War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is strength
Disagreeing equals ignorance ? In a world where recorded, proven facts and measurables are under increased pressure from people who try to mindf**k everyone else ? And we should ask those truthspeakers questions ? The only meaningful reply to that is “hahahahahaha”.
War of the common folks is peace of the ruling ones.
Freedom of act is slavery to your instincts.
Ignorance of the led is strength of the leading.
(IIRC that is how it is explained in the novel)
And yes, disagreement is ignorance of each other experience and beliefs.
Does not mean it’s deeper than that though.
Is that an attempt at a new definition of the word “disagreement” ?
If you tell me that the earth is flat, I will not simply disagree. Instead I will - on a good, harmonious day - laugh my head off and ignore you and your beliefs. Experience and belief is only worth so much, and only to you, because it involves interpretation - which is subjective hence unreliable. Let that go on a rampage in an environment bereft of self-criticism and self-relativation of individuals and you will end up with a vulgar pub brawl or, indeed, the quote from George Orwell’s 1984, which is a very chilling one.
You may have overlooked it, but my post was about facts and measurables… Those are not “debatable” any more than the law of gravity or the density of gold.
Yes ? The original Orwell quotes shows that the language is used to manipulate people, typically the reduction of available terms means polysemy becomes more prevalent and therefore it’s easier to make BS claims like I did.
Since you used it, I thought you wanted to go along with it ? I was merely following the joke.
That is true ! Well it’s unreliable as an oracle of truth, not necessarily unreliable in the temporal sense.
It’s reliable for me. Just, no more once we are in a discussion.
The one that Einstein discoveries created a debate on among scientists ? A debate which is still burning to our days ?
Under which temperature and pressure ?
There is always a possibility to debate. That’s the nature of science. Sometimes your definitions needs to be changed, sometimes some results seem to contradict an established rule.
To believe that humanity can transcend reality and reach a universal truth is a dogma.
To claim that science gives access to an indisputable truth is religion. Science with a truth is but another religion.
The definition you try to give is not the accepted one. You may of course refute the generally accepted source, in which case you can have a debate on your own.
Ever since the days of Aristotle have definitions been manipulated and volatile, on purpose, to gain an advantage. That’s what people like Francis Bacon came to realize, spearheading the effort to produce reliability and verifiability. And that was in the Elizabethan age… We’ve come a long way since, but maybe memory has failed.
Einstein didn’t discover the law of gravity, sir Isaac Newton did on a level that was good enough to send people to the moon and back. Einstein formulated general relativity, which talks about the bending of space under the influence of gravitational fields, and all it entails. Neither theories are under debate as such. On the contrary, the discovery (measurement !) of gravitational waves was the latest confirmation that this phenomenon, postulated by Einstein’s general gravity, really exists - which makes the theory even more robust, not more questionable.
But you seem unimpressed by the law of gravity, or is that a subjective impression of mine ?
That’s a good thing to ask, it avoids comparing apples with pears. The answer to this was established many years ago, the standardized conditions are 298K (25 °C) and 1 atm.
Scientists don’t debate the law of gravity nor the density of gold (for conditions see above). That would be a waste of precious time.
Science isn’t in the business of finding the Truth. The purpose of science is to establish reliable knowledge. Knowledge is not truth, any more than a rock is an animal. Thinking, experiencing that there is an anima in a rock or an animal, that my good sir, that is religion. Science is self-criticizing by the fact that results, methods, theories, hypotheses are public, there to be challenged by experiment by as many people as want to verify the validity. There is no dogma involved. Conflicting results are verified, challenged, studied, and if they do show the current knowledge to be flawed then a better theory comes to replace it. This process happens at the edge of progress in the understanding. Quite a difference from religious beliefs, wouldn’t you say ?
Actually Einstein made his theory because the law of gravity did not work.
https://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/gr/PrecessionperihelionMercury.htm
The law of gravity was, and still is, subject to debate.
Like any scientific knowledge.
When some idea is accepted, and used, it becomes technique. Challenging scientific knowledge is science.
That’s science.
I’m not saying they should. Einstein did though.
