How you define classic?

"because it is the popular belief that matters"

Nice fallacy buddy :|, btw scientific fact is not determined by popular belief...that's not even close to being true. That analogy is awful. Also, I don't know what you're talking about with all this sub-genre garbage, but you'd be hard pressed to prove to me that Lil' Wayne's last three efforts have been rejected by the majority of rap fans. 

And the RIAA is basically the industry jerking itself off and giving itself a pat on the back...nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't count units sold...it counts units SHIPPED. Soundscan counts units sold, so if you want to use counting sales, Soundscan is your benchmark...not the RIAA. 

fat_rob

"because it is the popular belief that matters"

Nice fallacy buddy :|, btw scientific fact is not determined by popular belief...that's not even close to being true. That analogy is awful. Also, I don't know what you're talking about with all this sub-genre garbage, but you'd be hard pressed to prove to me that Lil' Wayne's last three efforts have been rejected by the majority of rap fans.

And the RIAA is basically the industry jerking itself off and giving itself a pat on the back...nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't count units sold...it counts units SHIPPED. Soundscan counts units sold, so if you want to use counting sales, Soundscan is your benchmark...not the RIAA.

fat_rob

Alright, excuse me. I guess Soundscan Billboard is better, but that only accounts for units shipped minus definite returned after 1991, wheras RIAA estimates account for units shipped, and I am quoting wikipedia here, "units shipped minus potential" returns. So yes. It is "the industry jerking itself off."

Scientific fact is not fact as popularly misconcieved, but only well proven theory. By proven, I mean many proofs and tests in an effort to reproduce or negate results of an original theory, or opinion. When there are enough successful of such proofs, society begins to believe that theory is fact, and so it is put in textbooks, etc. and adopted by that society. Sometimes, that theory is eventually negated with new technology and new "successful" theories, and so is considered a false fact, or an old belief. Does coffee stunt your growth? People used to say that is a fact. It is not. Well at least it is not according to modern theories. All facts are just theories based off theories, where all we know today is just a huge tower of theories that is eventually bound to collapse. People make up theory to skip steps, justify doing things, and just because it works does not make it 100% what you thought. Technology is therefore also very unstable and vulnerable. Why argue symantics?

And why are you so hard on Lil' Wayne? If the majority of rap fans are calling his albums c|assic, then that is what it is, bro. So what's up? You have your opinion.

Gah, your idea about scientific fact and theory is horribly mistaken...just trust me on this dude. I'll explain it if you want, but it'd be better if you just dropped the opinion you have about science altogether...fat_rob

Oh and not that I was using any source other than my memory of what I have learned in school, read in books, and thought of just by myself, here is a quote from wikipedia that is well-backed and happens to agree with my terminology and generalizations about misconceptions regarding diction:

Scholarly inquiry regarding scientific fact

Scholars and clinical researchers in both the social and natural sciences have forwarded numerous questions and theories in clarifying the fundamental nature of scientific fact.[22] Some pertinent issues raised by this inquiry include:

• the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized and accepted as such;[23]
• whether and to what extent "fact" and "theoretic explanation" can be considered truly independent and separable from one another;[24][25]
• to what extent are "facts" influenced by the mere act of observation;[25] and
• to what extent are factual conclusions influenced by history and consensus, rather than a strictly systematic methodology.[26]

Consistent with the theory of confirmation holism, some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn and others pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires the use of some other theory (e.g., age of fossils is based on radiocarbon dating which is justified by reasoning that radioactive decay follows a Poisson process rather than a Bernoulli process). Similarly, Percy Williams Bridgman is credited with the methodological position known as operationalism, which asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily defined by the means and assumptions used to measure them.

[edit] Fact and the scientific method

Apart from the fundamental inquiry in to the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method.[27] Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent from the observer in that no matter which scientist observes a phenomenon, all will reach the same necessary conclusion.[28] In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy (among other interests) in scientific study.[29]

Fact does not always mean the same thing as truth. Fact is a generally agreed-upon and seemingly obvious observation. It is a fact that things stick to the earth, without regard to why that happens. It was once a fact that the planets changed direction from time to time, and that the sun, planets and stars circled the earth once daily. This seemed obvious, and was generally agreed to be the case.

