If God asks....

[Illuminaughty]

I see fairies. Now you have to accept that they exist.

 

[Davian]

So a fact is a belief?

No. Category mistake.

An important distinction.

Indeed.

So are the facts upon which his interpretation is built.

Yes.

His belief, according to your statement above, is precisely the same as a fact. Now you have no difference whatsoever between a belief and a fact;

In this case, his belief would be stated in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis, or theory. The facts support the hypothesis, or theory.

Note that this is the scientific usage of the word 'theory', not the casual use "I have a theory why Larry is late to work on Mondays..."

neither of them are proven, and they are both open to falsification.

True.

Sure it is. Go down to the bottom of the garden and look.

Legend has it that they are immaterial, invisible, and necessary for the garden to flourish.

The certainty that I referred occurred way back in the long ago, and honestly, I do not remember exactly what we were talking about then. Seems like it was something to do with evolution or maybe some traits. Anyway, it seemed to me that you were counting on certainty of some things, but now, it seems that you accept less certainty that I do.

I am not sure if we have made any progress at all.

The purpose of falsifiability is to increase certainty.

 

[Elioenai26]

The purpose of falsifiability is to increase certainty.

You fail to comprehend that what you just said is not falsifiable. So what certainty do we have that it is even a meaningful statement? Do we have any reason to believe that it is even meaningful at all. According to you, we don't.

 

[Davian]

You fail to comprehend that what you just said is not falsifiable. So what certainty do we have that it is even a meaningful statement? Do we have any reason to believe that it is even meaningful at all. According to you, we don't.

Sure it is. Show us a more reliable way of exploring reality. You're the one with the "knowledge of truth". Can you do anything other than preach with it?

 

[Max S Cherry]

"Things that are indisputably the case" are still open to falsification. Things that are proven are not.

I hate to go back to this, but I gave it much consideration last night. I kept going over "indisputably," and I cannot see that it allows for any falsification. Here is the thing, if it is "indisputable," it cannot be disputed. It is no longer open to challenge, and if it is not open to challenge, it cannot be falsified. Can it? Am I looking at this wrong?

Also, I spent some time going over word usage, and I submit that, when people speak of facts, they are referring to things held to be true. This is limited to my own experience of course. And of course, they are not always speaking of true, diehard proven things, but the word "fact" gives people the impression that what is being talked about is true. Whereas if someone speaks of a belief, the listeners are put on alert that the speaker is not dealing with facts.

This seems to indicate that my saying "beliefs" are not proven and "facts" are proven is not completely out of the question. They do seem to be in the same category.

 

[Max S Cherry]

I see fairies. Now you have to accept that they exist.

I can accept that you see them. I can accept that you say you see them. Why is that supposed to be difficult?

 

[Illuminaughty]

I can accept that you see them. I can accept that you say you see them. Why is that supposed to be difficult?

I can accept that people think they see God/s too. I've had experiences were I felt as if I were communicating with a god on numerous occasions while on psychedelic drugs. Sometimes even while sober when I first got into Christianity real strong. I just have no evidence that such events actually point to the existence of literal beings behind the experiences. People seem to be able to provide no evidence of such beings existing in any objective sense outside of their own mind. Instead they make unfalsifiable statements and then claim if you can't prove them wrong they must be right.

 

[Max S Cherry]

I can accept that people think they see God/s too. I've had experiences were I felt as if I were communicating with a god on numerous occasions while on psychedelic drugs. Sometimes even while sober when I first got into Christianity real strong. I just have no evidence that such events actually point to the existence of literal beings behind the experiences. People seem to be able to provide no evidence of such being existing in any objective sense outside of their own mind. Instead they make unfalsifiable statements and then claim if you can't prove them wrong they must be right.

I have also encountered such people. It does no one any good to argue for rightness when there is seemingly no way to prove it. Personally, I do not bother with it.

 

[Davian]

I hate to go back to this, but I gave it much consideration last night. I kept going over "indisputably," and I cannot see that it allows for any falsification. Here is the thing, if it is "indisputable," it cannot be disputed. It is no longer open to challenge, and if it is not open to challenge, it cannot be falsified. Can it? Am I looking at this wrong?

Such are the vagaries of human language.

I am using 'indisputable' as a state, not an absolute. Not "it cannot be disputed" but more "unable to be challenged". To clarify, I would add my own modifier: "unable to be challenged to date". It is open to falsification in the future.

That the Earth orbits the Sun is not proven. How would one seriously challenge that fact?

Do you dispute that humans share DNA with carrots?

Also, I spent some time going over word usage, and I submit that, when people speak of facts, they are referring to things held to be true. This is limited to my own experience of course. And of course, they are not always speaking of true, diehard proven things, but the word "fact" gives people the impression that what is being talked about is true. Whereas if someone speaks of a belief, the listeners are put on alert that the speaker is not dealing with facts.

