-
-
Replying to @InbornAtheism
@InbornAtheism We don't need to re-verify our understanding of rain or toes or window glass on a regular basis to "know" them. @rune00771 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aspexit
@emlynaddison Yes, there are types of
#information: 1)Undisputed knowing -established as fact 2)Disputable understanding -theory @rune00771 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InbornAtheism
@InbornAtheism Even gravity is a theory :) @rune00772 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aspexit
@emlynaddison Yes,we
#know that something causes the attraction of objects, but we don't fully#understand/informed what is it @rune00771 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InbornAtheism
@InbornAtheism That's actually irrelevant; we KNOW how objects behave in gravity. I'm not buying your argument :) @rune00774 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aspexit
@emlynaddison We've
#evidential knowledge that phenomenon of gravity is real, but we don't have enough of#explanatory knowledge @rune00771 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InbornAtheism
@InbornAtheism It's still irrelevant. We KNOW that humans are typified by 10 fingers. We don't have to keep checking it to know. @rune00771 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aspexit
@emlynaddison I'm not saying we need to periodically verify such obvious & easy observable facts. I mean debatable information @rune0077
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@InbornAtheism Stay on topic: We were simply talking about the over-arching, all-inclusive concept of "know". That's it. @rune0077
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.