Science, truth, and knowledge

[Reg Prescott]

In this thread I'd like to explore the various relationships that obtain between science, truth, and knowledge, and perhaps help to ameliorate some very deep confusions that have been brought to my attention through discussion with fellow members.

I've noticed that, in contexts related to science, some members are extremely reluctant to make any mention of the word "truth" (and its cognates: true, truly, etc.), a tendency that struck me as quite inexplicable until the reason, I think, for this misguided reticence was exposed in a very revealing comment recently.

If I may paraphrase: "The making of claims to truth would compromise the open-minded character of the scientific enterprise  and render it more like a religion."

What I hope to show here, to begin with at least, is that such a view leads to consequences that I suspect have not been clearly thought through; consequences that I'm fairly sure the majority of our members would be unwilling to accept.

 

Knowledge, as traditionally defined since antiquity, is justified true belief. Certain inadequacies in this definition (Gettier type counterexamples) have been brought to light in recent decades, though they needn't concern us here. The above definition will be assumed in all that follows.

To have knowledge of a certain proposition, to know that proposition, then, requires three conditions to be satisfied:

(1) One must believe the proposition
(2) One must have sufficient justification for believing that proposition
(3) The proposition must be true

 

(1), obviously, tells us that you cannot know something you don't believe.

(2) says that one must not only believe the proposition in question, but one must have good reasons for doing so. Guesswork is ruled out. Were Smith, through a sheer fluke, to correctly guess the winning lottery number, we would not thereby attribute knowledge to him. He believed, for example, that the winning number was 314269, and it is true that the winning number was 314269, but he lacked the requisite justification; he had no good reason(s) for believing as he did. Therefore, he did not know this.

(3) is self-explanatory. One cannot have knowledge of that which is untrue. You might believe that Paris is the capital of Italy; you may even have good reasons for believing this; nevertheless, you cannot know that it is so. For the simple reason that it is not so.

 

(1) - (3), then, constitute individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for knowledge (leaving aside pain-in-the-ass Gettier complications). If any one of the three is not satisfied there can be no knowledge; if all three are satisfied, knowledge is the result.

Now, since truth is one of these necessary conditions for knowledge, any untrue claim -- scientific or otherwise -- cannot constitute knowledge. Without truth there can be no knowledge.

Therefore, those who deny that science -- at least in some cases -- yields truth (i.e., true propositions, statements, laws, theories, hypotheses, etc.) must also deny that science produces knowledge.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a fairly weighty bullet that presumably few among us would be willing to bite.

To the following questions...

How much knowledge has science produced about the cosmos, the stars, the galaxies, the planets?
How much knowledge has science produced about evolution?
How much knowledge has science produced about atoms and molecules?
How much knowledge has science produced about anatomy, the brain, medicine?

... the denier of truth, on pain of inconsistency, must answer: "Zilch! Zero! Nada! Not a jot! Absolutely none!".

 

 

As a footnote, one occasionally hears on these forums clandestine whispers of "absolute truth" or "universal truth". I personally haven't a clue what is being alluded to. The terms mean nothing to me. For the student of language, "true" and "false", are rather mundane predicates that apply to assertive sentences, from the most pedestrian ("My haemorrhoids are playing up again") to the sublime ("Jesus is the only begotten son of God"). Both sentences make assertions, and thus both are -- at least in principle -- truth evaluable.

 

Now, who's afraid of the big bad truth?
 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

Now, who's afraid of the big bad truth?

Not me, since the only thing that's true is...

Nope, I'm not playing...

[Silvestru]

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

(3) is self-explanatory. One cannot have knowledge of that which is untrue. You might believe that Paris is the capital of Italy; you may even have good reasons for believing this; nevertheless, you cannot know that it is so. For the simple reason that it is not so.

Ok I will play. How do you know that Paris is not the capital of Italy? Based on what?

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

I'm fairly sure the majority of our members would be unwilling to accept.

100% with you on this one. 

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

How much knowledge has science produced about the cosmos, the stars, the galaxies, the planets?

Scientists have "produced" observations and models and the successful models match what was observed. This is not knowledge or truth. 
We discover new things every day that have influence on what we previously thought is how something works. No scientist "believes" anything in the faith sense.

That has to do with Religion.

