=scientific+fact+definition&aq=f&aqi=g1g-bK1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i8i30.419.4267.0.4457.26.12.0.3.3.0.764.2928.3j5j1j1j0j1j1.12.0...0.0.azah4sE1R4U&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific fact[/a]: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+theory+definition&oq=scientific+theory+definition&aq=f&aqi=g-c2g1g-c1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0i7l2j0j0i7.55104.56531.1.56754.10.9.0.0.0.2.142.882.5j4.9.0...0.0.dIlY-E1JhMM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific theory[/a]:a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

The fact is what happens, the theory is why it happens.

I disagree. I believe there is a lot of well researched evidence to support the theory of evolution, but to call it a fact when you admit in your definition that it is fallible strikes me as an oxymoron.

That's because you're using an incorrect version of the word fact to then debate whether something is a fact.

Everything is, however unlikely, subject to being wrong. Gravity. That's a fact and a theory. But it might turn out that our understanding of it is wrong, and that in reality it's down to a god with millions of invisible hands all holding us on to the ground.

There is such an overwhelming onslaught of evidence for our established understanding of gravity, however, that there is no reason to not call it a fact. Same for evolution.

As I said, so long as you argue admittedly falsifiable ideas as fact, I'll disagree with you.

Then you are openly admitting you believe nothing is a fact. And I'd probably be banned for expressing my thoughts on that.

You're very aggressive, aren't you, lol.

But to reply to your point, no. I do believe there are indeed objective facts. I simply also believe what we perceive as fact does not necessarily always align with those aforementioned.

An 'objective fact' is a 'truth', and there can be no questioning of it. A 'fact' is something which has been observed to be correct, and has not been proven false, and thus evolution is a 'fact'. Doesn't mean there isn't room to be wrong, but there's yet to be any proof that it is wrong.

No, Objective fact is not a truth, and can very easily be proven wrong. I think what you mean is Subjective fact? Because truth is inherently objective, whereas a fact is inherently subjective. So I think you mixed that up a bit.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

But yeah, obviously evolution is still true, we have overwhelming evidence for this.

Actually, evolution of species (micro and macro) is theory--it's the theory of evolution.

Oh for the love of-

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+fact+definition&oq=scientific+fact+definition&aq=f&aqi=g1g-bK1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i8i30.419.4267.0.4457.26.12.0.3.3.0.764.2928.3j5j1j1j0j1j1.12.0...0.0.azah4sE1R4U&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific fact[/a]: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+theory+definition&oq=scientific+theory+definition&aq=f&aqi=g-c2g1g-c1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0i7l2j0j0i7.55104.56531.1.56754.10.9.0.0.0.2.142.882.5j4.9.0...0.0.dIlY-E1JhMM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific theory[/a]:a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

The fact is what happens, the theory is why it happens.

I disagree. I believe there is a lot of well researched evidence to support the theory of evolution, but to call it a fact when you admit in your definition that it is fallible strikes me as an oxymoron.

That's because you're using an incorrect version of the word fact to then debate whether something is a fact.

Everything is, however unlikely, subject to being wrong. Gravity. That's a fact and a theory. But it might turn out that our understanding of it is wrong, and that in reality it's down to a god with millions of invisible hands all holding us on to the ground.

There is such an overwhelming onslaught of evidence for our established understanding of gravity, however, that there is no reason to not call it a fact. Same for evolution.

As I said, so long as you argue admittedly falsifiable ideas as fact, I'll disagree with you.

Then you are openly admitting you believe nothing is a fact. And I'd probably be banned for expressing my thoughts on that.

You're very aggressive, aren't you, lol.

But to reply to your point, no. I do believe there are indeed objective facts. I simply also believe what we perceive as fact does not necessarily always align with those aforementioned.

He isn't being aggressive, you're just straw-manning. The realm of science works with agreed upon definitions, you can't just stroll in and say "well I believe the contrary so I'll argue from my own twist on the definition, so I'll throw out anything you say unless if fits to my definition." It just doesn't work like that, if you don't agree with the scientific definition, that's your problem, but it doesn't automatically make your argument right by default.

I don't know. I think telling someone you'd be banned for saying what you really think is a form of aggression; to be banned you need to break the rules and the rules are designed to discourage people from basically being dicks to one another.

 

[meloxicam]

Now, being mildly curious, I clicked on it, and found that a significant number of people had no idea of what a scientific theory actually was, with one poster commenting on how they hope for evolution to be upgraded from scientific theory, to scientific law.

Evolution should be upgraded to a principle but can never be a law cause it cant be fully proven using math. there are few laws in genetics i.e. The laws of inheritance and segregation. watch penn and teller's bullsh** episode on evolution it explains the whole thing quite well. also watch the episode on vaccinations especially the first 5 mins.