In time, the fact was changed, and it was then said that the earth circles the sun, and the planets only appear to change direction as they are passed by the earth in their orbits, or vice versa.

Misunderstanding of this difference sometimes leads to fallacy in rhetoric, in which persons will say that they have fact, while others have only theory. Such statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting they believe that fact means "truth," and theory means "speculation."

You asked for it…

            In science, the word theory and fact are not interchangeable. The two words have VERY different meanings and in science, a theory is of much greater importance than a fact. A scientist would more than likely rank theories as the most important thing in science because theories include everything. Theories include laws, hypotheses and facts; theories are explanatory methods while facts are just confirmed observations. Scientific facts do change with better methods of observation, but that in no way suggest that science is a "tower of theories susceptible to collapse".

            Since you use fact and theory as interchangeable words I know you are confused about the how to properly use them in a scientific sense. Theories explain laws and facts; a fact by itself does not explain anything. When you say facts are just theories, that shows how mistaken you are on this topic. Facts are not theories, facts arise as a result of theories and help support theories, but facts themselves are not theories. It is a scientific fact that Dinosaurs existed, but the THEORY of natural selection provides an explanation of their origin. 

            In general, society has no clue what is scientifically relevant and acceptable. If you polled Americans right now, the majority would say they don't believe in evolution. Evolution is second only to quantum physics in the number of studies that support the theory, yet the majority of American society (and a growing number abroad) do not believe in the theory. Society does not always accept the "successful" theories of science. In some cases, societies ignore good scientific theories in favor of bad theories and they disregard pertinent evidence. For an example, look no further than the Evolution vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design case. Creationism/ID is not a successful scientific theory, but it has made its way into many textbooks and school curriculums. Societies are often woefully ignorant of what constitutes good science.

            Theories are not made up to "skip steps", in fact, the opposite is true. Theories provide a framework for further scientific exploration.

            You say theories are simply built upon each other, but that is also somewhat of a misconception. Some well-supported theories in the same scientific disciplines are actually in conflict with each other. Want an example just look at Gravity and Quantum Physics. Both theories are extremely well supported, but the two theories are incompatible. It is true that theories are revised over time, but rarely (since the conception of the scientific method) do the fundamentals of a theory change drastically and often times a theory will lead to a change in our factual knowledge, not the explanatory method of the theory.

            As for that wiki article, the latter half discusses how scientific fact is not immutable and that is a true statement. Facts of science change, however, you suggest that science is susceptible to collapse because some of the facts change. Science is not wedded to anything other than the empirical world and whichever theory better explains the empirical world is the leading theory in science, therefore science cannot "collapse" but only be refined and improved. Science's goal isn't to prove that a particular "theory" is correct, but rather to understand the world. The only way science can collapse is if the scientific method is proven to be a bad method for discovering how the world works. Considering the success we have had since its conception (and comparing that success to the stagnant progress of the years prior) it is safe to assume that no one will disprove the scientific method anytime soon.

            The first part of the article raises some interesting points, but it does not support your above paragraph nor does it negate anything I have written. I have actually read the works of the authors referenced in that article and neither would support the idea that theories and facts are interchangeable words. Operationalism has more to do with how concepts and terms change from discipline to discipline. Most logical empiricist actually reject that concept and regardless, the theory of operationalism does NOT suggest that theories and facts are words to be interchanged, but rather that concepts and terms are to be understood within their particular discipline (basically that length for Astronomers is different then length for everyday persons).

            Kuhn's point that in order to know facts you need to use theories is true, but that still does not support your description in any way. In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn actually DISTINGUISHES between the two concepts.

