et pet

Well, the Deaf and Dumb people are ofttimes heard to argue that, but the Deaf and Blind either act like they don't hear it, or simply refuse to see any validity in the Deaf and Dumb people's argument even if they do. Seriously, though. I got to agree with you, John Cuthber, Awareness of what? I have met some supposedly Supremely Intelligent people that honestly acted so stupid and unaware of so much that I am not sure that they could figure out how to pour water out of a Boot even if the instructions were printed on the bottom of the Heel. An associate-slash- friend of mine, a Theoretical Physicist that I met through work, freaked out when one of my son's Lady friends showed him how to boil water in a paper cup over a camp fire. He still asks me on occasion - how'd she do it, she put wax or something on the cup, right? So, yeah, I am fairly certain that I.Q. tests measure just 2 things : diddly and squat.

Well, depending on the rock, you might just end up taking it for Granite.

Unless they were at the Top of the Food Chain, there is every possibility that the homo erectus or neanderthal man that may have had access to plentiful food source were no more than just a plentiful food source to whatever was at the Top of the Food Chain.

I have heard more than one Intelligent person opine that Homosexuality may just be Natures way of fighting the ignorant infection that is currently plaguing it!

If his Condoms are anything like his Software, one will be too busy Patching the Holes in them to ever get time to actually use them!

I respectfully suggest that the quibbling was instigated in the 2nd response(3rd Post), of this Thread! Yes, beecee, you "actually answered another poster and his question". A question that that other poster actually asked directly of me.

Strange, NO, I AM NOT saying that is not "scientific truth"! Again, I DID NOT Author the Linked Content, so what you or anyone else choose to "Read Into" the Content or how one chooses to interpret the written content is NOT for me to decide. Re-Read the OP, please...and you should see that neither the Quoted Content that I Posted, nor anything that I wrote in the OP, makes any reference to "a scientific truth ". Yes, Strange, the 3 words "a", "scientific" and "truth" are all present in the OP. But nowhere in the OP do the 3 words "a", "scientific" and "truth" appear in succession as "a scientific truth". The quoted passage by Albert Einstein containing the word "truth", does not explicitly state "a scientific truth" : "I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)" - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ , ...so I guess it is up to each individual how they choose to interpret what Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, and whether or not, as you choose to state ; "(even though it is, according to Einstein, what science is seeking)"... Strange, you may well be correct when you state : "(even though it is, according to Einstein, what science is seeking)". I, personally, prefer not to assume or presume to be able to "second guess" or "correct" or even properly "critique" any Genius, especially a Genius the likes of Albert Einstein. Again Strange, I am still currently engaged in this discussion with you and it is still irrelevant whether you MAY or MAY NOT Agree with the article .

If you read the OP, a big IF it seems!! You may be able to read : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ "Einstein's Philosophy of Science" " 1. Introduction: Was Einstein an Epistemological “Opportunist”? Late in 1944, Albert Einstein received a letter from Robert Thornton, a young African-American philosopher of science who had just finished his Ph.D. under Herbert Feigl at Minnesota and was beginning a new job teaching physics at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez. He had written to solicit from Einstein a few supportive words on behalf of his efforts to introduce “as much of the philosophy of science as possible” into the modern physics course that he was to teach the following spring (Thornton to Einstein, 28 November 1944, EA 61–573).[1] Here is what Einstein offered in reply:

Where, may I respectfully ask, Strange, do you see "a scientific truth" written in the Title : "Science...Truth...Reality...?" ... ... ...? is also in the Title, so should one read the Title as "Morse Code SSS Question"? And, Strange, I am still participating in this discussion into the 2nd Page...so... You seem to be very selective (along with a few other Members) in how much you read of my Posts, and how you choose to interpret what you do read. For instance, I actually Posted : I will gladly participate in any thoughtful DISCUSSION with anyone about the Linked content. However, as I did not Author the Content of those Links, I cannot and will not participate in any ARGUMENT against the Linked Content - only the Authors of the Linked Content can do that. Strange, did you not see the : " However, as I did not Author the Content of those Links, I cannot and will not participate in any ARGUMENT against the Linked Content - only the Authors of the Linked Content can do that." Did you miss that part, Strange?