A scientific theory isn't a guess. for something to be accepted as a scientific theory it has to follow these steps:

1. observation ( has to be viewable in nature i.e. has to exist as a construct in one form or another)
2. hypothesis ( what causes the observation null H0 and alternate H1)
3. data collection (by experiments and calculations)
4. data analysis ( statistics two way anova etc)
5. conclusion ( does the evidence gathered support the hypothesis H0 if not does it support H1)
6. peer review (your report is dissected by other scientists for flaws in your methodology and reasoning. other people follow your method to see if they get the same result)
7. published (gets published in a journal)
8. discussion and Q/A (give talks about your discovery at uni lectures and presentations)
9. Accepted by the scientific community as a theory but repeat step 6 and 8 until new evidence proves your theory and hypothesis wrong.

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

yes and no
not all facts are theories but all scientific theories are considered fact

You'd be surprised at how many adults actually believe in Santa. Of course, there's no real statistics, but a lot of adults have stated that they believe in Santa.

Just to point out Santa, god and the tooth-fairy are made up. just because people believe they are real doesn't make them real, see Pasteur's swan necked flask Experiment for evidence.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

But yeah, obviously evolution is still true, we have overwhelming evidence for this.

Actually, evolution of species (micro and macro) is theory--it's the theory of evolution.

Oh for the love of-

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+fact+definition&oq=scientific+fact+definition&aq=f&aqi=g1g-bK1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i8i30.419.4267.0.4457.26.12.0.3.3.0.764.2928.3j5j1j1j0j1j1.12.0...0.0.azah4sE1R4U&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific fact[/a]: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+theory+definition&oq=scientific+theory+definition&aq=f&aqi=g-c2g1g-c1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0i7l2j0j0i7.55104.56531.1.56754.10.9.0.0.0.2.142.882.5j4.9.0...0.0.dIlY-E1JhMM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific theory[/a]:a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

The fact is what happens, the theory is why it happens.

I disagree. I believe there is a lot of well researched evidence to support the theory of evolution, but to call it a fact when you admit in your definition that it is fallible strikes me as an oxymoron.

That's because you're using an incorrect version of the word fact to then debate whether something is a fact.

Everything is, however unlikely, subject to being wrong. Gravity. That's a fact and a theory. But it might turn out that our understanding of it is wrong, and that in reality it's down to a god with millions of invisible hands all holding us on to the ground.

There is such an overwhelming onslaught of evidence for our established understanding of gravity, however, that there is no reason to not call it a fact. Same for evolution.

As I said, so long as you argue admittedly falsifiable ideas as fact, I'll disagree with you.

Then you are openly admitting you believe nothing is a fact. And I'd probably be banned for expressing my thoughts on that.

You're very aggressive, aren't you, lol.

But to reply to your point, no. I do believe there are indeed objective facts. I simply also believe what we perceive as fact does not necessarily always align with those aforementioned.

Nothing is 100% verifiable. Nothing. Facts are simply things which have overwhelming evidence and face exceedingly little, if any, competition, based on the observations we make and the tests we can run and the investigations we can go perform.

You are contradicting yourself if you claim that you believe there are objective facts, but that anything which is potentially fallible is not a fact.

But now you're simply arguing the words and not their meanings; that is to say, I believe there do exist actual facts, just that what we consider facts don't always align with that reality.

If something is a fact, it is true and accurate, utterly infallible. I don't know that we are aware of any such truths. There are some solid sounding theories, but fact? I wouldn't think we know. I mean, if you go far enough down the rabbit hole, you end up with questions like: is the world around me real? Seems real enough, but you can't truly say beyond any doubt, no matter how small, that it is.

Facts are facts. Doesn't matter how good the idea sounds, if it can be successfully challenged, it was never a fact. I mean, the "scientific fact' that Earth was the center of the solar system was disproved, right? Then it wasn't a fact.

As someone else has pointed out, you're arguing with established definitions which science and scientists work around. Now you're just arguing ice cream isn't ice cream because your definition of ice cream is grass.

'If something is a fact, it is true and accurate, utterly infallible.'

No.

It.

Isn't.

I linked you the bloody definition and copied it out for you, how much clearer does it need to be? You're not arguing from ignorance any more, you're arguing from stubborn dogma in the face of something which has been explained multiple bloody times.

It's not a matter of opinion, you are wrong.

Dogma? I don't belong to any groups with tenets of which to abide by. I've an opinion, but dogma? Not really possible.

Anyway, we best leave it be. Agree to disagree and such. Neither of us will gain anything from going on

 

[Lieju]

Nothing is law, really. That's just what we go ahead and label theories that stick for a while. I'm pretty sure the flat earth theory was considered fact at some point.

Except for the fact that it had no scientific basis, only a religious one.

Well, it's based on observation. It's just that the earth is so big that those observations were not enough to provide an accurate picture. For some stone-age guy the explanation that Earth was flat would have been the most sensible one, it fit with the observations pretty well.

