[robotresearcher]

> finally know what the truth is.

Not quite. The current substantiated hypothesis is always provisional until a better idea or contrary evidence turns up. That's not what most people call truth, and certainly not the kind of truth religious people have in mind.

[rantanplan]

You obviously didn't read about the comprehensive experiments I mentioned.

Sometimes I wonder why I spend time to respond to people. No one reads anything. People just want to disagree to pass the time.

[robotresearcher]

On the contrary, I mentioned 'substantiated hypothesis'. Comprehensive experiments are how a hypothesis becomes substantiated. There's no other way. And you rudely accuse me of not reading.

Even with an enormous and indefinite number of validating experiments, a theory is still provisional. There is no forever truth. For example consider Newtonian physics. For the 200 years until relativity and quantum mechanics were invented it was the best game in town. 200 years of experiment is pretty comprehensive. We can do experiments today that support Newtonian physics. But it was never 'true', because if you look very, very carefully you can find examples where it doesn't work.

You can not prove things true in science (unlike math), you can only disprove them. Things that resist disproof are held as provisionally true until we know better.

So: there is no moment when you "finally know what the truth is". Hence my disagreement with your post.

Scientists know what the truth isn't. There's a T-shirt slogan for you.

[rantanplan]

Sorry I didn't mean to insult you.

On the other hand what does all this have to do with the belief(as in faith) and the belief of scientists in various phenomena, theories etc?

You picked a word("truth") from my post and wrote an irrelevant(but kinda interesting) comment.

We were talking about the absurdity of believing in something(like god) rather than believing that something might hold true.

And then, you're just playing with words, you're not actually making a point.

If one would want to be concise they would say that everything can be true or false, for specific values of truthiness or falsiness under a particular context.

Case in point: Newtonian physics is true under a macroscopic context.

PS. I don't wear T-shirts that bear aphorisms.

[robotresearcher]

You asserted:

> When [scientists] perform comprehensive experiments then, depending on the results, [they] finally know what the truth is.

and contrasted that with the beliefs of religious people. Your assertion isn't quite true, and I explained why.

Then you told me off for (a) not reading your fine comment; (b) irrelevance; and (c) having poor apparel recommendations.

I concede the last point gracefully. Have a great weekend.

[rantanplan]

a) That was an honest mistake. I really didn't get your point in your first comment.

b) Compared to the greater point, which was the dishonesty of equating "believe-in" to "believe-that", it was a bit irrelevant. Yet, as I said, interesting. Also I explained why this kind of nitpicking doesn't offer much(IMHO), by giving the example of how far we can go by playing with truthiness/falsiness values.

c) Hey, there's no accounting for taste! Also, I didn't judge. I just said that I don't wear them.

Have an even greater weekend