Staredit Network

Yes, you can say a smile is a warm greeting you might get in the morning...

Or perhaps just the movement of muscles on your face.

You might smile back at the person who smiled at you.
However someone may respond differently to your smile.


The point isn't about a smile, its about knowledge. How does smile relate to knowledge? Well, a 'smile' is actually subconsiously recorded in your brain, usually associated with happiness or harmfulness.

Everything in our world we have ever known is linked with other things we already know in our mind. Like you reading this 'word' knows what it means because your brain has recorded data of what this word has to do with.

A few more famous quote from Albert Einstein might explain myself better:







The reason I posted this is I want people to actually think about these two questions:
1. In what sense does knowledge exist?
2. What is the relation of knowledge to truth?

My thoughts explained in brief:
Even if 'absolute knowledge' exists in some form in our universe, humans can never comprehend it because we make dellusions and we also form the choice of accepting or rejecting it.

There isn't really right and wrong, because we all perceives things differently.

Interesting topic! strangley enough, i was talking with my mum abiout a similair concept earlier this week. here are my thoughts:

I agree, there are probably not a right or a wrong, just from past experiances from our ancestors teaching us things that they have found wrong. ie; in the *Alleged* Stonage (where cavemen roamed the earth) say caveman 1 hits caveman 2 with a rock. caveman 2 would then react accordingly and so-forth, but, later in caveman 1's life, when he has children, hes gonna say to them, dont hit people with rocks coz they probably wont like it. then that child goes forth and does something and teaches his kids not to do it.. and the chain continues till now, where different families have different concepts of right and wrong from there ancestor's and thier own things that theyve done that they think have been bad.

now, another person might have the same thing happen to him, and think its good.. no 2 minds are alike. or thats what i beleive anyway.

brains are like fingerprints, even if they start off with the same brain (thought patterns) as thier biological parents at thier birth, thier experiences are to forge different patterns of thinking on this person, as you said, an action is linked to a previous experiance with that.

hmm...

interesting.. ill give you some more insight later

Of course knowledge exist's, How do you think we remember evrey thing? And all of the other stuff your brain stores deep in it.

knowledge may exist but truth in this twisted world may not really exist. We cannot really tell truth from false. You can have a lot of knowledge but will you know if a person told a white lie. If a teacher with a whole bunch of talents and a lot of acheivements, you would practically believe them because you dont know what they are talking about.
I believe an intelligent man with knowledge can still be as stubern as a donkey, avoiding truth because it hurts.

This is confuzzeling!!!

I dont quite understand? Why would you AVOID truth?

You really must not know how advanced SEN is.
Without knowledge, how would you be sitting in your chair, wearing clothes, understanding this english, and really...everything.
Everything was built because someone knew how to build it.

Plus the coding behind SEN...Oh god...

Thank you screwed! That exactly what I need to prove that you need even the tiniest bit of faith in any logical conclusion! *ahem* In other words, you have to make a choice to accept the evidence in front of you or not.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "absolute knowledge", but I do know that absolute truths exist. For example, 2+2=4. This may sound like a cop-out, but think about it. Humans invented this abstraction of thought we call "math". We took this quantity (which we call 2), then put that quantity together with another quantity (which is the same quantity as the first). Finally, the quantity we put together we call 4. This is an absolute truth! When you take this concrete quantity, and add it to another concrete quantity of the same amount, you will ALWAYS get a specific concrete quantity. All you humans did was name the quantities for easier classification. Even though different races have named it differently, when you put these quantities together (which we call 2+2), you will get a specific quantity (which we call 4). To be truthful, 2+2 can equal 5. If this concrete quantity oo is 2, and we put it together with this concrete quantity oo 2, we will get this concrete quantity oooo, which we have named 5.

Now here's a nifty trick I learned; it's called the "Road Runner Tactic". Basically, it's having a statement fall upon itself because it does not meet it's own standards. If I typed to you, "I can't type in English" you would type back, "YOU LIAR!!! YOU JUST TYPED IN ENGLISH!" This tactic can be used to prove that absolute truths exist.

For example, if someone says "Absolute truths don't exist.", one could sneer, "Is that absolutely true?" That person would be making an absolute truth stating that absolute truths don't exist . If someone says "All truths are relatvive", then you could rebuttle with "Is that just true for you, but not for me?". Without absolute truths, you couldn't make any affirmative statements, such as "All truths are relative".
Actually there's a funny thing about that. If you could be so kind Screwed, could you make a large argument for your perspective on relative morals? Cite quotations and websites please. I want a big case for it . (Don't worry, i'm not gonna be some one-sided ogre whos life is just to bash people's logic.)

