1 hour ago, Rockyroad said:

NOW does not exist. If it existed you could measure it. You can't.

No, this is my point. We can't "measure" anything. Nothing is separate so it can be measured, as if it were a single, standalone thing.

1 hour ago, Rockyroad said:

Name 3 made up facts.

There is such a thing as integers, like 3. All is one.

4 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

No, this is my point. We can't "measure" anything. Nothing is separate so it can be measured, as if it were a single, standalone thing.

Yes we can. We use time to measure life. Time is based on scientific facts. It takes 365.25 days to orbit the sun.

16 minutes ago, Rockyroad said:

Yes we can. We use time to measure life. Time is based on scientific facts. It takes 365.25 days to orbit the sun.

So, it takes 365.25 days to orbit our sun?
- The Earth's rotation is gradually decelerating, causing days to lengthen over time. On average, the rotation slows by approximately 1.7 milliseconds per century.
- The Earth's orbit around the Sun is also increasing.
- The Earth's orbit around the Sun is also getting farther away from the Sun.
So the "scientific fact" that it takes the Earth 365.25 days is not a fact at all, but an estimate based on a series of constantly changing aspects. There are no facts about reality. Why? Because reality is pure (you finish the sentence). 😄

39 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

So, it takes 365.25 days to orbit our sun?
- The Earth's rotation is gradually decelerating, causing days to lengthen over time. On average, the rotation slows by approximately 1.7 milliseconds per century.
- The Earth's orbit around the Sun is also increasing.
- The Earth's orbit around the Sun is also getting farther away from the Sun.
So the "scientific fact" that it takes the Earth 365.25 days is not a fact at all, but an estimate based on a series of constantly changing aspects. There are no facts about reality. Why? Because reality is pure (you finish the sentence). 😄

The facts are it is roughly 365.25 days and changes slightly from year to year. Basically a rounding error.

Your understanding of science is dismal.

3 minutes ago, Rockyroad said:

The facts are it is roughly 365.25 days and changes slightly from year to year. Basically a rounding error.

Your understanding of science is dismal.

Facts aren't "rough." Facts are supposed to be accurate. Yes, the Earth's rotation changes slightly from year to year, and actually from second to second. A "fact' that is subject to rounding error is not a fact. It's an estimate.

My understanding of science is that it is just a series of estimates and theories. Your understanding of the term "understanding" is whatever you want it to be at the time you use it.

49 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

There are no facts about reality. Why? Because reality is pure (you finish the sentence)

Lots of facts about reality. Protein builds muscle. Creatine gives fast energy bursts. Excess sugar causes health issues. Smoking is linked to cancer. Lack of sleep affects mood. Lifting heavy weights builds strength. Hitting a golf ball downwind makes it go further. Music affects mood.

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Facts aren't "rough." Facts are supposed to be accurate. Yes, the Earth's rotation changes slightly from year to year, and actually from second to second. A "fact' that is subject to rounding error is not a fact. It's an estimate.

My understanding of science is that it is just a series of estimates and theories. Your understanding of the term "understanding" is whatever you want it to be at the time you use it.

365.25 days is accurate to a normal person. It is not 400 one year and 350 the next. The differences are very minor for such a large distance. A 5km runner does not finish in the same time each run and that's a short distance. Expecting the earth to orbit perfectly is irrational. All the other forces influence it.

Back to the question that is the topic of this forum: "Do you believe in the scientific method?"

I believe in the usefulness of the estimates and patterns produced by the scientific method. However, I consider these to be only pareidolia, not actual facts.

Just now, WDSmart said:

Back to the question that is the topic of this forum: "Do you believe in the scientific method?"

I believe in the usefulness of the estimates and patterns produced by the scientific method. However, I consider these to be only pareidolia, not actual facts.

You are confused between precision and broad facts.

• Mount Everest is tall." Accurate, but imprecise. (It is a fact, but vague).

• "Mount Everest is about 8,800 meters high." Accurate and moderately precise.

• "Mount Everest is 8,848.86 meters high." Accurate and highly precise.

Edited August 9Aug 9 by Rockyroad

6 minutes ago, Rockyroad said:

365.25 days is accurate to a normal person. It is not 400 one year and 350 the next. The differences are very minor for such a large distance. A 5km runner does not finish in the same time each run and that's a short distance. Expecting the earth to orbit perfectly is irrational. All the other forces influence it.

Yes! And what is another term for "irrational"? - Chaos!

3 minutes ago, Rockyroad said:

You are confused between precision and broad facts.

• Mount Everest is tall." Accurate, but imprecise. (It is a fact, but vague).

• "Mount Everest is about 8,800 meters high." Accurate and moderately precise.

• "Mount Everest is 8,848.86 meters high." Accurate and highly precise.

Something that is "highly precise" is not a fact.

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

Yes! And what is another term for "irrational"? - Chaos!

Scientific laws and rules provide order. Why we have speed limits on roads.

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Something that is "highly precise" is not a fact.

According to you. Most people are happy with small roundings.

16 minutes ago, Rockyroad said:

Scientific laws and rules provide order. Why we have speed limits on roads.

Yes! That's the gist of what I've been saying on this forum for the past 3 or 4 days! Scientific laws and rules attempt to impose order on an otherwise chaotic reality.

17 minutes ago, Rockyroad said:

According to you. Most people are happy with small roundings.

I'm very happy with "small roundings" and other estimates. I just don't like it when these are called "facts."

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

Yes! That's the gist of what I've been saying on this forum for the past 3 or 4 days! Scientific laws and rules attempt to impose order on an otherwise chaotic reality.