Similarly, the explanation 'some guy made the world with magic' was once, way back, a reasonable explanation.
But one, like the flat-Earth-theory, that is just totally outdated, based on what we know now.

 

[Bradeck]

I think it would be beneficial to state what is and is not a fact. Especially with apologist theists out there like Sye Ten Bruggengate who basically attack the "factual" basis of reality, and they assert you cannot know anything is factual, therefor you cannot state that theism is "wrong" or lacking fact.

This of course differs from what William Lane Craig presents, "God" created everything, so why question it. Willful ignorance or as I like to call it, Blind Ignorance. Your vision does not allow you to conceive of a manner in which a "god" character cannot or would not make bananas yellow, or tree bark brown.

Anyway, Scientific "fact" has been tossed around alot, and incorrectly the majority of the time. Correct me if I am wrong on this, but it's "something that exists, or truth". Therein lay the problem. How do you define truth, as truth is a strictly subjective reality. It cannot be objective. There is no such thing as a objectively observable fact. There are objective statements; A is A, therefor A cannot be not A. But scientific "fact" is really just a well tested theory. As I understand it.

We'll make it simple. We'll define a fact as what is almost-definitely true *in this universe/reality.*

Yes, we can't know for absolute certainty that the Sun exists and that we don't live inside of a vat, but we can know with near-absolute certainty that, IF this universe exists and has rules, THEN the Sun exists and the Earth rotates around it, etc.

That is 'truth' in this universe, as we can NEVER know absolute truth.

Fact: evolution happens. The theory of evolution explains how evolution (a fact) happens. Theories become refined slowly as more facts are discovered.

Both facts and theories are falsifiable. They can be tested and repeated, and if they are not, then they are discredited.

I think the trend on this thread seems to be to get hung up on definition of truth, when truth is a complete waste of time. Facts are even less so. Laws are the pure form of tested ideas, such as gravity, motion, action/reaction. Laws at their best are only still theories. You cannot have a scientific law that contain's truth, because it is inherently absent of subjective meanings.

This is the biggest sticking point for militant theists in use against atheists. If I cannot prove my theory of objective fact, and have to resort to subjectively circular reasoning, then I am in essence becoming that which I argue against, which is theism. They attempt to use subjective reasoning (God spoke to ME, therefor I KNOW God exists, and I am living proof), whereas a good scientist will always tend to stick with objective reality. (In this reality, the ball falls to the ground when I drop it 100-100 times, therefor I theorize gravity exists, and is measurable.)

 

[Clearing the Eye]

But yeah, obviously evolution is still true, we have overwhelming evidence for this.

Actually, evolution of species (micro and macro) is theory--it's the theory of evolution.

Oh for the love of-

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+fact+definition&oq=scientific+fact+definition&aq=f&aqi=g1g-bK1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i8i30.419.4267.0.4457.26.12.0.3.3.0.764.2928.3j5j1j1j0j1j1.12.0...0.0.azah4sE1R4U&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific fact[/a]: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+theory+definition&oq=scientific+theory+definition&aq=f&aqi=g-c2g1g-c1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0i7l2j0j0i7.55104.56531.1.56754.10.9.0.0.0.2.142.882.5j4.9.0...0.0.dIlY-E1JhMM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific theory[/a]:a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

The fact is what happens, the theory is why it happens.

I disagree. I believe there is a lot of well researched evidence to support the theory of evolution, but to call it a fact when you admit in your definition that it is fallible strikes me as an oxymoron.

That's because you're using an incorrect version of the word fact to then debate whether something is a fact.

Everything is, however unlikely, subject to being wrong. Gravity. That's a fact and a theory. But it might turn out that our understanding of it is wrong, and that in reality it's down to a god with millions of invisible hands all holding us on to the ground.

There is such an overwhelming onslaught of evidence for our established understanding of gravity, however, that there is no reason to not call it a fact. Same for evolution.

As I said, so long as you argue admittedly falsifiable ideas as fact, I'll disagree with you.

Then you are openly admitting you believe nothing is a fact. And I'd probably be banned for expressing my thoughts on that.

You're very aggressive, aren't you, lol.

But to reply to your point, no. I do believe there are indeed objective facts. I simply also believe what we perceive as fact does not necessarily always align with those aforementioned.

Nothing is 100% verifiable. Nothing. Facts are simply things which have overwhelming evidence and face exceedingly little, if any, competition, based on the observations we make and the tests we can run and the investigations we can go perform.

You are contradicting yourself if you claim that you believe there are objective facts, but that anything which is potentially fallible is not a fact.

But now you're simply arguing the words and not their meanings; that is to say, I believe there do exist actual facts, just that what we consider facts don't always align with that reality.