Oh ya, if you do this Screwed, could you please make your text color in something other than white? I want it to stand out. Thanks!

Sorry to pick that one up, but this one isn't exactly true 'cause you can't apply it to all the ppl. It's called Aspergers syndrome and folks 'suffering' from it have difficulties to grasp body language such as to distinguish the different types of smiles you're doing to'em (as in real smile, ironic one, a sympathetic one, etc. etc.).



No, it won't (need faith). It's proven by experience. But if those are proven time n' time again (redundance of testings), you'll have to do a "burden of proof" to counter it properly.
Now, if you choose to accept it's scientifical conclusions or not, that's up to you. And if it differs, you have 2 choices. The 1st falls under the "burden of proof" bit. The 2nd it's not so pretty, imao, because you choose not to believe in it without based opinions (read scientific basis). *Shudders*

As for the "Road Runner" scheme it's nothing new to me too. It seems most likely to a debating move that I usually call "Straw Man" and it's usually a fallacious move to use'em. Aka not a very sound motive(s) behind it, that is.
But without seeing it in action I can't really tell it's efficiency and/or difference from my "straw man".

This Math concept of yours (2+2=5) can be applied the same as for the concept of time, 'cussed around. So, you didn't made any real improvements on this matter as well. If the referencial atributed to value 4 was 5, what's the real difference? Answer: None. We also would've found other value to replace the 5 's different usage.

Edit add: Imho, it seems that you're burrowing yourself in circular logic instead of reffuting knowledge's existance through experience (aka scientific method).

Because to know the truth would have such implications that we would deny it.
It's like arguing. I'm sure you've argued with someone who refuses to refute what you say, and comes up with flawed logic to defend his own side, and just keeps repeating it.
This is not the same as denying truth, but it's close enough, as it's denying logic and evidence.


Several people believe I have Aspergers, and often, yes, I have a hard time differentiating between cynicism, sarcasm, seriousness, etc.


Ah, but you're just stating that we have evidence. We put our faith into the fact that our evidence is not just determined by luck of the draw. Theoreticaly, to have any proof that something is true through experimention, we would have to experiment infinite times, because, by probability, if you do something infinite times, you will get all possible outcomes; if you do it finite times, it is possible, if unlikely, for it to just repeat the same outcome.

I just replied 'cause we (me and Mr.Kirby) had an PM trading due to him trying to use such reasoning to counter a similar subject that arose in another thread, but related to the 2nd Law of Thermodinamics. And imho, he was trying to use it to bash the similar subject through it.

Note: Read my edit add and ally it to part you quoted from my post. It says all.

Basan, are you really that hypocritical??? Are you really that dense that you cannot even trust what another person states just because of your own biased ignorance? You say I use a "straw man argument", but here you are using it one right now!!! The thread Basan is talking about was named "Faith and logic" everyone. DrunkenWrestler was stating that you don't need ANY type of faith in Logic. I made a giant example to counter that to show that even things we take for granted every day, we take even the tiniest of faith. (except for some exceptions; like you don't need faith that every word I am typing is white. You can see it and observe it for yourself.)

Now, here is where Basan comes in. In part of his post, Drunken WAS talking about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because i questioned him about that earlier in the thread. Now Basan, (to what I know.. this is a guess; not strawman), thought I was going against the earlier part of Drunken's post, not the latter. So, Basan was refuting my statement with the 2nd Law, even though I wasn't even USING the 2nd Law in my argument!!!

So the third party can double-check what I am stating.. here are the texts:
Drunken's mass rant: I seem to have made an error; he speaks NOTHING about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics... I was off for a week after my last post so a page separated my reply to his text.
My rebuttle... read the beginning of the 2nd paragraph for proof of what that paragraph was for. Basan's "retort" is right after it. Please tell me you can see the error.

Basan, I even DIRECTLY told you what exactly I was using the problem for.

I beg upon the half of the Staredit jury, reveal the truth!


This is what I love about athiests and evolutionists; they ignore the important things and try to find errors about meaningless tidbits of information.

Please tell me Basan, yes or no, does this quantity oo plus this quantity oo get this quantity oooo, reguardless of what we name them? It could be fork + fork = cow, ni + uno = funf, A + B = C, I TRULY DON'T CARE HOW YOU NAME THEM!