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

One must believe the proposition

One must be open to the possibility of the proposition. But not even that....

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

(2) One must have sufficient justification for believing that proposition

Sufficient observational data, peer review and testing 

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

(3) The proposition must be true

The proposition currently describes and is in line with what we observe. This could change in the future.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

In this thread I'd like to explore the various relationships that obtain between science, truth, and knowledge, and perhaps help to ameliorate some very deep confusions that have been brought to my attention through discussion with fellow members.

Science and Truth, like love, are many splendored things.

So you do not do their justice with your analysis, indeed you do their causes a disservice.

Knowledge and belief, (why was belief omitted from the original list?) are more focused, but still retain a degree of multifaceted character.

I know ( at the level of meaning of know) that there are flying insects called butterflies. This is pure knowledge)

I further know there are other similar flying insects called moths. (This is actually the overlap area between belief and knowledge)

I do not know the difference but I believe there is one. (This is pure belief)

 

And all of this is part of Science.

 

Your overlimiting proposition thesis is more like the man who sees a tree and says "Forest".

Or the man who says "There are three platonic solids" 

Are these right or are these wrong?

[DrP]

Was JJ Thompsom 'right' when he modelled the atom as a plumb pudding? Was what he was postulating 'true'?

 

[Silvestru]

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Knowledge, as traditionally defined since antiquity, is justified true belief

It definitely is not. I would argue that with no prior knowledge or education, it would be "justified" to think that the sun and moon are orbiting the earth and that we are in the centre base don primitive observation. People who have questioned this and have made further research have come to the conclusion that it is not true.

 

[DrP]

15 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

This is not knowledge

I always thought that it was knowledge. Science - the word, actually means 'knowledge' I always thought  -  that is what they taught us back in school anyway. The knowledge you have can be updated as more information is revealed about a system. As for 'absolute truth' - how could anyone ever know what they believed was absolutely true. You always have that unproven - 'what if' behind you.

 

[Silvestru]

4 minutes ago, DrP said:

I always thought that it was knowledge. Science - the word, actually means 'knowledge' I always thought  -  that is what they taught us back in school anyway. The knowledge you have can be updated as more information is revealed about a system. As for 'absolute truth' - how could anyone ever know what they believed was absolutely true. You always have that unproven - 'what if' behind you.

I agree but that is not how the OP has defined knowledge. He has defined it as "justified true belief"

I am contesting the modern use of this definition.

I am also contesting the word "truth" in the OP's context as in science this implies that there is 100% chance of something being the case. 

That is not what science is about.

If you can keep your definition of knowledge about science by accepting that science is in constant flux and that it never "proves" anything 100% then yeah. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Silvestru

[Reg Prescott]

Hi there,

 

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

Ok I will play. How do you know that Paris is not the capital of Italy? Based on what?

The same way as most everyone else, I suppose: books, TV, internet resources, Gregory Peck films, testimony (Mummy and Daddy and goddamn schoolteachers), etc.

I'd say my belief that Rome, and not Paris, is the capital of Italy is well justified, and thus I can claim to know this. Of course, if it turns out that my belief is untrue, then we'd say "Reg thought he knew, but he didn't". Happens a lot.

 

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

Scientists have "produced" observations and models and the successful models match what was observed. This is not knowledge or truth. 
We discover new things every day that have influence on what we previously thought is how something works. No scientist "believes" anything in the faith sense.

That has to do with Religion.

Well, let's take an example of an observation. How about the observation that Halley's comet visits our solar system every 76 years (or whatever - no lawsuits, please)? Or choose one of your own.

If it is indeed true that Halley's comet visits us every 76 years, Smith believes this, and he has good reasons to believe this (presumably provided by science), then we can say Smith knows this. He has knowledge. Same goes for any model or theory that is truth evaluable at all. (Some models, for example, may be more like a map: not the kind of thing that lends itself to being true or false). Whether the justification is sufficient would depend on the theory/hypothesis/claim in question.

I think you're reading too much into the word "belief". The term covers not only religious beliefs; we all have them. I believe, for instance, that I'm sitting in front of my computer at the moment. And assuming I have sufficient justification for this belief (the reliability of my own senses), and that it's true, then I know I'm sitting in front of my computer. It's a justified true belief: an item of knowledge. If it turns out I'm actually in the Matrix then I didn't know after all.