That’s not what makes a religion. What makes a religion (as opposed to science) is the acceptance of an absolute truth. Science acknowledges that human are in wrong, that we fail. That anything that we hold true, even gravity law, even thermodynamic laws, even the definitions of temperature, may be proven wrong later. They need to be assumed correct until then though.
Well religious people also have conflicting opinions among the same religion. They also have debate. They also have methods. The only difference, is that there exists truths they can’t challenge. While in science, anything is open to debate. Once you claim that “some thing” is not open to debate, you leave science and enter religion.
its amazing how you always manage to completely sink into the offtopic…
You mean the Mercury problem ? Sure, that was handled by Einstein. Would the outcome of a gravitational experiment on earth be different if you used Einstein’s equations instead of Newton’s ? No, of course not. Would you experience special relativity effects if the speed of light were drastically slower than what it is ? Of course you would. You use the correct theory for its framework.
Einstein did not doubt Newton’s law when dealing with the proverbial apple falling to earth, but knew it did not work correctly when observing the movement of Mercury. That is a different framework. Discussions are only sensible when matching theory and their framework.
Rest assured, the original law of gravity still works in its framework. If you throw up a rock it will not levitate, and you will be able to predict its trajectory and the force it experiences.
That was not my statement, that was an example of a religious element.
Correct. Unchallengeable Truth.
Rather that the current state of knowledge is temporary. And that is what drives science to improve its knowledge and understanding constantly - but it does not do that by revising thoroughly established theories in their original frameworks. If an existing theory proves inadequate to create understanding and predictability then it’s almost certain that the framework has shifted in a way that is not understood yet. Just as trying to understand blackbody radiation has lead to the discovery of a new theory that is extremely far removed from daily experience at that time, the framework having shifted from the macroscopic to the atomic level. If you tell people that electrons don’t really move that much in a wire, but that it’s the fields that move the energy, it’s not going to change their every day experience with Ohm’s law, unless they design circuits and need to shield their conduits. Different framework …
Which means that the law is not one.
But yes ! This law has a universal context, that’s why we call it a law. And it’s wrong.
More precisely, Newton’s law is an approximation of Einstein’s formula that is good enough in our usual case that we can’t realize the error.
The same way speeds do not add up additively but we can still do it at our scope.
It is correct to use that law at our scope even though that law is wrong. This law is usually technically correct, as in it produces acceptable results, yet it is scientifically proven wrong. All models are wrong, but some are more useful than others. Scientific knowledge is wrong, but it’s the best we can have by definition.
So yes, anything is debatable in science. Does not mean you should debate everything.
Even the law of gravity was debated and proven wrong - unless of course you claim that Einstein was not a scientific. Which you can, since he claimed that god does not play dices 
For the umpteenth time: the law is correct in its reference framework. It still gives all the correct predictions, and the results will not contradict it. That’s why it’s a law. I n i t 's f r a m e w o r k.
Only if you phantasize that there is such a thing as absolute knowledge. It isn’t complete. I’ll give you that.
Repeating it doesn’t make it right. Your general statement is wrong because it does not include a framework. Any theory has limitations. That shows once outside of its framework. That is kicking in an open door for any scientist.
Well, that proved that even he could be wrong. He may have regretted that statement afterwards, seeing that he did his very best to join quantum with relativity. Neither was the person who told him to stop telling God what to do always correct in his conclusions. But that is offtopic
Which is, the universe.
You are adding a “reference framework” that does not exist.
Newton’s law states that each object attracts each other with a force proportional to the product of the masses and the invert of the square distance. That law also applies to mercury and the sun. Those were especially in the framework of Newton’s law, since it was empirically verified with the observations of the orbits from Kepler’s work.
And it gives incorrect results, therefore : it is wrong.
My point, precisely.
Newton’s law did not have such a framework, his law was universal. You are making this “framework” up.
No you’re saying “the law is correct except when it’s not”. Then it’s unusable. Newton’s law is wrong in the universe, which is its framework. Being a good approximation at our scale does not make it correct.
It was a multi-level joke
Great ! I insist 2 + 2 = 5. Thank you for agreeing.