The fact still remains: if you take this quantity oo, and put it together with the quantity oo, you WILL get the quantity oooo. The ONLY reason we use 2+2=4 or whatever word each language uses for them is so that every human in that language can understand what they mean. Take binomial nomenclature for example. That is the two word classification system for organisms. Evolutionists should know this classification system well because they make chains of different types of humans using it.
Words alone are meaningless. You can't shout in English to a person who knows only Manderan and expect that he will understand you. It's the feelings or truths behind it that make it meaningful. Understand?

Now, about the Road Runner. The road runner goes like this: you know those old cartoon shows with Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote? Well they're chasing each other, they get to a sharp curve, and the road runner stops. The coyote can't stop the impending falloff, and ends up with no ground to support him, and crumbles below.

The use of it is that there are statements out there ok? Now SOME, not all, do not meet their own standards.

Here's a very simple example: Let's say someone says "I don't know what's right, I only know what is wrong." and then says "I KNOW that abortion is wrong." Now here is where the Road runner destroys his statement. If this person knows that "abortion is wrong", then could you not so easily conclude that he could state the opposite, or "Not doing abortion is right"??? Therefore, his statements show that his first statement doesn't even meet their own standards. I am not misinterpereting what this person stated, just used logic and common sense.

Another simple example is this: "Truth does not exist". Now Basan, I'm sure that even YOU know there are two types of statements: facts, and opinions. Now if "Truth" does not exist, therefore facts do not exist, because facts are true. Therefore, his statement must be an opinion. But he is stating it as a fact!!! Thats contradictory! His statement doesn't come up to his own standards! *Poof*, that statement just exploded into ashes. You can't state a truth that there is no truth; its like me stating "I can't type English." It's just sheer stupidity.

I feel strong feelings toward your topic and yet I in no way can describe them. Yes I feel that there is a sense if not an actuality of knowledge's exictence. I think in a way you are right we humans can not comprehend it, very well at least. Knowledge is related to truth in the way that, we hear what people tell us to be their "knowledge" of right and wrong and that it is the right thing to do. I think that knowledge is not a skill or build up of information over life, but the ability to think outside the [box] and at same time comprehend what you are thinking. A child, for instance, can speak and communicate at young ages. How then is it that we think we know what they are thinking about. Most see child, and think adolescent mind with limited comprehension of right/wrong/reality/unreality. I see child, and think unlimited potential. If taught at a young age that there are no boundaries what is to stop a child from creating cures, or building technologically advanced structures. The limits of the human mind are what hold us back. With out these everyone would be a free thinker, racism would and could not exicest. To be one ,with unlimited potential is to truly have knowledge. Real knowledge.

Yes, but, to have totally unlimited bounderies *could* become a bad thing. some people, having no bounderies, would go to far and, y'know cause something bad....

which, because we are humans, we would teach the people we raise, because we would love them, we bore them, so , as a natural response, we want to protect them from the bad things that we did previously.

knowledge is experiance passed on! thats what i tried to say in my first post!! just experiances passed down from elders..

and, i think the point with the, oo + oo = oooo. was not the changing of the name but the changing of the value. ie; oo+oo=ooooo... but, if it was not then, im afraid there is no change.. just how we name it, as Mr.kirbycode said.

i also think, that some faith is required in logic. point being, we dont actually know that this writing is white, we think its white from reactions in our brain from what people have told us, and from past experiences. thats just the name humanity gave it! back to square 1!! oo + oo = oooo... see??!!??

and, Mr.kirbycode is correct, i read the posts and agree with your statement. you are in the right of way here.

no further comments..

Oopsies... contradicted myself didn't i?? hehehe...

What I mean to say is:

We have learned at a young age (those who learned English anyways) that this "color" is labled as "white". It is true that you almost always need faith required in logic (considering that you have faith that logic works; just because if you take the 6's out of 16/64 and it gets 1/4, doesn't mean its the right way to simplify), there are a very few truths that take 0% faith. A very few, because it takes faith even to "logically conclude" to what I actually mean when I talk about this subject, because you cannot peer into my thoughts. For example, the text just above me is gray. ("Gray" as in the word used for this specific sensation of sight that is different between the wavelengths of light.) You can see it, look at it again, and verify that it is gray. That is one of the few 0% faith things I speak of.