 

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

One must be open to the possibility of the proposition. But not even that....

You'll see all kinds of assertions made on these forums every day. To assert something, except under deviant circumstances (most obviously, lying), is to express a belief that that which is asserted is true. We generally do not assert that which we do not believe. Of course the belief expressed might turn out to be wrong. In which case, it wasn't knowledge after all.

 

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

Sufficient observational data, peer review and testing 

Sounds good to me. Therefore if this indeed constitutes sufficient justification for a certain proposition, you believe that proposition, and the proposition is true, then you know it.

 

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

The proposition currently describes and is in line with what we observe. This could change in the future.

Then we would (later) say that the currently affirmed proposition was false. And if it was believed by anyone, it was not knowledge, despite what they may have thought at the time.

 

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

It definitely is not. I would argue that with no prior knowledge or education, it would be "justified" to think that the sun and moon are orbiting the earth and that we are in the centre base don primitive observation. People who have questioned this and have made further research have come to the conclusion that it is not true.

In that case, those who believed that the Sun was orbiting the Earth were wrong. They had a false belief, albeit a justified false belief. It was not knowledge.

You missed one of the three essential components of knowledge. These primitive people had (i) a belief; it may well have been (ii) a well justified belief; but the belief was not (iii) true.

 

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Science and Truth, like love, are many splendored things.

So you do not do their justice with your analysis, indeed you do their causes a disservice.

Knowledge and belief, (why was belief omitted from the original list?) are more focused, but still retain a degree of multifaceted character.

I know ( at the level of meaning of know) that there are flying insects called butterflies. This is pure knowledge)

I further know there are other similar flying insects called moths. (This is actually the overlap area between belief and knowledge)

I do not know the difference but I believe there is one. (This is pure belief)

 

If I understand you correctly, I'd be inclined to say not that belief "merges" into knowledge, but that you assign varying degrees of confidence to your beliefs.

I don't think knowledge of a proposition admits of degrees. You either know it or you don't. I don't think a person can "70% know" that Rome is the capital of Italy. She might, though, state or exhibit (through offering her gambling odds, for example) a 70% degree of confidence in her belief that it is so.

You might be extremely confident, certain even, or more diffident towards your belief. All that matters for knowledge is that the belief be true and justified, regardless of your confidence level. You may express unmitigated certainty that you know such-and-such, for example, yet still be wrong. This happens a lot, too.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Your overlimiting proposition thesis is more like the man who sees a tree and says "Forest".

Or the man who says "There are three platonic solids" 

Are these right or are these wrong?

 

"Forest" is not a statement, thus not evaluable for truth or falsity as it stands. "There is a forest in front of me", on the other hand, would be truth evaluable. I'm guessing here you have sorites type examples in mind. E.g. "How many trees does it take to constitute a forest?". Vague predicates are a pain; look on them as a "problem for the theory".

As for the dude who says "There are three platonic solids". Seems to me, if there are three platonic solids then he's right -- he's making a true statement. Otherwise he's wrong.

 

 

1 hour ago, DrP said:

Was JJ Thompsom 'right' when he modelled the atom as a plumb pudding? Was what he was postulating 'true'?

 

As I alluded to in my response to Silvestru, a model may not be the kind of beast to which the predicates true and false apply.

They would normally only be applied to linguistic entities (statements, theories, hypotheses, etc) and mental entities (i.e. beliefs).

If Thompsom made any linguistic assertions regarding his model, then presumably they can be evaluated for truth and falsity.

 

1 hour ago, DrP said:

I always thought that it was knowledge. Science - the word, actually means 'knowledge' I always thought  -  that is what they taught us back in school anyway. The knowledge you have can be updated as more information is revealed about a system. As for 'absolute truth' - how could anyone ever know what they believed was absolutely true. You always have that unproven - 'what if' behind you.

 

Here you make a good point. When it comes to scientific claims to truth and knowledge, we may find ourselves in the position of the "preface paradox".

The writer of the book makes numerous assertions throughout the book; assertions, needless to say,  that she believes to be true.

Meanwhile, in the preface, we're told by the same writer "This book doubtless contains many errors for which I take full responsibility etc. etc. blah blah". She would appear to be at once -- paradoxically -- asserting that her claims are true, and that (at least some of them) are untrue.

