So you would agree that the surfaces of the seas and oceans can be regarded as following this foundational straight line?
Yes, on large scales.
And you keep putting words in MY mouth. Right there you are saying I am claiming that the status quo is above reproach. Where did I ever say that? I'm saying the exact opposite. The status quo is that dragons don't exist, yet I still say open the box. Because again, science isn't about what you think is right or what you want to be right, it's about observations. So if you open the box and a baby dragon says hi, science will throw out the other "dragons don't exist theory" and adopt a new one.
And there we go, conflating half a dozen points into one mishmash to avoid a clear answer. I'll break that down in a sec, but first:
I called you a liar because you persist in the claim that I am saying to not test. I have said several times over explicitly that that is not what I am saying, that it is fine to run tests, and I've encouraged it. There's no ambiguity ther,e no misinterpretation, I've said that it's a good thing to run new tests. And yet every post you're acting as though I'm objecting to the concept of tests. What else would you call that if not a lie? I am not going to dance around and let you get away with that, the number of cheap tricks people use on this forum is beyond a joke and I've no interest in allowing it. You even do it in your last post. I am not 'anti-test,' I've been talking about the results of tests and how they are crucial in every single post. You are lying again even right after you are being caught out. This isn't ambiguous.
But the breakdown. Okay.
You know everything you do now. You have a life experience, countless observations and tests that you already know. Then I come up to you with a shoebox. I tell you that inside is either a dragon or a phone.
You are saying that those two claims have equal merit. I am saying that, because I have lived in a world with no sign of dragons, in a world where the typical description of a dragon would seem to defy the laws of physics when it comes to heavy flying lizards that breathe fire, I am saying that because of
all the tests that have already been done, I think that the phone is a considerably more likely possibility. I am saying that I don't need to open the box to draw a conclusion.
I am not saying to not open the box, I am saying that I would form an opinion before looking inside because enough tests have already been done that I am reasonably confident I do not live in a world with dragons. I am saying that I do not view the possibility of a dragon and the possibility of a phone to be of equal value, and that I do not need to look into the box to reach that conclusion, and that reaching that conclusion is entirely logical because it is based on past 'tests' and observations. Do you agree or disagree?
Next, okay, we open the box. No one's saying you can't, just that it's possible to reach an informed conclusion without doing so.
Suppose by some miracle there is a dragon. I'm saying that's fine, it's something to account for in future experiences, and I'm saying this in no way invalidates the logic that led me to the opposite conclusion before opening the box because, and here's the key, that
isn't how science works. Science is the process, not the conclusion. You can do everything right and still come to a wrong answer, that just means your premises were flawed, not the method.
Because that's clearly something you seem to have an issue with. You have been implicitly combining 'come to a scientific conclusion' and 'proof,' but science isn't about certainty, the moment you start talking about certainty you've crossed from science to religion. Several times over you rely on the premise that 'the existing scientific model is accurate,' you rely on that by claiming further tests must be run to draw any conclusion. But that's not how it works, and nor should it be, there's always the possibility of some error. We could get onto simulation theory, for example, allowing every test to have given manipulated and inaccurate results, like you say it can't be proven that's
not happening. But how often is that allowed for when running tests, does every scientific paper add the note 'there's always the possibility some guiding hand made the results inaccurate or misleading,' or do they make the rational decision, as I did with the dragon, to not unnecessarily assume the existence of an entity when there is no need to?
Now if some day something like that does get proven, so be it, they can calculate in terms of it, but it is fundamental to science to limit the assumptions to just what is presented, minimizing as many as possible, because otherwise science falls apart on a fundamental level. It becomes impossible to determine anything.
I said I would be 'reasonably confident' before opening the box, and that's key because that is the goal of science. There is not one test you can run where there isn't some wild idea that could mean it points to something completely different, science is never going to stamp those possibilities out. It just discounts all the options that, until some later point, lack evidence for their assumptions.
And finally, suppose I am wrong about the dragon. It then follows that my knowledge must be wrong and there must be some way for a dragon to exist, with all the bizarre traits ascribed to it, that all the supposed proof I knew about how a heavy dragon wouldn't be able to fly, about how it coudln't breathe fire, all that was wrong.
Suppose instead of the boxes, I was just toying around with numbers and possibilities and I found out that the proof was wrong and that a dragon was hypothetically possible, all just looking at things I knew already. Would I need to go out and find a dragon for that to mean something, or would that error be relevant even without any new test?
In conclusion:
1. It is possible to draw conclusions from existing knowledge.
2. Running tests is still a good thing. I'm going to keep repeating that until you stop lying about it.
3. Running tests that have not previously been performed is still a good thing and can lead to new discoveries. It is however not the sole way of finding new discoveries.
4. No part of science is or should be above question, errors may always arise (and most likely arise in the interaction of separate conclusions as they were never meant to fit together).
5. Assuming something for the purpose of making a model work is something that should be done as little as possible.
Which of these do you object to?