In a world where there is truth, then these concepts have a right and wrong.
No, they do not. Photon for example acts both as particle and as wave and handling it as either is neither right nor wrong, different ways are right in different applications.
Not sure I ever stated that nor did I ever state that science was wrong. I even pointed out when going down this path about the moon being made of cheese was more humor than anything. That I pointed toward the subjective truth pertaining more toward the unmeasured and the unobserved. Did I not make mention when answering Sabby’s question that if one believed in an absolute truth then I could not make a contradictory true statement and once more I just said if someone believes in an absolute truth for morality.
Also, you likewise have to provide proof that there is nothing after death.
Two things are worth mentioning about this, first. Morality is social property that has no meaning at all when thinking in terms of truth. You will find that people from varied cultures tend to have some things very different and some things very much the same cause some things tend to be of common benefit in societies in general. There is no absolute truth for morality and there is no reason to waste time in trying to find one either.
Second, two people sprouting statements that have no verifiable scientific proof or even research based on more than just one or two cases is in no way shape or form science. Some person can say there is life after death, other can say there isn't. Both of them should shut up, it is not measurable, not observable so it does not really matter. Resources should not be wasted in researching it either.
Also there was discussion about our senses and reality. And yes, our senses certainly are unable to handle some facets of reality. Also our thinking is not able to comprehend some facets of reality due to our mental frame of reference, surprise surprise, having to do with the scale of things that we generally deal with and what is useful. Take solid matter for example, distances between particles compared to their size are vast, we are made of very much nothing but we do see and feel solid objects as solid. This is quite handy cause the forces that keep it together would cause us all sorts of damage if we tried to walk through solid objects. In same way some tested and proven facets of quantum mechanics such as particle being able to be in two places at same time and other weirdness is incomprehensible to common sense, if it had not been proven by experiments it would be in same category as philosophical or religious debates.
Truth is what after observation and testing is found, truth is not what "feels" right. If it was we would still think that time always passes at same rate, speed of light is infinite and that world of quantum particles is just anomaly and currently known laws of physics explain everything.
Actually research begins with an observation and then a statement of opinion. From that statement an experiment must be extrapolated making the statement a hypothesis, a well worded guess and/or opinion. Once more though, the tea might not be tea at all to the other people but instead coffee. Vt might suffer from a rare condition whereby his taste buds do not register the taste of coffee as coffee, but instead as tea. So once more the connection Vt has with reality is through a sense that can be deceived and so can be wrong. Vt’s concept of reality is then not what he would believe, but 500 people are not going to make that cup of tea into coffee for him.
Hypothesis and research can also begin from completely theoretical grounds not related to observation. Also sometimes it can begin from data of experiment that was dealing with something entirely different if something in results rises questions.
The whole tea thing is fundamentally flawed cause true nature of tea is not defined by our senses but by what is in it. Put tea and coffee in homogenization machine and see what it actually has in it and you have answer, what senses observe does not matter. We have no idea if anyone even sees colors as the same yet they have accepted names and work just fine. What someone sees as blue might be what to someone else seems red for example, it is just what our senses interpret and does not matter as long as it has common name. In just similar way it does not matter if tastes of things are different to different people.
Truth tends to have numbers, not labels. We see colors as different at different wavelengths of light. Red is simply a label for light whose wavelength range is between 630 and 700 nanometers. It is a number, not a color and what it actually looks like behind different peoples neural receptors does not matter. What matters is that most people see distinct color at that wavelength range and our label for it is "red" ,so we can communicate it to others.
I also find it perplexing how an opinion is not true or false, but all research begins with essentially an opinion.
This would not be perplexing at all if people understood the fact that the point of research is to understand some phenomenon and its workings, and hypothesis behind some research might be entirely correct, it might be not correct at all or it might just as well be something in between. It does not matter till the research is done and there is actual verifiable understanding of what was researched. Research being done about something does not by itself validate or invalidate anything about the hypothesis, the results do. It is not valid scientific discovery till research results prove it to be. Many times technology getting better provides us to test theories that were impossible to really test before, and that way there can be long time between a theory coming up, and research results validating it.