So, with regards science, unless you're willing to bite that bullet and assert that science does not produce any knowledge (!), we may have to live with the fact that much of what scientists claim is indeed true (and if we believe these claims, we have knowledge), though we cannot know which particular claims.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[Reg Prescott]

2 hours ago, Silvestru said:

I am also contesting the word "truth" in the OP's context as in science this implies that there is 100% chance of something being the case. 

That is not what science is about.

If you can keep your definition of knowledge about science by accepting that science is in constant flux and that it never "proves" anything 100% then yeah. 

 

I think here you're conflating truth and justification.

What is true is just.... well, true.

Our degrees of confidence that any given proposition is true, on the other hand,  are likely to fluctuate, as you rightly note, depending on the justification (evidence!) we can bring to bear on that proposition.

 

2 hours ago, Silvestru said:

Scientists have "produced" observations and models and the successful models match what was observed. This is not knowledge or truth. 
We discover new things every day that have influence on what we previously thought is how something works. No scientist "believes" anything in the faith sense.

Hmm, better watch your step. You might lose friends saying things like that in these parts .

Is your position, then, that science has provided us with no knowledge whatsoever of the stars, planets, universe, etc.?

Edited October 30, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[dimreepr]

58 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

What is true is just.... well, true.

Axioms are true; everything else depends on the context and perception.

[Reg Prescott]

A couple of members have commented on "models" and whether we can say of them that they are true or not. I guess this would depend on the particular model in question.

Consider a map of the London Underground, for example, which might be regarded as a model of sorts. Taken as a whole it would not seem amenable to an attribution of truth or falsity, though we might be inclined to describe it as a good or bad map. Nonetheless, statements can be derived from the map which can be assessed for truth. E.g.

"Euston station is six stops away from Kings Cross station"

and since I just made it up, this particular statement is almost certainly false.

The same applies, presumably, to various models of the atom that have been proposed (Thomson's plum pudding model, etc.).

[StringJunky]

13 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

A couple of members have commented on "models" and whether we can say of them that they are true or not. I guess this would depend on the particular model in question.

Consider a map of the London Underground, for example, which might be regarded as a model of sorts. Taken as a whole it would not seem amenable to an attribution of truth or falsity, though we might be inclined to describe it as a good or bad map. Nonetheless, statements can be derived from the map which can be assessed for truth. E.g.

"Euston station is six stops away from Kings Cross station"

and since I just made it up, this particular statement is almost certainly false.

The same applies, presumably, to various models of the atom that have been proposed (Thomson's plum pudding model, etc.).

A map, like a model, contains some information but not all of it.

Edited October 30, 2018 by StringJunky

[Reg Prescott]

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

A map, like a model, contains some information but not all of it.

Yes, I think you're right. Maps/models tend to reflect our particular interests. Salient information is included; irrelevancies excluded.

A map of the London Underground reflects the interests of those planning to use it. It's not much use, though, to the thirsty tourist hoping to get a pint of Fosters and some fish 'n' chips with mushy peas in a London pub.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[Sensei]

Living organisms learn the environment in which they live using their sensors like eyes, ears, nose, taste, touch. Undermining data from your own sensors would disallow learning about environment.

Scientists are making observation of event, gathering data on timeline, creating mathematical model of it ("physical equation"), which allows later to interpolate or extrapolate data, and predict future and past. In the majority of scientific disciplines it is possible to perform experiment to repeat observation and gather data again, precisely control experiment to remove variables or add new variables if needed. Anybody can gain experimental knowledge, or verify existing ones, without having to believe on word just reading scientific book. The less variables the better prediction will be. It's called "closed system", "isolated system".

Cosmos is not isolated system, therefor one day comet Halley won't return at the right time, when its path will be disturbed by other cosmic object. It's at the moment returning after 75.32 years. In the future it might hit planet, being captured by planet, path can be disturbed etc. etc. It's does not invalidate current observational data. They are true at the moment. After millions, or billions of years, they won't be true anymore.

The main difference between religion and science, is that in science you don't have to purely rely on words in ancient books, but you can perform experiments from books, verify them, and get to the same conclusions, the same equations as living in the past scientists. And perhaps find out they didn't include some variable in their equation, and extend their initial thought, extend knowledge base of humankind by yourself.