If something is a fact, it is true and accurate, utterly infallible. I don't know that we are aware of any such truths. There are some solid sounding theories, but fact? I wouldn't think we know. I mean, if you go far enough down the rabbit hole, you end up with questions like: is the world around me real? Seems real enough, but you can't truly say beyond any doubt, no matter how small, that it is.

Facts are facts. Doesn't matter how good the idea sounds, if it can be successfully challenged, it was never a fact. I mean, the "scientific fact' that Earth was the center of the solar system was disproved, right? Then it wasn't a fact.

As someone else has pointed out, you're arguing with established definitions which science and scientists work around. Now you're just arguing ice cream isn't ice cream because your definition of ice cream is grass.

'If something is a fact, it is true and accurate, utterly infallible.'

No.

It.

Isn't.

I linked you the bloody definition and copied it out for you, how much clearer does it need to be? You're not arguing from ignorance any more, you're arguing from stubborn dogma in the face of something which has been explained multiple bloody times.

It's not a matter of opinion, you are wrong.

Dogma? I don't belong to any groups with tenets of which to abide by. I've an opinion, but dogma? Not really possible.

Anyway, we best leave it be. Agree to disagree and such. Neither of us will gain anything from going on

No, at this point, you're just trolling, so there's really nothing else to do here.

How exactly was I trolling? I was the one that suggested we agree to disagree and leave it at that--there's no point in arguing a deadlock, people just end up angry and that's fairly well useless.

Seems like a cop out to me; unable to simply accept a differing opinion, you've stubbornly decided I'm just in it for the laughs. That could be considered quite arrogant.

Just because my standpoint is absurd to you, doesn't mean it's absurd to me. Rather rude.

 

[Woodsey]

But yeah, obviously evolution is still true, we have overwhelming evidence for this.

Actually, evolution of species (micro and macro) is theory--it's the theory of evolution.

Oh for the love of-

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+fact+definition&oq=scientific+fact+definition&aq=f&aqi=g1g-bK1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i8i30.419.4267.0.4457.26.12.0.3.3.0.764.2928.3j5j1j1j0j1j1.12.0...0.0.azah4sE1R4U&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific fact[/a]: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+theory+definition&oq=scientific+theory+definition&aq=f&aqi=g-c2g1g-c1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0i7l2j0j0i7.55104.56531.1.56754.10.9.0.0.0.2.142.882.5j4.9.0...0.0.dIlY-E1JhMM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific theory[/a]:a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

The fact is what happens, the theory is why it happens.

I disagree. I believe there is a lot of well researched evidence to support the theory of evolution, but to call it a fact when you admit in your definition that it is fallible strikes me as an oxymoron.

That's because you're using an incorrect version of the word fact to then debate whether something is a fact.

Everything is, however unlikely, subject to being wrong. Gravity. That's a fact and a theory. But it might turn out that our understanding of it is wrong, and that in reality it's down to a god with millions of invisible hands all holding us on to the ground.

There is such an overwhelming onslaught of evidence for our established understanding of gravity, however, that there is no reason to not call it a fact. Same for evolution.

As I said, so long as you argue admittedly falsifiable ideas as fact, I'll disagree with you.

Then you are openly admitting you believe nothing is a fact. And I'd probably be banned for expressing my thoughts on that.

You're very aggressive, aren't you, lol.

But to reply to your point, no. I do believe there are indeed objective facts. I simply also believe what we perceive as fact does not necessarily always align with those aforementioned.

Nothing is 100% verifiable. Nothing. Facts are simply things which have overwhelming evidence and face exceedingly little, if any, competition, based on the observations we make and the tests we can run and the investigations we can go perform.

You are contradicting yourself if you claim that you believe there are objective facts, but that anything which is potentially fallible is not a fact.

But now you're simply arguing the words and not their meanings; that is to say, I believe there do exist actual facts, just that what we consider facts don't always align with that reality.

If something is a fact, it is true and accurate, utterly infallible. I don't know that we are aware of any such truths. There are some solid sounding theories, but fact? I wouldn't think we know. I mean, if you go far enough down the rabbit hole, you end up with questions like: is the world around me real? Seems real enough, but you can't truly say beyond any doubt, no matter how small, that it is.

Facts are facts. Doesn't matter how good the idea sounds, if it can be successfully challenged, it was never a fact. I mean, the "scientific fact' that Earth was the center of the solar system was disproved, right? Then it wasn't a fact.

As someone else has pointed out, you're arguing with established definitions which science and scientists work around. Now you're just arguing ice cream isn't ice cream because your definition of ice cream is grass.

'If something is a fact, it is true and accurate, utterly infallible.'

No.

It.

Isn't.

I linked you the bloody definition and copied it out for you, how much clearer does it need to be? You're not arguing from ignorance any more, you're arguing from stubborn dogma in the face of something which has been explained multiple bloody times.

It's not a matter of opinion, you are wrong.

