Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
The illusive Nature of Time
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dimension-1hacker" data-source="post: 198112" data-attributes="member: 11791"><p>the accuracy of scientific process is based off an assumption which is no different the "feels like" or "must be" correct? The for or against if ones senses are accurate are based off logos analysis analytical philosophy not science, the part of the scientific doctrine already addresses this by being states as any scientific analysis, any theories are only rest on the foundation of the potential for ones senses to be accurate and admits that is a hope, an assumption, not a fact only a possibility which is not disproven or proven yet and will be determined by other philosophies; which is my point. What I am only stating is already written into the scientific philosophy and other philosophies are for or against, there is no I feel this is true, a quick google search and critical thinking would prove that what I wrote is correct, unless you don't "trust" any external sources of information. I admit debating this can be fun but stating the same things without a response that I do perceive to disprove or prove what was being debated.</p><p></p><p>do you want to debate or is there a point in responding about this topic?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dimension-1hacker, post: 198112, member: 11791"] the accuracy of scientific process is based off an assumption which is no different the "feels like" or "must be" correct? The for or against if ones senses are accurate are based off logos analysis analytical philosophy not science, the part of the scientific doctrine already addresses this by being states as any scientific analysis, any theories are only rest on the foundation of the potential for ones senses to be accurate and admits that is a hope, an assumption, not a fact only a possibility which is not disproven or proven yet and will be determined by other philosophies; which is my point. What I am only stating is already written into the scientific philosophy and other philosophies are for or against, there is no I feel this is true, a quick google search and critical thinking would prove that what I wrote is correct, unless you don't "trust" any external sources of information. I admit debating this can be fun but stating the same things without a response that I do perceive to disprove or prove what was being debated. do you want to debate or is there a point in responding about this topic? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
The illusive Nature of Time
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top