For the gray text above me, these are NOT 0% faith:
1) Everyone sees the same shade/tint/tone of gray (colorblindness, computer screen variance, eye perception variance) Most likely, people see almost the same shade/tint/tone of gray, but we can't prove that we all see the same gray.
2) I press "add" reply and the text will turn gray. This is actually a fault on my part. Sometimes, you can mess up on one letter of a code text, and the gray does not appear. Even if I do not mess up on one letter of the code text, the server could go down before i press add reply and the text will disappear, let alone turn gray.

But anyways, things that are true by definition and also can be proven are those rare things that take 0% faith. (By yoshi's "definition", the normal text is white. We can also verify that each letter we type is white by seeing the "white".

Don't think it's forgotten. I just don't have enough time to post now. And by any chance please tell me if you want your PM's posted for the sake of calling me an hypocrite.

I'll post my answer to the rest of it later, when I've got the spare time to post. In the mid-time I just hope this doesn't turn into an ambulance chasing scheme... since ain't very fond of'em.

Dangit.. wheres the 3rd party when you need em

Call'em if you find the need to. I'm fine with it (as I'm about to explain it better below).



Funny, you make the mistake, don't directly link my reply here and still cling that I'm wrong!?! This is a new concept indeed.
And even after proving that your concept was wrong in that situation (faith vs. logic thread), you kept at it. By PM, you've asked me to change my post since it has blasted yours with simple incongruences' pointing. In my reply to that, I've even said for you to try to go from a different view angle at it.
What you didn't realized that I was giving you a hint for you to find out that for yourself... it was to pick from the investigators faith into proving their theory(ies) right. You've kept circling around it, but never really got to the juice within. The scientifical method hasn't faith amidst it, but the tools that use it (read human brains) need to have a starting point and that could be the belief that their theory is right. By proving it later on, they'll remove the faith of it replacing it with logic. See? Simply changed the angle, from within the box into the outside of it.

For the sake of the jury as you're demanding, I'll provide the PM's exchanged if you agree to it (they're PM's afterall). That, or if any member of the staff themselves can look for it amongst the my controls panel (in the msg's area), if they want to clear that doubt up.

Now please allow me to crop/trim into separate parts the rest of your post here (nr.11), just to ease up my reply to it.


Bah! You're stereotyping me (and failling), but wtf I'm amused and it's not the 1st time you tried to do it...

I'm agnostic, not atheist. And I just happen to buy the Evolution bit, in the lack of a better answer so far. *Meh*
(Perhaps even a bit Taoist, but never haven't been taught their 'standards' and don't agree with all that I've known from their PoV's.)



For this one, I'll fetch back a partial of a previous post of mine here.


Just to show that your point was irrelevant to the matter at hand. The scale has already been set ages ago. Why fuss 'round it? Did you find out a better one? Answer: No. It seems that you're the one trying find lil' errors where they don't exist.



From what I've read, it's still called "straw-man" (linked above in one of my posts) by my standards, wich happen to go along with common debaters ones'.

As for the last paragraph, you interpret it literally. A "truth does not exist." sentence crumbles at the start of scientific logic grabbing it. If we can change theory(ies) when a better one(s) is(are) presented (read also after proven), why cannot we change truths? Answer: We can, addaptin'em to the present moment (as Science does). Imho, what he's trying to say is that there isn't such a thing as an absolute truth.

ADDITION:





ADDITION:
[QUOTE=Mr.Kirbycode774][QUOTE]
Ok, from my perspective, here is what the problem is about (my "parable" of our dilemma, you may call it):

Kirby: ....And that is why 924+568 equals 1492, Drunken.

Basan: Kirby, that doesn't matter because the property of addition proves NOTHING about if Columbus actually sailed in 1492!!!

Kirby: Umm.. Basan.. please change your "accusation" because I'm not even talking about Columbus. Even if I was, I would tell him to read the history books about them.

Basan: Nice try Kirby... I researched these so-called "history" books and found them to be false. Keep trying.

Kirby: I see your point... but still, your accusation has NOTHING to do with my statement in math!!! You're doing a category mistake... math and history are two different things!

Basan: "Math" has nothing to do with what is at hand. What you speak of has no water weight relevant to it at all.

Kirby: AGH DARN YOU SPANIARDS!!! (>.<) Anyways, I am responding to Drunken's statement that he believes that 924+568 doesn't equal 1492, so I made this giant rebuttal to show his err. *gets all the thread texts as proof.

Basan: I'm not Spanish . You really should check the flags. What you're saying still doesn't have anything relevant to the problem.

Do you see the problem up above???