Dogma? I don't belong to any groups with tenets of which to abide by. I've an opinion, but dogma? Not really possible.

Anyway, we best leave it be. Agree to disagree and such. Neither of us will gain anything from going on

You'll gain something if you pay attention to what at least 3 people have just spelled out for you several times over.

Evolution is, by definition, a fact and a theory. If you keep helping to propagate the myth that it's "just a theory" then we end up with stupid fucking idiots trying to have creationism taught in Science classes because hey, "evolution's just a theory too!".

 

[Clearing the Eye]

But yeah, obviously evolution is still true, we have overwhelming evidence for this.

Actually, evolution of species (micro and macro) is theory--it's the theory of evolution.

Oh for the love of-

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+fact+definition&oq=scientific+fact+definition&aq=f&aqi=g1g-bK1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i8i30.419.4267.0.4457.26.12.0.3.3.0.764.2928.3j5j1j1j0j1j1.12.0...0.0.azah4sE1R4U&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific fact[/a]: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+theory+definition&oq=scientific+theory+definition&aq=f&aqi=g-c2g1g-c1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0i7l2j0j0i7.55104.56531.1.56754.10.9.0.0.0.2.142.882.5j4.9.0...0.0.dIlY-E1JhMM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific theory[/a]:a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

The fact is what happens, the theory is why it happens.

I disagree. I believe there is a lot of well researched evidence to support the theory of evolution, but to call it a fact when you admit in your definition that it is fallible strikes me as an oxymoron.

That's because you're using an incorrect version of the word fact to then debate whether something is a fact.

Everything is, however unlikely, subject to being wrong. Gravity. That's a fact and a theory. But it might turn out that our understanding of it is wrong, and that in reality it's down to a god with millions of invisible hands all holding us on to the ground.

There is such an overwhelming onslaught of evidence for our established understanding of gravity, however, that there is no reason to not call it a fact. Same for evolution.

As I said, so long as you argue admittedly falsifiable ideas as fact, I'll disagree with you.

Then you are openly admitting you believe nothing is a fact. And I'd probably be banned for expressing my thoughts on that.

You're very aggressive, aren't you, lol.

But to reply to your point, no. I do believe there are indeed objective facts. I simply also believe what we perceive as fact does not necessarily always align with those aforementioned.

Nothing is 100% verifiable. Nothing. Facts are simply things which have overwhelming evidence and face exceedingly little, if any, competition, based on the observations we make and the tests we can run and the investigations we can go perform.

You are contradicting yourself if you claim that you believe there are objective facts, but that anything which is potentially fallible is not a fact.

But now you're simply arguing the words and not their meanings; that is to say, I believe there do exist actual facts, just that what we consider facts don't always align with that reality.

If something is a fact, it is true and accurate, utterly infallible. I don't know that we are aware of any such truths. There are some solid sounding theories, but fact? I wouldn't think we know. I mean, if you go far enough down the rabbit hole, you end up with questions like: is the world around me real? Seems real enough, but you can't truly say beyond any doubt, no matter how small, that it is.

Facts are facts. Doesn't matter how good the idea sounds, if it can be successfully challenged, it was never a fact. I mean, the "scientific fact' that Earth was the center of the solar system was disproved, right? Then it wasn't a fact.

As someone else has pointed out, you're arguing with established definitions which science and scientists work around. Now you're just arguing ice cream isn't ice cream because your definition of ice cream is grass.

'If something is a fact, it is true and accurate, utterly infallible.'

No.

It.

Isn't.

I linked you the bloody definition and copied it out for you, how much clearer does it need to be? You're not arguing from ignorance any more, you're arguing from stubborn dogma in the face of something which has been explained multiple bloody times.

It's not a matter of opinion, you are wrong.

Dogma? I don't belong to any groups with tenets of which to abide by. I've an opinion, but dogma? Not really possible.

Anyway, we best leave it be. Agree to disagree and such. Neither of us will gain anything from going on

You'll gain something if you pay attention to what at least 3 people have just spelled out for you several times over.

Evolution is, by definition, a fact and a theory. If you keep helping to propagate the myth that it's "just a theory" then we end up with stupid fucking idiots trying to have creationism taught in Science classes because hey, "evolution's just a theory too!".

Now you're just blatantly insulting people who have nothing to do with this discussion. I don't think creationists are correct, but there's no need to slander them like that. Hardly constructive.

As I said, let's leave it. It's clearly a heated issue for you and what's the point in getting angry over a forum. We can agree to disagree and move on

 

[chadachada123]

I think the trend on this thread seems to be to get hung up on definition of truth, when truth is a complete waste of time. Facts are even less so. Laws are the pure form of tested ideas, such as gravity, motion, action/reaction. Laws at their best are only still theories. You cannot have a scientific law that contain's truth, because it is inherently absent of subjective meanings.