Trust me doggie, you are SADLY mistaken when it comes to this topic…you've read the wiki articles…I've read the ACTUAL books and written papers on this doggie.

so many words, so many mistakes.WorstGameEver

[QUOTE="WorstGameEver"]so many words, so many mistakes.fat_rob

[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="WorstGameEver"]so many words, so many mistakes.WorstGameEver

[QUOTE="WorstGameEver"][QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="WorstGameEver"]so many words, so many mistakes.fat_rob

[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="WorstGameEver"][QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="WorstGameEver"]so many words, so many mistakes.Aljosa23

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"][QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="WorstGameEver"][QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="WorstGameEver"]so many words, so many mistakes.Mkavanaugh77

It got a 9.5 from OXM i believe.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"][QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="WorstGameEver"][QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="WorstGameEver"]so many words, so many mistakes.Mkavanaugh77

It got a 9.5 from OXM i believe.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"][QUOTE="Mkavanaugh77"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"][QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="WorstGameEver"][QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="WorstGameEver"]so many words, so many mistakes.Mkavanaugh77

It got a 9.5 from OXM i believe.

It arrived on Christmas Eve, its super fast. (Never had a fast PC, just a crappy old laptop)

First game i buy for it will be The Witcher or Stalker.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"][QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="WorstGameEver"][QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="WorstGameEver"]so many words, so many mistakes.fat_rob

All that money wasted on the arcade stick and I'd STILL school you tsk tsk tsk.....grab a seat plz:P

If you had skills you could play with anything.....ANYTHANG!!!Black-Demon

[QUOTE="Black-Demon"]If you had skills you could play with anything.....ANYTHANG!!!fat_rob

"No games, I want you exclusive
theres no more excuses"-Day26:lol:

I've never played a fighting game on the 360 so I wouldn't know. I had a PS3,but I sold it because I don't play video games anymore:( Thank Allah that I can't school you sonny son son.

What courses do you take at college rob?bradleybhoy

You asked for it…

In science, the word theory and fact are not interchangeable. The two words have VERY different meanings and in science, a theory is of much greater importance than a fact. A scientist would more than likely rank theories as the most important thing in science because theories include everything. Theories include laws, hypotheses and facts; theories are explanatory methods while facts are just confirmed observations. Scientific facts do change with better methods of observation, but that in no way suggest that science is a "tower of theories susceptible to collapse".

Since you use fact and theory as interchangeable words I know you are confused about the how to properly use them in a scientific sense. Theories explain laws and facts; a fact by itself does not explain anything. When you say facts are just theories, that shows how mistaken you are on this topic. Facts are not theories, facts arise as a result of theories and help support theories, but facts themselves are not theories. It is a scientific fact that Dinosaurs existed, but the THEORY of natural selection provides an explanation of their origin.

In general, society has no clue what is scientifically relevant and acceptable. If you polled Americans right now, the majority would say they don't believe in evolution. Evolution is second only to quantum physics in the number of studies that support the theory, yet the majority of American society (and a growing number abroad) do not believe in the theory. Society does not always accept the "successful" theories of science. In some cases, societies ignore good scientific theories in favor of bad theories and they disregard pertinent evidence. For an example, look no further than the Evolution vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design case. Creationism/ID is not a successful scientific theory, but it has made its way into many textbooks and school curriculums. Societies are often woefully ignorant of what constitutes good science.

Theories are not made up to "skip steps", in fact, the opposite is true. Theories provide a framework for further scientific exploration.

You say theories are simply built upon each other, but that is also somewhat of a misconception. Some well-supported theories in the same scientific disciplines are actually in conflict with each other. Want an example just look at Gravity and Quantum Physics. Both theories are extremely well supported, but the two theories are incompatible. It is true that theories are revised over time, but rarely (since the conception of the scientific method) do the fundamentals of a theory change drastically and often times a theory will lead to a change in our factual knowledge, not the explanatory method of the theory.

As for that wiki article, the latter half discusses how scientific fact is not immutable and that is a true statement. Facts of science change, however, you suggest that science is susceptible to collapse because some of the facts change. Science is not wedded to anything other than the empirical world and whichever theory better explains the empirical world is the leading theory in science, therefore science cannot "collapse" but only be refined and improved. Science's goal isn't to prove that a particular "theory" is correct, but rather to understand the world. The only way science can collapse is if the scientific method is proven to be a bad method for discovering how the world works. Considering the success we have had since its conception (and comparing that success to the stagnant progress of the years prior) it is safe to assume that no one will disprove the scientific method anytime soon.