Ok, now at least from the quote I understand your misconception. I never made any assumption of the batteries as being the universe. I wasn't making a allegory or alluding to the giant universe. I was just using a simple device with a simple human reaction. I never stated, "the remote is symbolic to the universe", because IT'S NOT SYMBOLIC to it. If it is not symbolic to it, why do you do a straw man and make it symbolic? Batteries are not perpetual energy by definition. By entropy, they would sooner or later fizz out or just run out of juice. It is true that I cannot prove to you currently if the UNIVERSE has entropy or perpetual motion, but it is a well-known fact that batteries suffer from entropy.

If you can find batteries that last forever, you pm me, ok?
I would like to play my GBA for 48 hours straight.[/QUOTE]
This is our whole message chain. Click on "drunk's mass rant" and "my rebuttal" on the previous post to see the posts me and Basan are talking about. Also Basan, I didn't need to post your reply here, considering it was right below my post! In addition Basan, you're also doing a strawman again (>.<)
[quote=Basan]
And even after proving that your concept was wrong in that situation (faith vs. logic thread), you kept at it. By PM, you've asked me to change my post since it has blasted yours with simple incongruences' pointing.[/quote]

Here Mr. Basan, I'll show you another example in this very thread of what you are doing.
[quote=Mr.Kirbycode774#1]I don't know exactly what you mean by "absolute knowledge", but I do know that absolute truths exist. For example, 2+2=4....[/quote]
[quote=Mr.Kirbycode774#2]If this concrete quantity oo is 2, and we put it together with this concrete quantity oo 2, we will get this concrete quantity oooo, which we have named 5.[/quote]
[quote=Mr.Kirbycode774#3]Please tell me Basan, yes or no, does this quantity oo plus this quantity oo get this quantity oooo, reguardless of what we name them? It could be fork + fork = cow, ni + uno = funf, A + B = C, I TRULY DON'T CARE HOW YOU NAME THEM!

The fact still remains: if you take this quantity oo, and put it together with the quantity oo, you WILL get the quantity oooo.[/quote]
[quote=Basan]So, you didn't made any real improvements on this matter as well. If the referencial atributed to value 4 was 5, what's the real difference? Answer: None. We also would've found other value to replace the 5 's different usage.[/quote] Excuse me while I use CaptainWill's all-caps... but..

HOW THE HECK DOES THIS DISPROVE THAT ABSOLUTE TRUTHS EXIST?!?!? It has no relevance!! But of course, [COLOR=yellow]since you are "uniquely you" Basan, you will say something around "Oh what you are saying has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about, even though you were the one who started the conversation!" ...pure ignorance... Why else do you think I'm begging on the behalf of the SEN jury???

ADDITION:
Edit: This is the fixed version of the 3rd addition. I could not fix by edit because there were too many emocons in it.

This is our whole message chain. Click on "drunk's mass rant" and "my rebuttal" on the previous post to see the posts me and Basan are talking about. Also Basan, I didn't need to post your reply here, considering it was right below my post! In addition Basan, you're also doing a strawman again (>.<)


Here Mr. Basan, I'll show you another example in this very thread of what you are doing.



Excuse me while I use CaptainWill's all-caps... but..

HOW THE HECK DOES THIS DISPROVE THAT ABSOLUTE TRUTHS EXIST?!?!? It has no relevance!! But of course, [COLOR=yellow]since you are "uniquely you" Basan, you will say something around "Oh what you are saying has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about, even though you were the one who started the conversation!" ...pure ignorance... Why else do you think I'm begging on the behalf of the SEN jury???

The only absolute truths there are ones which humanity has entirely made up. Any "fact" said about any real event cannot be "proven" to be true under all circumstances. Numbers are one of these made up absolute truths. There are many other ways that would be valid for a number system, but were not incorporated, simply because they would have been complicated at the time of invention. Say you have a quantity of some substance x. You add another quantity of the same substance but the amount this time is y. They could be combined xy, or yx. These two different combinations have been said to eaqual each other, simply because we, in the general sense said xy = yx. If someone finds some way to disprove xy = yx than the fact will not be absolute. But because humanity made up the whole equation idea in the first place there will never be a way to disprove it.
2+2=4 is an absolute truth because it was created by humanity, rather then found to be so.

So you're saying God would be an absolute truth because people created it.. which proves that God was just a figment of their imagination???

You do see the contradiction there right???

It is to those who believe in him. Just as numbers are absolute truths to those of us who accept them. There are no numbers in the world, they were created, just the same way gods were.