This is the biggest sticking point for militant theists in use against atheists. If I cannot prove my theory of objective fact, and have to resort to subjectively circular reasoning, then I am in essence becoming that which I argue against, which is theism. They attempt to use subjective reasoning (God spoke to ME, therefor I KNOW God exists, and I am living proof), whereas a good scientist will always tend to stick with objective reality. (In this reality, the ball falls to the ground when I drop it 100-100 times, therefor I theorize gravity exists, and is measurable.)

Ah, I see then. I'm always worried about talking about 'certainty' and 'truth' because I never know whether or not the other person is describing philosophical truth or logical truth, or if they're talking about objective truth/practical truth.

This always becomes a problem when I say, for example, "unicorns don't exist." And I'm sure you understand what I mean by that, and the many problems it could have from someone being pedantic. Same with gods. Could they exist? Sure, possibly, technically. But without evidence, I'm forced to dismiss such claims.

 

[Woodsey]

But yeah, obviously evolution is still true, we have overwhelming evidence for this.

Actually, evolution of species (micro and macro) is theory--it's the theory of evolution.

Oh for the love of-

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+fact+definition&oq=scientific+fact+definition&aq=f&aqi=g1g-bK1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i8i30.419.4267.0.4457.26.12.0.3.3.0.764.2928.3j5j1j1j0j1j1.12.0...0.0.azah4sE1R4U&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific fact[/a]: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+theory+definition&oq=scientific+theory+definition&aq=f&aqi=g-c2g1g-c1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0i7l2j0j0i7.55104.56531.1.56754.10.9.0.0.0.2.142.882.5j4.9.0...0.0.dIlY-E1JhMM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific theory[/a]:a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

The fact is what happens, the theory is why it happens.

I disagree. I believe there is a lot of well researched evidence to support the theory of evolution, but to call it a fact when you admit in your definition that it is fallible strikes me as an oxymoron.

That's because you're using an incorrect version of the word fact to then debate whether something is a fact.

Everything is, however unlikely, subject to being wrong. Gravity. That's a fact and a theory. But it might turn out that our understanding of it is wrong, and that in reality it's down to a god with millions of invisible hands all holding us on to the ground.

There is such an overwhelming onslaught of evidence for our established understanding of gravity, however, that there is no reason to not call it a fact. Same for evolution.

As I said, so long as you argue admittedly falsifiable ideas as fact, I'll disagree with you.

Then you are openly admitting you believe nothing is a fact. And I'd probably be banned for expressing my thoughts on that.

You're very aggressive, aren't you, lol.

But to reply to your point, no. I do believe there are indeed objective facts. I simply also believe what we perceive as fact does not necessarily always align with those aforementioned.

Nothing is 100% verifiable. Nothing. Facts are simply things which have overwhelming evidence and face exceedingly little, if any, competition, based on the observations we make and the tests we can run and the investigations we can go perform.

You are contradicting yourself if you claim that you believe there are objective facts, but that anything which is potentially fallible is not a fact.

But now you're simply arguing the words and not their meanings; that is to say, I believe there do exist actual facts, just that what we consider facts don't always align with that reality.

If something is a fact, it is true and accurate, utterly infallible. I don't know that we are aware of any such truths. There are some solid sounding theories, but fact? I wouldn't think we know. I mean, if you go far enough down the rabbit hole, you end up with questions like: is the world around me real? Seems real enough, but you can't truly say beyond any doubt, no matter how small, that it is.

Facts are facts. Doesn't matter how good the idea sounds, if it can be successfully challenged, it was never a fact. I mean, the "scientific fact' that Earth was the center of the solar system was disproved, right? Then it wasn't a fact.

As someone else has pointed out, you're arguing with established definitions which science and scientists work around. Now you're just arguing ice cream isn't ice cream because your definition of ice cream is grass.

'If something is a fact, it is true and accurate, utterly infallible.'

No.

It.

Isn't.

I linked you the bloody definition and copied it out for you, how much clearer does it need to be? You're not arguing from ignorance any more, you're arguing from stubborn dogma in the face of something which has been explained multiple bloody times.

It's not a matter of opinion, you are wrong.

Dogma? I don't belong to any groups with tenets of which to abide by. I've an opinion, but dogma? Not really possible.

Anyway, we best leave it be. Agree to disagree and such. Neither of us will gain anything from going on

You'll gain something if you pay attention to what at least 3 people have just spelled out for you several times over.

Evolution is, by definition, a fact and a theory. If you keep helping to propagate the myth that it's "just a theory" then we end up with stupid fucking idiots trying to have creationism taught in Science classes because hey, "evolution's just a theory too!".

Now you're just blatantly insulting people who have nothing to do with this discussion. I don't think creationists are correct, but there's no need to slander them like that. Hardly constructive.

