HomerS wrote:Mr. Samsa:

Have mass graves ever been discovered in Rwanda?

Yes or No?

Mr. Samsa:

Yes, this observation is formally known as a "scientific fact".

Is it known, with 100% certainty, that it is a scientific fact that mass graves have been discovered in Rwanda?

HomerS wrote:Is it known, with 100% certainty, that it is a scientific fact that mass graves have been discovered in Rwanda?

It is known to the same certainty that falling objects will fall is known.

But let's go back to some of the questions you've ignored:

Using what method have you proven that falling from a height can kill you - logic or mathematics?

Is the question too hard for you?

fact
[fakt]
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth

So if it's a fact that mass graves exist in Rwanda because it is true that mass graves exist in Rwanda because the existence of mass graves in Rwanda is a reality because mass graves actually exist in Rwanda - then it can be said, with 100% certainty, that mass graves exist in Rwanda.

Mr. Samsa:

But let's go back to some of the questions you've ignored:

Using what method have you proven that falling from a height can kill you - logic or mathematics?

Is the question too hard for you?

Neither and No.

Mr. Samsa, do you deny that falling from a great height can kill you?

Yes or No?

HomerS wrote:fact
[fakt]
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth

So if it's a fact that mass graves exist in Rwanda because it is true that mass graves exist in Rwanda because the existence of mass graves in Rwanda is a reality because mass graves actually exist in Rwanda - then it can be said, with 100% certainty, that mass graves exist in Rwanda.

"Scientific fact" - an observation or data point which cannot be denied without descending into absurdity. For example, if a thermometer reads "32" then we accept the scientific fact that the thermometer reads "32". Something tells me that you don't know anything about science.

HomerS wrote:Mr. Samsa:

But let's go back to some of the questions you've ignored:

Using what method have you proven that falling from a height can kill you - logic or mathematics?

Is the question too hard for you?

Neither and No.

Mr. Samsa, do you deny that falling from a great height can kill you?

Yes or No?

Just to be clear, HomerS, your answer to my question above is: "I can't prove it"? Is the question still too hard for you? Do you really need me to clarify a simple "logic or mathematics" question?

HomerS wrote:fact
[fakt]
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth

So if it's a fact that mass graves exist in Rwanda because it is true that mass graves exist in Rwanda because the existence of mass graves in Rwanda is a reality because mass graves actually exist in Rwanda - then it can be said, with 100% certainty, that mass graves exist in Rwanda.

How can you know this? WERE YOU THERE?

fact
[fakt]
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth

If it is true that something actually exists, then it can be said, with 100% certainty, that something actually exists.

Mr. Samsa:

Do you really need me to clarify a simple "logic or mathematics" question?

What part of "Neither and No" don't you understand Mr. Samsa?

Mr. Samsa, do you deny that falling from a great height can kill you?

Yes or No?

Is the question still too hard for you? Do you really need me to clarify a simple yes or no question?

Is it true that mass graves exist in Rwanda?

HomerS wrote:fact
[fakt]
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth

If it is true that something actually exists, then it can be said, with 100% certainty, that something actually exists.

Do you think "fact" and "scientific fact" will mean the same thing? If I tell you that my table was cleared by a "bus boy", would you link me to the definition of a large motor vehicle to support a claim? Would it not make more sense to just link to the definition of "bus boy", as it would be to link to the definition for "scientific fact"?

HomerS wrote:What part of "Neither and No" don't you understand Mr. Samsa?

Mr. Samsa, do you deny that falling from a great height can kill you?

Yes or No?

Is the question still too hard for you? Do you really need me to clarify a simple yes or no question?

Is my question still too hard for you? Do you really need me to clarify a simple "logic or mathematics" question?

Is my question still too hard for you?

What part of "Neither and No" don't you understand Mr. Samsa?

HomerS wrote:Is my question still too hard for you?

What part of "Neither and No" don't you understand Mr. Samsa?

Is my question still too hard for you?

What part of "logic or mathematics" don't you understand, HomerS?

[Just to be clear, you realise that I'm going to keep copying your style (asking inane questions, ignoring clarifying responses, ignoring questions asked of me, assuming people hold positions they haven't claimed to hold, etc) until you stop fucking around and actually attempt to engage in honest discussion, right?].

If archaeology is actually a science, can something be proven using the science of archaeology?

prove
verb \ˈprüv\

: to show the existence, truth, or correctness of (something) by using evidence, logic, etc.

So if archaeologists have "shown the existence" of mass graves in Rwanda, then they have proven that they exist.

Is it true or false that archaeologists have "shown the existence" or "truth" of mass graves in Rwanda?

HomerS wrote:If archaeology is actually a science, can something be proven using the science of archaeology?

prove
verb \ˈprüv\

: to show the existence, truth, or correctness of (something) by using evidence, logic, etc.

So if archaeologists have "shown the existence" of mass graves in Rwanda, then they have proven that they exist.

If that's how you want to define proof, which would just mean showing the truth of something using evidence and logic, then yes absolutely archeology proves things through its scientific methods.

Mr. Samsa:

If that's how you want to define proof

No, Mr. Samsa, that is how a dictionary defines prove.

Is it true or false that archaeologists have "shown the existence" or "truth" of mass graves in Rwanda?

If it can be shown that something actually exists, then it can be said, with 100% certainty, that it is true that it exists.

I.e. - it can be said, with 100% certainty, that it has been proven to exist.

HomerS wrote:Mr. Samsa:

If that's how you want to define proof

No, Mr. Samsa, that is how a dictionary defines prove.

And the dictionary defines the common use of words, not the technical usage of words relevant to specialised fields. Science is a specialised field.

HomerS wrote:Is it true or false that archaeologists have "shown the existence" or "truth" of mass graves in Rwanda?

It is true, undeniably so.

HomerS wrote:If it can be shown that something actually exists, then it can be said, with 100% certainty, that it is true that it exists.

Prove it.

Well since holocaust denial is forbidden on this site I guess someone is going to argue the next best thing.

Precambrian Rabbi:

HomerS wrote:If it can be shown that something actually exists, then it can be said, with 100% certainty, that it is true that it exists.

Precambrian Rabbi

Prove it.

it is true that it exists.

There, I just said it.