Again, from my OP : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ Anyone who is truly interested in the Philosophy and Science of Albert Einstein should enjoy reading the Linked content. Also of interest might be "The Einstein Papers Project The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein" : http://www.einstein.caltech.edu Nowhere in the OP did I make any reference to "a scientific truth" that a Member constantly attempts to Steer or Hijack this Thread towards for whatever reason. I do understand how the Site Rules are administrated, swansont, so... I will gladly participate in any thoughtful DISCUSSION with anyone about the Linked content. However, as I did not Author the Content of those Links, I cannot and will not participate in any ARGUMENT against the Linked Content - only the Authors of the Linked Content can do that.

To Whom It May Concern : For whatever reason, it seems that another Member would prefer to take control of and possibly even rename this Thread . It is obvious that that Member's actions will not cease.

Again, I cannot and will not participate in any discussion about whether or not Albert Einstein was wrong about anything - especially any discussion with anyone arguing that Albert Einstein may have been wrong about about what his own personal Philosophy of Science was! And how can you argue with anyone about the Title of this Thread? It is in a fairly good sized Font at the TOP OF THIS PAGE! The Title of this Thread IS NOT "Science, Truth and Reality". I titled the OP. The title of this Thread is : Science...Truth...Reality...?

If you want to start a Thread to argue that Albert Einstein may have been wrong about about what his own personal Philosophy of Science was, then go right ahead and start that Thread, Please? My OP contained a Link to a heavily researched and very insightful article Titled "Einsteins Philosophy of Science" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ ; and a Link to "The Einstein Papers Project The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein" : http://www.einstein.caltech.edu As I stated in the OP : Anyone who is truly interested in the Philosophy and Science of Albert Einstein should enjoy reading the Linked content. I honestly thought that some on this Forum might enjoy reading the heavily researched and very insightful article based on Albert Einsteins personal writings and professional publications. And I linked the "The Einstein Papers Project " so that members may actually be able to have ONE LINK access to all of Albert Einsteins personal writings and professional publications. Nowhere in the OP did I make any reference to "a scientific truth" that you constantly attempt to Steer or Hijack this Thread towards for whatever reason. Please? I cannot and will not participate in any discussion about whether or not Albert Einstein was wrong about anything - especially any discussion with anyone arguing that Albert Einstein may have been wrong about about what his own personal Philosophy of Science was! If you cannot simply enjoy the Links in the manner that I proffered them, then Please just start your own Thread to Argue. Please?

If you want to discuss "a scientific truth", would you please start your own thread to do that, please? To start you off though I did a quick google and found this : https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth/1 , "a year ago" "A scientific truth is a truth which is the object of a repeated experimental demonstration which leads to the same result." by Fadel Djamel, Université Mohamed Chérif Messaadia de Souk-Ahrashttps://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth/1 It appears that Fadel Djamel, from the Université Mohamed Chérif Messaadia de Souk-Ahras might share your view on the matter, literally Word for Word, to a limited extent, anyways. So there are probably more than just the two of you that might find that discussion enjoyable. Again, If you want to discuss "a scientific truth", would you please start your own thread to do that, Please?

Again : FROM THE OP : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ "Anyone who is truly interested in the Philosophy and Science of Albert Einstein should enjoy reading the Linked content. Also of interest might be "The Einstein Papers Project The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein": http://www.einstein.caltech.edu

FROM THE OP : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ "Anyone who is truly interested in the Philosophy and Science of Albert Einstein should enjoy reading the Linked content. Also of interest might be "The Einstein Papers Project The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein" : http://www.einstein.caltech.edu