The first part of the article raises some interesting points, but it does not support your above paragraph nor does it negate anything I have written. I have actually read the works of the authors referenced in that article and neither would support the idea that theories and facts are interchangeable words. Operationalism has more to do with how concepts and terms change from discipline to discipline. Most logical empiricist actually reject that concept and regardless, the theory of operationalism does NOT suggest that theories and facts are words to be interchanged, but rather that concepts and terms are to be understood within their particular discipline (basically that length for Astronomers is different then length for everyday persons).

Kuhn's point that in order to know facts you need to use theories is true, but that still does not support your description in any way. In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn actually DISTINGUISHES between the two concepts.

Trust me doggie, you are SADLY mistaken when it comes to this topic…you've read the wiki articles…I've read the ACTUAL books and written papers on this doggie.

fat_rob

As for dinosaurs... well we have a really good theory that they exist, which is backed up by other theories, more theories, and more theories, right? You call that really good theory a fact. I don't. Nothing is absolute. Nothing is true. Everything is therefore false. False is just a lack of truth, similar to how bad is a lack of good, id est there is no real false or bad, but there is no absolute truth or absolute good, unless you mean "God," which is a totally separate strain of philosophy called theology. If you understand what I mean by when I say fact is just well backed theory, then the following will make more sense than if you do not, where I guess you will just attempt to refute my opinion more with no fruit.

Because theory is merely opinion, and nothing is absolute, if one were to refute a key theory, not limited to the "Scientific Method," which for the sake of purpose is not to be considered, then the whole tree, tower, or whatever have you, will come tumbling down. I call my theory "loose relationship theory." All things are loosely related, but nothing is bound tightly enough to be perfectly undeniable.

As for Scientific Method, it is bad, and is merely the best method avaliable at the moment. It is not to be said to be correct however, but just accurate to an extremely low degree of inaccuracy.

Now back to Evolution versus Intelligent Design.. that is not an example of the ignorance of society. It is an example of society versus culture. What we are now getting into is not philosophy or science, but Human Geography.

What courses do you take at college rob?bradleybhoy

Plural? You mean in the U.S. you do more than one course at one time? If that's the case, that would be quite strenuous.

Over here (UK), we pick one course in uni or college where you'll get one degree/diploma/certificate, given that you pass all exams and coursework, at the end of your study period.

Thanks for using me as an example guys, really.

More on topic... (well off topic really... but whatever)

I'll own you all in pretty much any fighting game. Even Brawl with that stupid ass wiimote

Thanks for using me as an example guys, really.

 

More on topic... (well off topic really... but whatever)

I'll own you all in pretty much any fighting game. Even Brawl with that stupid ass wiimote

elpooz

[QUOTE="elpooz"]

Thanks for using me as an example guys, really.

 

More on topic... (well off topic really... but whatever)

I'll own you all in pretty much any fighting game. Even Brawl with that stupid ass wiimote

fat_rob

lol I never said it was... that would be why it is mentioned after the first statement. I'd rather play it than most fighting games though... good fun if you actually know how to play. Buttonmashing ftl...

Thanks for using me as an example guys, really.

 

More on topic... (well off topic really... but whatever)

I'll own you all in pretty much any fighting game. Even Brawl with that stupid ass wiimote

elpooz

Yeah I'd agree with Rob that Brawl isn't a traditional fighter... More of a party game than anything. -Halftime-

For real..fighting games are about as boring as playing 360 shooters...same 'ole ****, different guns, and enviornments. 

[QUOTE="-Halftime-"]Yeah I'd agree with Rob that Brawl isn't a traditional fighter... More of a party game than anything. Colt45fool

For real..fighting games are about as boring as playing 360 shooters...same 'ole ****, different guns, and enviornments. 