Look at it this way then. We ALL infact try to avoid the truth. The truth that humans never evolved, the truth that Sudam Husan still roam our earth. We avoid it so our lives may be better.


ADDITION:



But here is the thing, we have no knowledge even IF God is truth. We don't. We can not simply say the God, god(s) do not exist. We believe gods, correct? we know them to do maricles. But it is for mericles that there is science. If Science is the core of knowledge, then what may god be? A few months ago, a french scholar went with his hypothesis that god does not exist. Two months afterwards at a international sciences conferrence, he stands there, proud yet confused to rebutt his own idea.

He said "God must exist. Why? We have no proof that the universe had been created by simple matter, but who made matter? we have no idea, so in the end, God, must be absolute"

Eh, again (glad that you're rising the debate level). Have it your way then. We messed our answers, in that PM story, due to lack of clarity in our posts around.

Now let me get back at this... since it has relevance to Science that no absolute truths are set upon indefinetly.


What in the above you're really picking at are the referentials set to have been attributed to certain things, such as quantities and not the absolute truth as you're infering to. Methinks that we're getting in a vicious loop now. Math is a Science, so therefore is able to be changed when facing better solutions. Those that you presented as example (read 2+2=4) aren't scientifically countered yet, thus making'em a reference (aka to you as absolute) so far.

My poist is that, as Science is in constant revolution to find/break new grounds and/or revise ol' ones to addapt'em to better definitions, there isn't such a thing as absolute truth, since we can at any moment stumble upon other fact that shreds the 1st one.
Exs: Middle Age's C.Church Geocentrist theory and the Heliocentrist one ; The Evolution Theory vs. Creationist one. Any better now with these (examples)? *Hopes that this doesn't escalate/sidetracks into a religious debating thread*

Meh.. its just annoying because we both can't see the other is wrong, which is why I beg for a third party.. sorry If I sounded harsh (>.<)

Erm.. On a lighter note, I see what you are saying about a constant revolution, BUT there is one problem with it.

You are RIGHT in saying that 2+2=4 may indeed have some contradiction that we currently do not know about. But by using this argument, and I quote:

"My post is that, as Science is in constant revolution to find/break new grounds and/or revise ol' ones to addapt'em to better definitions, there isn't such a thing as absolute truth, since we can at any moment stumble upon other fact that shreds the 1st one."

it brings out one problem... what about the end?? My hypothesis (which I intend to prove in the next passage), is that although we may not always know the absolute truth, absolute truths still exist.

"Scott Peterson, you have been found guilty of murdering Lacy and her unborn child." I start out with this sentence because it is very relevant to absolute truths. Scott either A) killed Lacy Peterson, or B) did not kill Lacy Peterson. These already are absolute truths. If we had a Starcraft observer and watched Scott during the time of the murder, we would have seen that he either A) killed her, or B) didn't kill her.

So what? In a case, you never can be 100% sure of the verdict, because, unlike our time-altering observer, we cannot go back in time and watch whether or not Scott killed Lacy. We get enough evidence and convict upon "beyond the doubt".
I use this case as a metaphor for absolute truths. We are the jury, evaluating hypotheses and theories which come on the stand. Some of them will be rejected, others will be accepted. With new evidence, some will be modified.

"You're just arguing in a circle and not proving anything" I see Basan saying. Good ol Basan. If I ended here, of course I wouldn't be proving anything! Sadly, I don't.

Scott either killed Lacy or he didn't. If he did kill her, "Scott killed Lacy" is an absolute truth. If he did not kill her, "Scott did not kill Lacy" is an absolute truth. Now, back to the metaphor. That truth exists out there, just like either he killed her and he didn't, and the correct one will be the absolute truth. Our "cross-examination" of these hypotheses just brings us closer to the truth. If you were to find ALL the facts of something, you're going to get the absolute truth.
You see.. if we learned everything about a plant, then we could say if chloroplasts are green to non-colorblind. The question isn't "Is that cholorplasts are green an absolute truth", the question is "HAVE WE GOTTEN ALL FACTS TO STATE 100% THAT CHLOROPLASTS ARE GREEN?"

So you see, Basan, although in your post you are right that Science is a constant revolution, the reason that Science is a constant revolution is because we try to find what is absolutely true. If we took God's perspective and be omniscient, then we would know 100% whether or not Scott killed Lacy, we would know 100% if I'm typing English, we would know 100% whether God existed. In short, it isn't "Are there absolute truths", it's "Is what we have an absolute truth".

Not all chloroplasts are green, there are some yellow ones.