No, Phi for All, I did NOT THINK that swansont "was talking about the "thoughtful discussion" part being too vague to declare beecees posts NOT on-topic? I made no assumptions or presumptions about what swansont Posted. I simply read what he Posted - I added nothing to what he Posted - I read nothing into what he Posted - I did not misquote anything he Posted. If that was indeed what swansont "was talking about", he could have stated as much. By not including the 6-simple words " to declare beecees post NOT on topic", it left his statement somewhat...vague? "Willfully Obtuse" ?!?! The only thing that I could find on being "Willfully Obtuse" : "What this means is that no amount of facts or reasons, no matter how clearly, calmly and patiently you lay them out, is going to change the minds of the wilfully obtuse. They are too brainwashed. They are too far gone." https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&biw=1068&bih=574&ei=c0rTW__GNqOmjwSVtZXYBA&q=what+does+willfully+obtuse+mean&oq=willfully+obtuse+mean%3F&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i7i30.66952.66952..72928...0.0..0.69.69.1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.povnwkg736I Phi for All, I have clearly, calmly, patiently - and also repeatedly - stated my reasons for starting this Thread. I am completely open to any discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein". Is there any chance, Phi for All, that your Posted "Why must you be so willfully obtuse, et pet? " might be construed by some as an example of a "Logical Fallacy" or "Ad Hominem" ? : https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem "Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it." https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

"I'm afraid that "can we have a thoughtful discussion on X" is too vague." Why must you misquote me, swansont? I did not state : "can we have a thoughtful discussion on X". If you read the OP, you will see that I clearly stated : I started this Thread to encourage a thoughtful discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein". "You need to outline what it is you wish to discuss" Again, if you read the OP, you will see that I clearly stated : I started this Thread to encourage a thoughtful discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein". That is a fairly clear "outline" of "what it is" I "wish to discuss". I was trying to encourage a thoughtful discussion on Albert Einsteins Philosophy of Science, as gleaned by the close study of The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. "and post/describe the material from the link in sufficient detail so that can happen." From the OP : " I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)" And : "Einstein expected scientific theories to have the proper empirical credentials, but he was no positivist; and he expected scientific theories to give an account of physical reality, but he was no scientific realist. Moreover, in both respects his views remained more or less the same from the beginning to the end of his career. " - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ Material that I Posted, from the Link which sufficiently Details and Describes both a tiny part of Albert Einsteins Philosophy of Science and also an even tinier part of his collected Papers.

Please? On-Topic, Please? I started this Thread to encourage a thoughtful discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein". I did not invite, nor do I believe that there is any need to suffer continued Kindergarten Proselytizing. I did NOT start this Thread to listen to repeated Kindergarten Proselytizing. Quoted from the Link, which, by the way, has nothing at all to do with " Einsteins Philosophy of Science " or "The Einstein Papers Project The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein". https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth by James Garry "Amina, Do you really think that you are improving the discussion with this proselytizing?" https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth Proselytizing is NOT AN ACCEPTABLE PART OF and has NO PLACE IN ANY thoughtful discussion. So, Please, Pretty Please with a Cherry on Top? On-Topic, Please? How about a thoughtful discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein"?

Please? On-Topic, Please? I started this Thread to encourage a thoughtful discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein". I did not invite, nor do I believe that there is any need to suffer another sermon about any "gauntlet" I did NOT start this Thread hear about about how many occasions anyone has repeatedly preached Kindergarten Science Sermons to anyone else. So, Please, Pretty Please with a Cherry on Top? On-Topic, Please? How about a thoughtful discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein"?

Why do different assertions and claims made by different asserters and claimants need to be consistent. Going by the Quoted 'claims' that you Posted, why would you expect any consistency at all between any specious 'claims' or 'assertions' by 'the contributor' and the Genius of Albert Einstein? Now, at the risk of getting this Thread back On-Topic, did you actually read any of the Linked Article : "Einstein's Philosophy of Science" @ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ ?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ "Einstein's Philosophy of Science" " 1. Introduction: Was Einstein an Epistemological “Opportunist”? Late in 1944, Albert Einstein received a letter from Robert Thornton, a young African-American philosopher of science who had just finished his Ph.D. under Herbert Feigl at Minnesota and was beginning a new job teaching physics at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez. He had written to solicit from Einstein a few supportive words on behalf of his efforts to introduce “as much of the philosophy of science as possible” into the modern physics course that he was to teach the following spring (Thornton to Einstein, 28 November 1944, EA 61–573).[1] Here is what Einstein offered in reply:

'k

can be

“Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.” ― Ray Cummings, The Girl in the Golden Atom