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Sensei

[StringJunky]

19 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Yes, I think you're right. Maps/models tend to reflect our particular interests. Salient information is included; irrelevancies excluded.

A map of the London Underground reflects the interests of those planning to use it. It's not much use, though, to the thirsty tourist hoping to get a pint of Fosters and some fish 'n' chips with mushy peas in a London pub.

That's what scientific models do: describe salient relationships and ignore the rest. They are necessarily incomplete. They are a map of the territory and not the territory itself. The main motive for producing a model is that it can be usefully used; just like a London Underground map. Whether it is true in every detail is superfluous.

[Reg Prescott]

27 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Living organisms learn the environment in which they live using their sensors like eyes, ears, nose, taste, touch. Undermining data from your own sensors would disallow learning about environment.

Scientists are making observation of event, gathering data on timeline, creating mathematical model of it ("physical equation"), which allows later to interpolate or extrapolate data, and predict future and past. In the majority of scientific disciplines it is possible to perform experiment to repeat observation and gather data again, precisely control experiment to remove variables or add new variables if needed. Anybody can gain experimental knowledge, or verify existing ones, without having to believe on word just reading scientific book. The less variables the better prediction will be. It's called "closed system", "isolated system".

Cosmos is not isolated system, therefor one day comet Halley won't return at the right time, when its path will be disturbed by other cosmic object. It's at the moment returning after 75.32 years. In the future it might hit planet, being captured by planet, path can be disturbed etc. etc. It's does not disclassify current observational data.

The main difference between religion and science, is that in science you don't have to purely rely on words in ancient books, but you can perform experiments from books, verify them, and get to the same conclusions, the same equations as living in the past scientists. And perhaps find out they didn't include some variable in their equation, and extend their initial thought, extend knowledge base of humankind.

 

 

Hi there. Just to focus on one point in your thoughtful post...

Perhaps 300 years ago this might have been largely true (though even then Boyle-type air pumps were few and far between). In this age of "big science", however, it no longer seems plausible. Most of us do not have access to an electron microscope, or a Hubble telescope, or a particle collider. And wouldn't know how to use it even if we did!

Thus, most of us, if we're to claim knowledge at all in these areas, have to accept the testimony of the experts.

 

 

23 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

That's what scientific models do: describe salient relationships and ignore the rest. They are necessarily incomplete. They are a map of the territory and not the territory itself. The main motive for producing a model is that it can be usefully used; just like a London Underground map. Whether it is true in every detail is superfluous.

Ok, but if we're to claim that these models are providing us with any kind of knowledge, there must be truth-evaluable statements which can be derived from them.

Otherwise, as you say, it's simply an instrument, or a tool. And a screwdriver cannot be true or false.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[Sensei]

22 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

In this age of "big science", however, it no longer seems plausible. Most of us do not have access to an electron microscope, or a Hubble telescope, or a particle collider.

Thus, most of us, if we're to claim knowledge at all in these areas, have to accept the testimony of the experts.

Particle collider like in CERN is not needed to make high energy particles experiments. Every second through your room there are flying cosmic ray particles, primary cosmic rays, and secondary cosmic rays. Alpha rays, beta rays, gamma rays etc. from decay of radioactive isotopes, or unstable particles. You can see them using Cloud Chamber (approximately $50 investment and willingness needed). You can see how it works on YouTube Google for "How to build Cloud Chamber", do it, and you will be playing with it even this week.

The difference between particle detector at CERN or so, and your own, is that in home CC, you won't be able to make really high energy particles by yourself, but you will have to rely on the one which are from the Sun, cosmos, or external radioactive source. You will be at the same position as any quantum physicists from the first half of XX century. Cloud Chambers were used to detect positrons (anti-matter), muons, pions, kaons... Nobel prize worth receiving discoveries..

22 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Perhaps, 300 years ago this might have been largely true (though even then Boyle-type air pumps were few and far between).

This comment shows how important are school experiments performed by children by them self..

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Sensei

[Reg Prescott]

44 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Particle collider like in CERN is not needed to make high energy particles experiments. Every second through your room there are flying cosmic ray particles, primary cosmic rays, and secondary cosmic rays. Alpha rays, beta rays, gamma rays etc. from decay of radioactive isotopes, or unstable particles. You can see them using Cloud Chamber (approximately $50 investment and willingness needed). You can see how it works on YouTube Google for "How to build Cloud Chamber", do it, and you will be playing with it even this week.

