sethoflagos

These branches of thought are generally seen as complementary: all rooted in the Aristotelian tradition that was resurrected during the Enlightenment by John Locke and Co. I've not found any deep internal contradiction in them in over 50 years, so if you've found one, I'm going to need your help in locating it. I agree. However, it sounds a strange way of putting it. A semantic point rather than a logical one. I think it's clear that I was using 'atom' in its original sense. Time-stamped facts don't change. When ammonites ceased to be, they didn't cease to be ammonites.

Without it, the last line of defence would not be able to advance upfield in support of an attack for fear of giving away an easy goal from a long ball over their helds. Attacks would be blunted, leading to fewer goals overall.

What else do you think science is for? Small talk?

I had to take a break from bread making and brewing due to a house move, but now I've settled into the new nest, I've got the production lines back online. After an enforced change of whole wheat flour brand, and risking a couple of minutes extra oven time, the crumb structure is definitely improved.. Delish with a bit of butter and pineapple chutney!

Accepted, for my part. Naturalism Realism (specifically Scientific Realism or sometimes Empiricism on off-days) Correspondence Theory of Truth Within these thoughts, a truth may be deduced from a number of pertinent facts, whereas the reverse would sound strange. I'm open to that being a relevant difference in regards to the OP presumption. Facts may be viewed as 'atoms' of more general truths.

We do have both the incompressible and compressible forms of the Navier-Stokes equations. Not really a big deal to swap a large finite bulk modulus for an infinite one. Or am I missing some subtlety here?

How would they distinguish bolide sourced sulphur from the oto 1014 kg of SO2 estimated to have been sourced from the extensive anhydrite deposits below Chicxulub? Ref: Emission spectra of a simulated Chicxulub impact-vapor plume at the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary

In what respect? Which of my vices are you calling out here?

Pray, why didst thou state that some may find my statement 'in my world, truth is absolute' ironic?

I said NO MORE DEFLECTION! WHY!

Don't deflect: I'm asking you a straight question and demand an honest answer. Why?

Why?

Rhetorical deflection: truth value irrelevant God only knows: too incoherent to parse. In my world truth is absolute. However, general speech often requires some interpretation to work out what is actually being said (see examples above). Take the old chestnut from Vic Reeves: Clearly, no one (except an American tee-hee) could take this statement at face value. Yet beneath the layers of humour there is some truth being spoken. In this case about the honesty of commercial advertising if I remember correctly. "6 out of 10 cat owners said their pets preferred MouseyBitz over Slug Knacker", or some such nonsense.

Funny old game, innit?

How about this slight rewording: Taking these figures on trust (or possibly by checking the references), we could well agree that both statements are true. We could equally well agree that both statements are factual.

Thermodynamics of the Gravity from Entropy Theory Deep dive into the possible persistence of significant cosmological structure deep into the far future of the universe.

For me at least, it goes beyond that. Positive, constructive relationships are built on trust (again, that same 'sturdy and reliable as an oak' Germanic etymology). Fundamental to this understanding is that in all serious and significant matters, each partner can rely on the other's word being true as both understand that to mean. What point is your science or philosophy if you give no one any grounds for believing your word? Especially, if you broadcast an opinion that you regard the word of everyone else as worthless. Game theory has been mentioned. Here's my take on it. Tell me one truth, and I'll probably take your next statement on trust. Tell me one lie, and you're blocked out for good. Tough love, but that's how it is.

Disagree. If all subjects answer honestly and without error, then their actual statements may vary in detail according to circumstance, but all responses will be both true and mutually consistent. Obviously, if someone offers a precise value, then their claims are probably false. If another defines pi as some applicable zeta function, they are providing a tautology of no information value (not exactly a lie but... )

A couple of examples then: "I don't know the exact value of pi" "22/7 is an acceptable approximation for pi in some instances" I'd suggest that both these statements are absolutely true to the extent that I might have an issue with anyone who questioned my honesty on the matter. The key is that telling the truth does not require an absolute and precise understanding of the universe: it just needs clarity on the applicable limits to one's knowledge. As in the standard note to mechanical general arrangement drawings: ... the dimensions are nominal approximations, but the degree of ignorance is precisely defined.

Truth is easy. Just stand in front of a mirror and practise saying the words 'I don't know' until word perfect.

IMO this is post-modernist nonsense: a corruption of language; and fundamentally opposed to scientific orthodoxy. In scientific usage of English in the last 350-odd years, 'truth' and 'fact' have been used synonymously in their primary sense of meaning: the opposite of 'false'. Before that, 'fact' essentially existed in the language through its occurrence in the Vulgate: ... the primary meaning being 'done'. 'True' on the other hand goes back deep into the Germanic roots of English, where it shares an etymology with 'tree' to give meanings of 'steadfast, faithful, loyal'. Some of these older senses still exist in general English usage ('after-the-fact', 'a true edge' etc.), so they are not mathematically equal in all senses. But in their particular common scientific sense of 'not false', is equivalent to the extent that anyone attempting to split them is trying to rewrite the dictionaries.

Not so much. Check the origins of the current French squad: it's overwhelmingly drawn from second generation African immigrants - Mali, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Algeria, Cameroon, Benin, DRC... Also puts any interesting slant on why there is only one African team (Morocco) in the top ten.

Certainly in real life engineering, determining the 'right answer' to a well-framed problem is usually a trivial affair. The real challenge is in determining what question is actually being asked among a mass of often incomplete, often biased data My experience is that some nationalities tend to be better at this than others. Those whose education systems prioritise rote learning over analytical skills don't fare so well here.

Could examiners reverse this trend by switching strategy away from 'what is the result?' type questions to 'this is the result; why is it so?' The stress would then be on having a sound understanding of the fundamentals, and the way they mesh together in order to generate what we observe. I'm not saying that LLMs would be incapable of tackling this, but it is computationally a lot more difficult, and demands well thought out prompts. An example of the journey being at least as important as the destination, if not more so.

... and the semifinalists just happen to be the top four nations in the Fifa world rankings. As the competition progresses, and teams get worn down by fatigue, injuries, and suspensions, the pendulum swings significantly in favour of the teams with greatest strength in depth. With the notable exception of Norway's defeat of Brazil, the results of the last two rounds have gone to form. I'm hoping for a Spain vs England final, but history says it's tons more likely to be France vs Argentina. As this is the Politics section, and given the state of the Trump-Macron relationship, I wouldn't actually mind seeing France be overwhelmingly victorious in the US. Particularly given the preponderance of African ancestry among the leading figures in the French team. Emphasising a link between a nation's current strength and a liberal past immigration policy would not be a bad thing.