As I said, let's leave it. It's clearly a heated issue for you and what's the point in getting angry over a forum. We can agree to disagree and move on

It has everything to do with this discussion - this discussion was born from another thread based on such stupidity in the first place. And yes, it is stupid - just like it's stupid to think the Spaghetti Monster is real or that you're actually a Jedi with Force powers. And it's doubly stupid to be trying to make children more ignorant via the education system itself.

Your view is part of that problem; you're peddling myths in the face of clear, unarguable explanation.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

But yeah, obviously evolution is still true, we have overwhelming evidence for this.

Actually, evolution of species (micro and macro) is theory--it's the theory of evolution.

Oh for the love of-

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+fact+definition&oq=scientific+fact+definition&aq=f&aqi=g1g-bK1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i8i30.419.4267.0.4457.26.12.0.3.3.0.764.2928.3j5j1j1j0j1j1.12.0...0.0.azah4sE1R4U&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific fact[/a]: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+theory+definition&oq=scientific+theory+definition&aq=f&aqi=g-c2g1g-c1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0i7l2j0j0i7.55104.56531.1.56754.10.9.0.0.0.2.142.882.5j4.9.0...0.0.dIlY-E1JhMM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific theory[/a]:a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

The fact is what happens, the theory is why it happens.

I disagree. I believe there is a lot of well researched evidence to support the theory of evolution, but to call it a fact when you admit in your definition that it is fallible strikes me as an oxymoron.

That's because you're using an incorrect version of the word fact to then debate whether something is a fact.

Everything is, however unlikely, subject to being wrong. Gravity. That's a fact and a theory. But it might turn out that our understanding of it is wrong, and that in reality it's down to a god with millions of invisible hands all holding us on to the ground.

There is such an overwhelming onslaught of evidence for our established understanding of gravity, however, that there is no reason to not call it a fact. Same for evolution.

As I said, so long as you argue admittedly falsifiable ideas as fact, I'll disagree with you.

Then you are openly admitting you believe nothing is a fact. And I'd probably be banned for expressing my thoughts on that.

You're very aggressive, aren't you, lol.

But to reply to your point, no. I do believe there are indeed objective facts. I simply also believe what we perceive as fact does not necessarily always align with those aforementioned.

Nothing is 100% verifiable. Nothing. Facts are simply things which have overwhelming evidence and face exceedingly little, if any, competition, based on the observations we make and the tests we can run and the investigations we can go perform.

You are contradicting yourself if you claim that you believe there are objective facts, but that anything which is potentially fallible is not a fact.

But now you're simply arguing the words and not their meanings; that is to say, I believe there do exist actual facts, just that what we consider facts don't always align with that reality.

If something is a fact, it is true and accurate, utterly infallible. I don't know that we are aware of any such truths. There are some solid sounding theories, but fact? I wouldn't think we know. I mean, if you go far enough down the rabbit hole, you end up with questions like: is the world around me real? Seems real enough, but you can't truly say beyond any doubt, no matter how small, that it is.

Facts are facts. Doesn't matter how good the idea sounds, if it can be successfully challenged, it was never a fact. I mean, the "scientific fact' that Earth was the center of the solar system was disproved, right? Then it wasn't a fact.

As someone else has pointed out, you're arguing with established definitions which science and scientists work around. Now you're just arguing ice cream isn't ice cream because your definition of ice cream is grass.

'If something is a fact, it is true and accurate, utterly infallible.'

No.

It.

Isn't.

I linked you the bloody definition and copied it out for you, how much clearer does it need to be? You're not arguing from ignorance any more, you're arguing from stubborn dogma in the face of something which has been explained multiple bloody times.

It's not a matter of opinion, you are wrong.

Dogma? I don't belong to any groups with tenets of which to abide by. I've an opinion, but dogma? Not really possible.

Anyway, we best leave it be. Agree to disagree and such. Neither of us will gain anything from going on

You'll gain something if you pay attention to what at least 3 people have just spelled out for you several times over.

Evolution is, by definition, a fact and a theory. If you keep helping to propagate the myth that it's "just a theory" then we end up with stupid fucking idiots trying to have creationism taught in Science classes because hey, "evolution's just a theory too!".

Now you're just blatantly insulting people who have nothing to do with this discussion. I don't think creationists are correct, but there's no need to slander them like that. Hardly constructive.

As I said, let's leave it. It's clearly a heated issue for you and what's the point in getting angry over a forum. We can agree to disagree and move on

It has everything to do with this discussion - this discussion was born from another thread based on such stupidity in the first place. And yes, it is stupid - just like it's stupid to think the Spaghetti Monster is real or that you're actually a Jedi with Force powers. And it's doubly stupid to be trying to make children more ignorant via the education system itself.

Your 'view' is part of that problem.

Sorry you feel that way. I don't think insulting people will further your cause, though. It will probably have the opposite effect on some. It's lame, but you know what they say: you'll get more bees with honey than with vinegar. Ignore the horribly cliche and take from it the positive message, lol.

