How is it committing a logical fallacy to ask you for a definition and example? Not a definition of science, a definition of "Truth." That seems entirely within the purview of this thread.

As to your supplied "definition" ... Going back to Webster (your own source)

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

Oh look, science is the knowledge of truths obtained though the scientific method. I guess science DOES seek truths!

(This is why citing a dictionary almost always makes you look like a douchbag, BTW.)
=Smidge=

I'm not asking the question for my own curiosity - I'm asking you, specifically, to define the difference between "Truth" and "truth."

I'm asking you to do this because you have asserted that "science is not the pursuit of Truth" - which makes me presume that you actually know what "Truth" is at least well enough to define it.

So, please elaborate on what this "Truth" is, so I can better understand why science can not pursue it.
=Smidge=

To charge your iPhone you need a $150 crisper... ere "Inductive charging" pouch that your phone goes into before putting it into the microwave.

Keeps it clean, you see. Not using the "Inductive charging" pouch may void the warranty.
=Smidge=

Okay, what is "Truth," how do you pursue it, and how do you know when you've found it? What is the difference between "True" and "true" things?

Science as a whole is an application of a pragmatic criteria of truth; it finds explanations and methods that work, and therefore assumes that they are true at least to the degree that they are able to be applied. We then seek better explanations... better "truths." (Perhaps once you've pinned down the difference between "True" and "true" things it will become clear how this is not a pursuit of "Truth"?)

So if you're going to insist that there's a difference between "Truth" and "truth" you will need to present examples in the form of "X is True because Y" where Y is not merely an argument of formal logic, because formal logic alone cannot distinguish true from false. At some point you're going to have to apply other criteria and/or test.
=Smidge=

Except this is exactly what it's about, and it's something that Comcast has already been caught doing. Allowing "fast lanes" would just be a way for them to legitimize the practice of stymieing competing services and/or extorting money from content providers.
=Smidge=

This doesn't address what is the true threat: It's not about ISPs choking bandwidth to individual consumers, it's about ISPs choking bandwidth to their competitors.

For example, Comcast offers, internet, streaming video, cable television and telephone services.

If I, as a third party, want to offer telephone services that use broadband internet (VoIP), Comcast will be able to make my access to their consumers so crap that I can't compete with their telephone service. The only way around that would be to pay them for "fast lane" access which will also ruin my ability to compete as it cuts deeply into my budget.

The end user can have all the bandwidth the infrastructure can provide, and it won't mean a damn thing because my traffic, specifically, will be choked by the monopoly ISP guarding the gates.
=Smidge=

In the wind. There is no capital cost for making the wind blow.

There's a capital cost for building and maintaining the equipment required to tap that energy, but the energy itself is free once you've covered that initial cost.

Also, the Model S is not their "entry level" vehicle. That vehicle is still under development. Tesla aimed to cover the high cost of relatively low volume early production vehicles by producing their high end sport offering (Roadster) first, then their luxury offering (Model S). Part of the reason the gigafactory is such a big deal is it would help lower the cost of the battery packs, reducing the price of future vehicles.
=Smidge=

Basically you're saying that just because the presence of a knife in someone's chest correlates with their death, is no reason to assume causation between these two things.

After all, plenty of people have been stabbed in the chest and lived, and there are no witnesses, so even though the coroner has ruled out every other possible cause of death we can't say for sure the knife is the problem.

To bring it back: There have not yet been any proposed totally-natural mechanisms that account for the current warming trends we see. There are natural mechanisms of course, but none of them add up to what is being observed. The only explanation is that human activity is indeed significantly impacting the global climate. This should not be terribly hard to believe, considering the damage we do almost routinely; Lifeless sea floor in the gulf of Mexico, dozens if not hundreds of once flourishing species now extinct, entire mountains cut down, entire forests leveled, ect.
=Smidge=

Still not burning "record amounts" of brown coal.

=Smidge=

Except that they aren't burning "record amounts" of brown coal, and total coal burning is down quite significantly.

http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.... (PDF)

=Smidge=

Depends... is your surname "Kerman" ?
=Smidge=

The requirements are standard. The actual manner of teaching is not. Education standards are about what to teach, not how to teach.

You might find recommendations on how to teach, but they are not enforced as requirements. Find me an example of enforced methods of teaching, rather than curricula (which is just a laundry list of what needs to be taught, not how).
=Smidge=

"...but is there a way to improve on what we face now?"

Sure there is. If you want to stymie this sort fo thing in the future, all you have to do is stop equipping foreign forces with US hardware.

If you're not selling/giving the hardware to non-US forces, it will be very difficult for non-US forces to get a hold of it.

Pretty simple, though that might cut into some weapon manufacturer's profits so it's probably not tenable.
=Smidge=

So swapping a battery mid-race would be "a close equivalent to juggling a live bomb" but for nearly two decades it was acceptable to fling around a massive fuel hose?

Not to mention what those NASCAR guys do, carrying a giant jug and often spilling it everywhere.

Pretty sure that if the battery is safe to be inside the car at all, it's safe enough to be replaced in the pits. Why they haven't gone with this strategy I don't really know... they claim it's for safety but I've never seen any elaboration on that point.
=Smidge=

You sound bitter and frustrated. For example, it doesn't matter one iota what the head of FIA is up to...

As to attendance figures, I had to Google that because I don't really follow F1 as a sport. I've seen speculation on everything from prohibitive costs for tickets to better television/internet access to simply fewer people being interested, but the only people who say it's because of the "lack of noise" are a handful of seemingly bitter dipshits like yourself who always throw in non sequitur arguments like you did. Makes me think that the "noise hypothesis" isn't particularly powerful.

Lastly, it seems attendance has been dwindling for several years now - so it doesn't seem likely that only the most recent change is the cause.
=Smidge=