Of course it did. It was determined by the objects and phenomena he studied, just those. Expanding them to all observable galactic phenomena was not in the setting. That would need general relativity, and even that with limitations. Or are you carrying a watch that has built in time dilation correction calculations, an odometer in your car that corrects for lorentz contractions ? Are you saying that the Schrodinger equation is wrong because it’s too difficult to calculate beyond single electron systems ? Good luck convincing anyone.
Wrong is an absolute, and that is how you used it, and that is what I disagree with. Absolutes only exist in religious matters, so you try to give (natural) science a religious flare. Reminding you that theories, perfectly sound in their frames of reference, are valid is not “unusable”. It is a fact. Neither you nor I have any idea at all of what “the Universe” is. I won’t contest that there are shady hypotheses, especially those concerning “the Universe” and small particles, where experimental evidence is lacking.
Yet how strange it is, despite uncertainty principles and locality, that it’s still perfectly predictable that a rock will hit the ground with the locally determined gravitational force in exactly the predicted place. However, the state of a particle will be determined when examined, not before then - it stays in all allowed states simultaneously. But you wouldn’t describe the gravitational pull on a rock by doing the calculation on every know particle that constitutes that rock, would you ? Or you wouldn’t assume that at one point when driving a car there is a real possibility that all of a sudden, because of a tunneling effect, you would find yourself outside of your vehicle instead of behind the steering wheel ?
In other words, the frame of reference matters.
Among them was mercury and the sun.
Yes, it is. Its law was for everything. A law is literally a generalization of an observed phenomenom.
A law is wrong when you can exhibit an example where it should apply, but it does not.
That is not an absolute. That is science.
But you just made that frame of reference up. Newton did not state “only for this and that objects”. It was for ALL objects.
It’s not. However the error is so small you can’t notice it. Does not mean the error does not exist.
So it’s not “stupid” anymore? 
Since we are not using the same frame of reference for words, deliberate or not, and you don’t follow the steps in the reasoning, there’s no reason to continue this exchange.
Btw, I didn’t “invent frames of reference” (wish I had, you’d have to learn my name to earn a degree), they imposed themselves through the progress of understanding and knowledge, you know… insight. Perhaps you can even agree with me that that is exactly what happened in special relativity. If you can’t, well, thanks for a few hours of exchange, and hopefully you will start to understand that the Theory of Life, the Universe and Everything is an illusion (but belongs in a great set of novels that I can warmly recommend).
Every answer in science leads to more questions… attempting to expand the number of frameworks and the understanding.
You are claiming that a law is only usable in the context it is discovered.
That is wrong. A scientific law is a generalization of a phenomenon that is observed. It is scientific BECAUSE it can be disputed, and proven wrong.
It is proven wrong the moment an exception is exhibited. In the case of Newton’s law, it was the issue with mercury and the sun.
You invented that the frame of reference of Newton’s law was not containing the errors that were found in mercury and the sun. That’s arbitrary “no true scottman”.
The law of Newton talks about EVERY object. Even those that were not discovered yet. What’s more, mercury and the sun had already been discovered shortly(joke) before.
Once the errors were confirmed, it was already known that this law was wrong - unless some other data were missing, like a missing planet (which had been the case before for Uranus and lead to Neptune IIRC).
Einstein’s model made it clear that such a search was not needed : Newton’s law was wrong.
Yet another spam thread started by Wesfharn, quickly abandoned by him when the community pointed out how stupid the topic was.
Einstein deemed the laws of physics to be local (= frame of reference), governed or described by local fields. That is what lead him to his general theory. So he says you’re wrong. I’m not going to disagree with him, but maybe you’ll ignore it. Give it a few centuries and we will perhaps develop a theory that includes dark matter - if we can find the damn stuff, if it exists.
Yeah, the famous EPR article. In which he claims there are hidden variables.
Which was then formulated wrong (more precisely, either there are hidden variables and quantum theory is wrong, or QT is right and it is non-local) by Bell’s theorem and then proven wrong by experiments (so far…until an experiment proves quantum theory wrong).
Another example of scientific law that was debatable. Causality can be effective faster than light.