The difference between particle detector at CERN or so, and your own, is that in home CC, you won't be able to make really high energy particles by yourself, but you will have to rely on the one which are from the Sun, cosmos, or radioactive source. You will be at the same position as any quantum physicists from the first half of XX century. Cloud Chambers were used to detect positrons (anti-matter), muons, pions, kaons... Nobel prize worth receiving discoveries..

This comment shows how important are school experiments performed by children by them self..

 

 

Wow! I didn't realize these things were so cheap! "Dear Santa..."

Again, though, supposing I were to dig into the coffers and make the 50-buck investment, I'd still have no idea how to interpret what I was seeing. To me it would just be a streak on a screen (or whatever). 

What I could claim first-hand knowledge of is "If I tweak this knob, and press this button, etc. I see such-and-such".

I'd still have to rely on the experts for an understanding of what's going on behind-the-scenes. My knowledge (if indeed it is) of cosmic rays and their brethren would be derived from the testimony of experts. Parasitical knowledge!

Edited October 31, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[StringJunky]

28 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

Hi there. Just to focus on one point in your thoughtful post...

Perhaps 300 years ago this might have been largely true (though even then Boyle-type air pumps were few and far between). In this age of "big science", however, it no longer seems plausible. Most of us do not have access to an electron microscope, or a Hubble telescope, or a particle collider.

Thus, most of us, if we're to claim knowledge at all in these areas, have to accept the testimony of the experts.

 

 

Ok, but if we're to claim that these models are providing us with any kind of knowledge, there must be truth-evaluable statements which can be derived from them.

Otherwise, as you say, it's simply an instrument, or a tool. And a screwdriver cannot be true or false.

Models are giving you quantitative data. The knowledge is embedded in the relationships that they manipulate.

If all screws were slotted then your pozi screwdriver would be 'false'. 

[Reg Prescott]

19 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Models are giving you quantitative data. The knowledge is embedded in the relationships that they manipulate.

What you've been expressing here (and above) is a stance of "instrumentalism".

The instrumentalist would typically claim that scientific theories/models are not truth-evaluable. To read the theory literally is a mistake. Just as it would be a mistake to read "the average American taxpayer pays $3000 in taxes per year" and then ask for his phone number. 

The instrumentalist would nonetheless claim knowledge, though, as you're doing yourself: not of the truth of the theory/model (because they're not in the truth line of business at all), but of the observable consequences derivable therefrom.

The realist, meanwhile, would throw a fit! 

 

19 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If all screws were slotted then your pozi screwdriver would be 'false'. 

Hmm, doesn't sound right to me. It's hard to make sense of a screwdriver being "false". Statements (for example) can be true or false. An object, like a chair, say, cannot.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say "My pozi screwdriver isn't up to the task"?

(Er, what's a pozi screwdriver? A starhead? I think the Americans call it a Philips screwdriver. I dunno)

Edited October 31, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[koti]

18 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

(Er, what's a pozi screwdriver? A starhead? I think the Americans call it a Philips screwdriver. I dunno)

Pozidrive is a Philips with extra slants.

Edited October 31, 2018 by koti

[Carrock]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

"Euston station is six stops away from Kings Cross station"

and since I just made it up, this particular statement is almost certainly false.

I can't resist providing some local knowledge.

Euston Station is two stops away from Camden Town station.

This particular statement is true.

Euston Station is one stop away from Camden Town station.

This particular statement is true.

These facts are very important in the rules* of "Mornington Crescent," a simple game often played on the quiz show "I'm sorry I haven't a clue."

*See "Mornington Crescent: Rules and Origins" by N. F. Stovold.

[/offtopic]

[Reg Prescott]

Just now, koti said:

Pozidrive is a Philips with extra slants.

Knowledge grows... 

[Reg Prescott]

10 minutes ago, Carrock said:

I can't resist providing some local knowledge.

Euston Station is two stops away from Camden Town station.

This particular statement is true.

Euston Station is one stop away from Camden Town station.

This particular statement is true.

 

Different lines?