That is still context sensitive. If a scientist says, "I believe that there is a planet circling this star..." he should be dealing with facts (astronomical observations). Someone may come along tomorrow and have a better explantation for those observations.

This seems to indicate that my saying "beliefs" are not proven and "facts" are proven is not completely out of the question.

Agreed, but 'facts' as 'proven' is not an absolute.

They do seem to be in the same category.

I disagree. You can have your own beliefs, but not your own facts.

 

[Max S Cherry]

I am using 'indisputable' as a state, not an absolute. Not "it cannot be disputed" but more "unable to be challenged". To clarify, I would add my own modifier: "unable to be challenged to date". It is open to falsification in the future.

Given your modifier, it now seems that there is nothing outside falsification because it could always come along at a later date. It seems to be complete agnosticism.

That the Earth orbits the Sun is not proven. How would one seriously challenge that fact?

There it is. How is it a fact if it is not indisputable? It requires your modifier, and unless that modifier is added, it is not a fact that the Earth orbits the sun. "How would one seriously challenge that statement that is indisputable to date?" It makes no sense to me like that.

Do you dispute that humans share DNA with carrots?

I am not sure what you mean. I dispute that I share any of my personal DNA with a carrot, but I do not dispute that carrots and I have some of the same DNA. I believe that all (most anyway) critters and objects are composed of the same things.

That is still context sensitive. If a scientist says, "I believe that there is a planet circling this star..." he should be dealing with facts (astronomical observations). Someone may come along tomorrow and have a better explantation for those observations.

All I see here is two beliefs concerning the same fact, whatever that fact may be. The fact is not that there is a planet circling a star. The fact is the astronomical observation, again whatever that may be. The fact itself seems to be indisputable, and in that case, the fact would be proven.

Agreed, but 'facts' as 'proven' is not an absolute.

Without your modifier, I cannot see this. With your modifier, I see it as impossible to ever lift anything to "fact as proven."

I disagree. You can have your own beliefs, but not your own facts.

If a fact is subject to your modifier, I do not know why one could not have his own facts. Someone could come along later and falsify that fact just as one could with someone's belief. For me, I do not see why this difference, if it exists, matters as to which category an idea falls into: belief or fact. I can build my beliefs upon facts (proven, indisputable things), and that seems to place them into the same category.

 

[Davian]

Given your modifier, it now seems that there is nothing outside falsification because it could always come along at a later date. It seems to be complete agnosticism.

Technically, yes. But I think of science not about establishing truth (or "Truth"), but describing how the world around us works. Even if this were all a simulation, we could still do science in it.

There it is. How is it a fact if it is not indisputable? It requires your modifier, and unless that modifier is added, it is not a fact that the Earth orbits the sun. "How would one seriously challenge that statement that is indisputable to date?" It makes no sense to me like that.

Do you think that the Earth orbits the Sun is a fact?

I am not sure what you mean. I dispute that I share any of my personal DNA with a carrot, but I do not dispute that carrots and I have some of the same DNA.

The DNA that is unique to you is not what I was referring to.

I believe that all (most anyway) critters and objects are composed of the same things.

What would be the exceptions?

All I see here is two beliefs concerning the same fact, whatever that fact may be. The fact is not that there is a planet circling a star. The fact is the astronomical observation, again whatever that may be. The fact itself seems to be indisputable, and in that case, the fact would be proven.

The astronomical observations could be later falsified as a problem with the equipment. Interestingly, in the case of the cosmic background radiation, what was believed to be a problem with the equipment turned out later to be signals from space.

Without your modifier, I cannot see this. With your modifier, I see it as impossible to ever lift anything to "fact as proven."

True. Unless we are talking maths.

If a fact is subject to your modifier, I do not know why one could not have his own facts. Someone could come along later and falsify that fact just as one could with someone's belief. For me, I do not see why this difference, if it exists, matters as to which category an idea falls into: belief or fact. I can build my beliefs upon facts (proven, indisputable things), and that seems to place them into the same category.

Can you provide an example of what you consider to be a 'fact', something 'proven'?

 

[Max S Cherry]

Technically, yes. But I think of science not about establishing truth (or "Truth"), but describing how the world around us works. Even if this were all a simulation, we could still do science in it.

Agreed.

Do you think that the Earth orbits the Sun is a fact?

If you ask me if I think the Earth orbits the sun, my answer is yes. Is it a fact, without your modifier? No.

The DNA that is unique to you is not what I was referring to.

Roger roger.

What would be the exceptions?

None that I am aware of. Just leaving the option open.

The astronomical observations could be later falsified as a problem with the equipment. Interestingly, in the case of the cosmic background radiation, what was believed to be a problem with the equipment turned out later to be signals from space.