[QUOTE="Colt45fool"]

[QUOTE="-Halftime-"]Yeah I'd agree with Rob that Brawl isn't a traditional fighter... More of a party game than anything. fat_rob

For real..fighting games are about as boring as playing 360 shooters...same 'ole ****, different guns, and enviornments. 

[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="Colt45fool"]

[QUOTE="-Halftime-"]Yeah I'd agree with Rob that Brawl isn't a traditional fighter... More of a party game than anything. Colt45fool

For real..fighting games are about as boring as playing 360 shooters...same 'ole ****, different guns, and enviornments. 

Colt: :oops: (l) ;)

But yeah, Smash bros is more fun than most fighters. May not be the GOAT fighting game series, but it's way more entertaining. Especially if you have friends over

Colt: :oops: (l) ;)

 

But yeah, Smash bros is more fun than most fighters. May not be the GOAT fighting game series, but it's way more entertaining. Especially if you have friends over

elpooz

[QUOTE="Colt45fool"][QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="Colt45fool"]

[QUOTE="-Halftime-"]Yeah I'd agree with Rob that Brawl isn't a traditional fighter... More of a party game than anything. fat_rob

For real..fighting games are about as boring as playing 360 shooters...same 'ole ****, different guns, and enviornments. 

And most of them don't hold the simplicity of older fighting games...fighters were perfect back in the day...now theyre over complex button mashers that get dull quicker than black demon's edge up...

[QUOTE="elpooz"]

Colt: :oops: (l) ;)

 

But yeah, Smash bros is more fun than most fighters. May not be the GOAT fighting game series, but it's way more entertaining. Especially if you have friends over

fat_rob

PS 2 yeah. PS 1 naw. 

The PS collection on psp owwwwwwns though... if you like PS, cop that. I play that joint all the time on multi

[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="Colt45fool"][QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="Colt45fool"]

[QUOTE="-Halftime-"]Yeah I'd agree with Rob that Brawl isn't a traditional fighter... More of a party game than anything. Colt45fool

For real..fighting games are about as boring as playing 360 shooters...same 'ole ****, different guns, and enviornments. 

And most of them don't hold the simplicity of older fighting games...fighters were perfect back in the day...now theyre over complex button mashers that get dull quicker than black demon's edge up...

all that comes to mind is guilty gear... those weren't anything special though. maybe rob will enlighten us...

Hmmm quick list:

Street Fighter 3

Guilty Gear X and X2

King of Fighters (like 6 different versions)

Capcom vs SNK

Marvel vs Capcom

Samurai Showdown 5 and 6

Street Fighter 2 HD Remix

Capcom vs Tatsunoko

Street Fighter Alpha 3

The Last Blade 2

Fatal Fury Mark of the Wolves

Vampire Chronicles

 and that's just off the top of my head dude...mad 2d fighters still...

Wize...read a couple of books and then get back to me once you've actually enaged some of the important writings in philosophy and the philosophy of science...I'm not gonna bother to answer you last post, because I would literally have to write PAGES of stuff to correct all your mistakes, plus re-read a bunch of books too make sure I had everything correct...and I ain't got the time for that. Just trust me on this...you are wrong, very very wrong.fat_rob

Hmmm quick list:

Street Fighter 3

Guilty Gear X and X2

King of Fighters (like 6 different versions)

Capcom vs SNK

Marvel vs Capcom

Samurai Showdown 5 and 6

Street Fighter 2 HD Remix

Capcom vs Tatsunoko

Street Fighter Alpha 3

The Last Blade 2

Fatal Fury Mark of the Wolves

Vampire Chronicles

 and that's just off the top of my head dude...mad 2d fighters still...

fat_rob

1.)Colt fails at the 2-D comment
2.)Colt fails for that edge up joke:lol:

SF Alpha series and CvS2>>>your moms favorite dish

I'll let it go, but there is no book or person that can prove me wrong, and that includes you. Whether someone can persuade me, change my opinion, or influence my work - that all is a different case entirely.WizengamotX

[QUOTE="WizengamotX"] I'll let it go, but there is no book or person that can prove me wrong, and that includes you. Whether someone can persuade me, change my opinion, or influence my work - that all is a different case entirely.fat_rob