I don't think it is. There is more than one theory about so-called laws of nature. There are the two competing metaphysical theories: the Regularity T...
Yes! Someone who gets it. And, of course, an event doesn't have to occur in order for it to be possible, nor does one have to do some particular thing...
No, because I did so in that same short paragraph. I provided an argument. You can argue that it isn't justified, but to state that I haven't provided...
Good point. That is even more sceptical than my initial position. I will give it some thought. Why not? But if that's going to be a problem for you, I...
That last part is funny. This is a good example of how a muddled premise can lead you down the wrong path. You go wrong from the start when you set in...
That could be any unknown or mistakenly ruled out factor. So, virtually anything. And it doesn't have to be plausible or fit in with our current under...
Exactly. We have very good reasons to believe that such a thing is in fact extremely unlikely. What are these very good reasons to believe that such a...
Whose understanding? If it isn't fallible, then it can't possibly be mistaken. But we are human, and thus not just capable of error, but prone to erro...
It's all about what you can reasonably rule out as impossible. And I'm just saying that we can't do that with regards to what we've been discussing in...
No. This demonstrates a failure on your part in understanding what it is that I do and don't dispute. And no, it isn't "some sort of chance coincidenc...
Ah, so someone else has (implicitly) acknowledged that it is at least possible (which is my position), and not a contradiction in terms (which is Meta...
Yes, I agree. I almost said "similar" rather than "the same", but I thought that you'd know what I meant, and so overlook it, rather than pedantically...
That's not daft. You can, so long as you don't define yourself into contradiction. But it isn't. That is just what temperature it happens to boil at. ...
I'm not sure how serious your reply is. I'm talking about repeating an experiment under the same conditions. In this case, whether, all else being equ...
The boiling point. Boiling. Point. Does anyone have an answer which doesn't exploit my imprecise wording? But the question wasn't about whether water ...
Yes, that is what I meant. So... Is anyone else here going to answer the question? I've kinda lost sight of how it relates back to the original topic,...
I mean, is it possible for the boiling point of water under normal conditions (at sea level, under normal atmospheric pressure, and all that jazz) to ...
I think it went from God in relation to science, to science in relation to ethics, and then there was an analogy about temperature, which lead to this...
Right, but that's a daft way to define it, and amounts to the fallacy of equivocation. You then can't have water boiling at 30 degrees Celsuis, even t...
Of course I haven't had success. Jesus Christ. Do I have to explain possibility to you now as well? I have said that it would be extremely unlikely if...
Just quoting yourself again isn't helpful. You need to explain why you think that that is relevant to my criticism. I'm saying that under those same c...
Explain why you think that that is relevant to my criticism. You find it strange that I take what you have said and draw logical conclusions? You said...
You can say what you like, but that won't change the fact that it is not impossible for water to boil at a different temperature. And because your pos...
No, we can predict what temperature water boils at, but not because the scale is built around that. It is because it has been successfully tested. It ...
I suspect you of willful ignorance. You are clinging to your position, even if it means accepting falsehoods, which, perhaps deep down, you know to be...
That's what I thought. And I'm inclined to agree. But then, I have thought a number of things that have turned out to be wrong. For example, I thought...
I have explained this multiple times now. I don't know why it isn't getting through to you. Let's be honest, you already know the difference, and behi...
It can mean different things in different contexts. I'm not trying to create a new definition of "objective". I am using it in a similar way to you. B...
I don't know why you feel the need to reword it. What was wrong with the way that I put it? But anyway, yes, that is more or less correct, and is cert...
No, it isn't. It's stating what the distinction is. The distinction has to do with necessity. There are two distinctions which can be made: 1. What a ...
I have done so. More than once. Here, for example. Even if so, importantly, it's not just about that. It's also about correctness. It's not 'anything ...
The thought, judgement, belief, etc., is. But that isn't as significant as you might think. I already mentioned a few. Climate change is another one t...
It wasn't changing the subject from your perspective, therefore it wasn't changing the subject? If that is what you are suggesting, that is a non sequ...
No, that doesn't argue against my original point, which I reiterated not long ago. So, why did you change the subject? Best interests can be related t...
What is in a person's best interests need not be what that person likes or prefers. Hence, I can like sharks, and I might prefer swimming with sharks ...
Comments