Most behaviour is not chaos. It is mainly at the extremes. 90% of Thai drivers are fine. Rules are created to protect the 90% from idiots.

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

I'm very happy with "small roundings" and other estimates. I just don't like it when these are called "facts."

Tuna can label- 28g of protein.

Reality - 27-28g of protein. The difference being water content and rounding.

The 28g claim is the average not a precise measurement of each can.

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

How about the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? There are no straight lines in reality. And, in fact, there are no two seperate points, either.

You have gone philosophical rather than physical, and that’s okay, because we need some human radicalism and philosophy to look beyond the evidence to progress. But you cannot invent new rules and then call science a religion while you are playing the conscious observer.

Humans abuse science for their opinions, goals and personal beliefs, but science as science has clear rules. Evidence does not change because of our beliefs. Science is always open to challenge, but you have to challenge it with evidence, not simply invent new rules because they fit your philosophy.

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

Yes! That's the gist of what I've been saying on this forum for the past 3 or 4 days! Scientific laws and rules attempt to impose order on an otherwise chaotic reality.

Reality appears chaotic to those who don’t seek answers and solutions. Science is disciplined process applied to understand an observation, to model reality based on observations producing descriptions and predictions that remain reliable even though it seems indifferent and counter intuitive to what is humanly preferred. Philosophy doesn’t mix well with science, which seems to be what you’re on about.

Retired, have a lot of time on your hands? There's a lot of good books out there to read about reality, how about giving quantum physics a go, here’s an easily comprehendible read… QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by R. Feynman

1 minute ago, novacova said:

Reality appears chaotic to those who don’t seek answers and solutions. Science is disciplined process applied to understand an observation, to model reality based on observations producing descriptions and predictions that remain reliable even though it seems indifferent and counter intuitive to what is humanly preferred. Philosophy doesn’t mix well with science, which seems to be what you’re on about.

Retired, have a lot of time on your hands? There's a lot of good books out there to read about reality, how about giving quantum physics a go, here’s an easily comprehendible read… QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by R. Feynman

Science seeks answers and solutions to stuff chaos into a logical box. The box is either too large or too small, because reality never can be boxed in by science.

Or one of the 10 books I've written and published, whose titles I'm not allowed to mention on these forums.

Edited August 9Aug 9 by WDSmart

11 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Science seeks answers and solutions to stuff chaos into a logical box. The box is either too large or too small, because reality never can be boxed in by science.

Or one of the 10 books I've written and published, whose titles I'm not allowed to mention on these forums.

17 minutes ago, novacova said:

Philosophy doesn’t mix well with science, which seems to be what you’re on about.

Not much more to say about it than that. Except that good philosophy of science clarifies concepts and unveils misconceptions.

Edited August 9Aug 9 by novacova

On 8/6/2026 at 6:21 PM, GammaGlobulin said:

Dear Folks,

Some do, and some do not, believe in the Scientific Method.

What is your opinion?

If the world were run, politically and otherwise, based on the Scientific Method, would life not be far more pleasant for the Common Man, not to mention the LaoBaiXing?

How might adherence to the Scientific Method improve governance, at all levels?

Or, what about Witch Dunking?

Which would you prefer, in a perfect world?

Best regards,

Gamma

NOTE: How might the Scientific Method be applied in governance?

Still, do you imagine that most chimps want evidence-based governmental policy?

Just asking....(for a friend)...

Here is an example of American Evidence-Based Governmental Policy at work:

What is it that you mean by "the scientific method"?

My view is, if you have to ask, you are many decades behind the current state of scientific knowledge.

27 minutes ago, novanova said:

What is it that you mean by "the scientific method"?

My view is, if you have to ask, you are many decades behind the current state of scientific knowledge.

It is not what I mean by the Scientific Method, that one should worry about.

It is generally accepted by most scientists that the Scientific Method means a specific process, by which science gains an increasingly refined understanding of reality.

Edited August 9Aug 9 by GammaGlobulin

On 8/7/2026 at 9:45 AM, Rockyroad said:

You must have scored a C in science.

And you must not have been there at all.

1 hour ago, cjinchiangrai said:

And you must not have been there at all.

I was in the advanced class with the smart kids.

3 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Science seeks answers and solutions to stuff chaos into a logical box. The box is either too large or too small, because reality never can be boxed in by science.

Or one of the 10 books I've written and published, whose titles I'm not allowed to mention on these forums.

So your books were mumbo jumbo and not real science. Got it.

3 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Science seeks answers and solutions to stuff chaos into a logical box. The box is either too large or too small, because reality never can be boxed in by science.

Or one of the 10 books I've written and published, whose titles I'm not allowed to mention on these forums.

Most things are only chaos on the surface. Novices lack the knowledge to see the patterns. Even monkeys use logic to solve problems.

If you removed religion from the world it would be a much better peaceful place. The religion you believe is formed by who your parents are and until recently, where you were born. I find it hard to believe that people believe what was written in the Middle Ages about how the world was born. I doubt that two thousand years ago you would ever have met a Matthew, Mark, Luke or John in the Middle East. Likewise anyone who believes someone can ascend to heaven and reappear 3 days later or ride a winged horse to heaven, I have a bridge to sell them. Science has proven how we exist, Religion relies upon believing things that no intelligent person could believe if they applied a bit of critical thinking. Yes Science all the way!

16 hours ago, novacova said:

Not much more to say about it than that. Except that good philosophy of science clarifies concepts and unveils misconceptions.

I would agree with your statement above, with the following addition: "..., but does not reveal what is actually happening in reality."