I suppose I misunderstood what you were referring to as "astronomical observations." If they were falsifiable, you are absolutely correct. They are not facts.

True. Unless we are talking maths.

Absolutely correct.

Can you provide an example of what you consider to be a 'fact', something 'proven'?

Outside of maths, I do not know.

 

[Davian]

Agreed.



If you ask me if I think the Earth orbits the sun, my answer is yes. Is it a fact, without your modifier? No.



Roger roger.



None that I am aware of. Just leaving the option open.



I suppose I misunderstood what you were referring to as "astronomical observations." If they were falsifiable, you are absolutely correct. They are not facts.



Absolutely correct.



Outside of maths, I do not know.

What label would you give to something like the transistor effect?

 

[Max S Cherry]

What label would you give to something like the transistor effect?

Got nothing for you. I did a search but found no usable information on the transistor effect. Is it something that you can explain in a few words, or can you point me to a quick summary?

Perhaps a better question is whether your question is really a question, or have you already assumed my answer?

 

[Davian]

Got nothing for you. I did a search but found no usable information on the transistor effect. Is it something that you can explain in a few words, or can you point me to a quick summary?

Perhaps a better question is whether your question is really a question, or have you already assumed my answer?

"Bardeen and Brattain received the Nobel Prize in Physics, 1956, together with William Shockley, "for their researches on semiconductors and their discovery of the transistor effect." "

The Transistor - History

"The transistor is the fundamental building block of modern electronic devices, and is ubiquitous in modern electronic systems."

"In acknowledgement of this accomplishment, Shockley, Bardeen, and Brattain were jointly awarded the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics "for their researches on semiconductors and their discovery of the transistor effect.""

Transistor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is basically what makes your computer work (or does the work inside of the CPU). Like what fluid dynamics is to why planes can fly.

If these are not "facts", what are they?

I don't know what your answer will be, but I will take your meaning of the word you provide from the context. In this instance, I am providing the context.

 

[Max S Cherry]

It is basically what makes your computer work (or does the work inside of the CPU). Like what fluid dynamics is to why planes can fly.

If these are not "facts", what are they?

I don't know what your answer will be, but I will take your meaning of the word you provide from the context. In this instance, I am providing the context.

Thank you for clarifying what you were asking. We are stepping away from my agnostic inclinations, because as I have already stated, they lead to an unlivable life.

Now, as for the transistor effect, I have no idea what it is, but if I can go with your explanation of "it is basically what makes your computer work," I can state that it is a fact that my computer works. Is that what you are asking? Likewise, it is a fact that planes fly.

 

[Tomk80]

Thank you for clarifying what you were asking. We are stepping away from my agnostic inclinations, because as I have already stated, they lead to an unlivable life.

Now, as for the transistor effect, I have no idea what it is, but if I can go with your explanation of "it is basically what makes your computer work," I can state that it is a fact that my computer works. Is that what you are asking? Likewise, it is a fact that planes fly.

Why is it a fact that your computer works? Sure, it has a high probability of working, but it might stop working tomorrow because we actually had our theories wrong and suddenly that change stops your computer from working.

If you take fact as "proven", there are no facts. Period. Everything we know of the world around us is always potentially falsifiable. I could step out of my window tomorrow and not fall two stories down because gravity does not actually work the way we think it does. Sure, the probability that I will fall is almost infinitely higher, but it is not proven.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Why is it a fact that your computer works? Sure, it has a high probability of working, but it might stop working tomorrow because we actually had our theories wrong and suddenly that change stops your computer from working.

It may stop working tomorrow, and if that happens, it will then be a fact that my computer is not working.

If you take fact as "proven", there are no facts. Period. Everything we know of the world around us is always potentially falsifiable. I could step out of my window tomorrow and not fall two stories down because gravity does not actually work the way we think it does. Sure, the probability that I will fall is almost infinitely higher, but it is not proven.

Laying aside my my hardcore agnosticism, it is a fact that my computer is currently working. It is indisputable.

 

[Tomk80]

It may stop working tomorrow, and if that happens, it will then be a fact that my computer is not working.

Laying aside my my hardcore agnosticism, it is a fact that my computer is currently working. It is indisputable.

I apparently did not make my question clear. Because yours does not really seem to be an answer to it.

Let me ask it as follows. Is gravity a fact? In that if something is hanging in the air unsupported, it will eventually fall down to the ground.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Let me ask it as follows. Is gravity a fact? In that if something is hanging in the air unsupported, it will eventually fall down to the ground.

To get into your question fully, I may have to ask you for your definition of gravity. If we are using gravity simply to mean that things fall to the floor when dropped inside my office, I can say that it is a fact...yes, I just tested it.