 

[Bradeck]

I think the trend on this thread seems to be to get hung up on definition of truth, when truth is a complete waste of time. Facts are even less so. Laws are the pure form of tested ideas, such as gravity, motion, action/reaction. Laws at their best are only still theories. You cannot have a scientific law that contain's truth, because it is inherently absent of subjective meanings.

This is the biggest sticking point for militant theists in use against atheists. If I cannot prove my theory of objective fact, and have to resort to subjectively circular reasoning, then I am in essence becoming that which I argue against, which is theism. They attempt to use subjective reasoning (God spoke to ME, therefor I KNOW God exists, and I am living proof), whereas a good scientist will always tend to stick with objective reality. (In this reality, the ball falls to the ground when I drop it 100-100 times, therefor I theorize gravity exists, and is measurable.)

Ah, I see then. I'm always worried about talking about 'certainty' and 'truth' because I never know whether or not the other person is describing philosophical truth or logical truth, or if they're talking about objective truth/practical truth.

This always becomes a problem when I say, for example, "unicorns don't exist." And I'm sure you understand what I mean by that, and the many problems it could have from someone being pedantic. Same with gods. Could they exist? Sure, possibly, technically. But without evidence, I'm forced to dismiss such claims.

I really advise you to go onto youtube and watch some videos by an amateur scientist/atheist blogger by the name of Thunderfoot. He also participates in a weekly livecast on youtube labeled the Magic Sandwich Show, in which several of the most intelligent men on both sides, attempt to debate these deep scientific quandaries you know find yourself in.

One of my favorite arguments put forward by Richard Dawkins, is the argument of relative objective indifference. I personally do not know that there is NOT a indestructible 2 quart purple teapot floating in orbit within the rings of Jupiter. I cannot test this, nor can I disprove it in any sense. Therefor, it is entirely feasible to assume that their currently is such a teapot orbiting Jupiter. However, because said teapot will not, and cannot, influence my life in ANY sense, then I do not care if it exists or not. Same with a 2000 year old zombie Jewish male who sits on a cloud in a place called "Heaven".

 

[Navvan]

As someone else has pointed out, you're arguing with established definitions which science and scientists work around. Now you're just arguing ice cream isn't ice cream because your definition of ice cream is grass.

'If something is a fact, it is true and accurate, utterly infallible.'

No.

It.

Isn't.

I linked you the bloody definition and copied it out for you, how much clearer does it need to be? You're not arguing from ignorance any more, you're arguing from stubborn dogma in the face of something which has been explained multiple bloody times.

It's not a matter of opinion, you are wrong.

Dogma? I don't belong to any groups with tenets of which to abide by. I've an opinion, but dogma? Not really possible.

How exactly was I trolling? I was the one that suggested we agree to disagree and leave it at that--there's no point in arguing a deadlock, people just end up angry and that's fairly well useless.

Seems like a cop out to me; unable to simply accept a differing opinion, you've stubbornly decided I'm just in it for the laughs. That could be considered quite arrogant.

Just because my standpoint is absurd to you, doesn't mean it's absurd to me. Rather rude.

Ironically fact, like theory, has multiple meanings depending on the context. You two are arguing two different types of "fact". There is a scientific definition of fact (an objectievly verified observable, e.g. the earth revolves around the sun). Clear is using a philosophical definition which has a variety of approaches, but the one he is using is one that would be referred to as an objective truth. As someone else put it if A is A then it can not be not A. I found this amusing given the threads purpose.

So Clearing, they are right in using an established definition of fact that simply isn't what you're use to when you use/think of fact. Same situation as those who think a scientific theory in terms of how they use the word theory.

 

[Agayek]

Anyway, Scientific "fact" has been tossed around alot, and incorrectly the majority of the time. Correct me if I am wrong on this, but it's "something that exists, or truth". Therein lay the problem. How do you define truth, as truth is a strictly subjective reality. It cannot be objective. There is no such thing as a objectively observable fact. There are objective statements; A is A, therefor A cannot be not A. But scientific "fact" is really just a well tested theory. As I understand it.

Ehhh, yes and no.

Yes, insofar as "Science" is never conclusively true. There is always a possibility of it being wrong, in whole or in part. The reason for this is that we don't actually define objective truths with science (though that is the ultimate goal). We instead create "best fit models" to describe behavior. In essence, we say "X functions because Y, to the extent of our evidence". There is always room to make it "more true", because our perspective is limited and we don't (and possibly even can't) understand everything involved.

No because there very much are objective truths to reality. We may not ever understand them fully, but they certainly exist. For example, it's an unequivocal truth of the universe that everything with mass exerts a gravitational pull on everything else in the universe. We do not understand the how or the why, but it's a universal truth that the phenomena occurs.