How do you decide if something is factual?

[pshun2404]

Between the Creationists and the Evolutionist (I hate to use that particular word, but...), there is a clear difference between what they consider to be factual. One group believes that some sort of creationism is factual, and the other group accepts the scientific account of the formation of the earth and the development of life as factual.

In this thread, I'd like to discuss how we reach our conclusions as to what is factual or not. Not to debate on whether creationism or evolution is factual, but how we arrive at our conclusions as to what is factual.

My own preference is to take a belief I have and put it to the test. If I keep testing an idea and trying to prove it wrong, but every attempt to prove it wrong fails, then I consider that idea to be more and more factual.

How about you? How well have your methods worked in the past?

My own preference is to take a belief I have and put it to the test. If I keep testing an idea and trying to prove it wrong, but every attempt to prove it wrong fails, then I consider that idea to be more and more factual.

So start out with a belief you have. Then try and prove a negative and if you cannot prove a negative it is most likely true. Absurd! To begin with this admits that the belief did not arise FROM the data (and thus may bias the interpretation of the data).

Please provide an example of a belief you hold that you tried to prove wrong ober and over.

In my studies most scientists I have read either do tests to show their hypothesis was correct, or else to obtain data (which then may change or shape the hypothesis) or to determine a fact (like yes you have HIV or no you do not have HIV or yes Bacteria communicate biochemically and so on).

 

[Kylie]

Essentially, I do what you do, Kylie; it's just that where religion is concerned, the results and outcomes are not guaranteed to be identical due to epistemological contingencies that neither you, nor I, can completely control.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

But surely, if it was real, two people could examine it and they would reach the same conclusion. Isn't it more likely that the differences are down to the differences between each person's opinions? And thus when a person believes some religious statement is true, it's really just their opinion about that religious statement. And wouldn't that mean that religion is all subjective and can never actually be objective?

 

[Kylie]

That works fine for some things. Back when I had been among the vehement agnostic crowd for years I experienced a number of events/phenomena that defy testing and can only be laballed as "outside the natural order". Two of these were while in groups and the whole group shared the same experience and they involved physical reality.

After the first apparition experience I convinced myself I was dreaming. It was not until the final one (with others) that I finally broke down and admitted I had been incorrect for decades...there indeed is more to reality than just mass/energy. There IS a spiritual aspect to reality.

I am not crazy, do not do drugs, score in the middle of the bell curve on psychological tests, and have an IQ around 136 (not huge but higher than average). The factual REALITY of experience can never be denied by any who have had such experience. All testing is irrelevant.

Also there are a number of ways people think about approaching what they may have as a belief and the great majority are merely convinced and believe many things because everyone else says so (and that goes for all camps) or because to objectively consider alternatives would destroy their zietgeist.

How did you determine that there could not possibly be an natural explanation for whatever these events were?

 

[Kylie]

False, ole all knowing one. Either produce your proof of your refute of my views or everyone will see you for what you really are. Amen?

Already down it twice already. If you ignored it then, you'll ignore it now, and I've got better things to do than waste my time.

 

[Kylie]

No, since God the Trinity made both. They are Their kinds.

Gen 1:28 And God (Elohim-The Trinity) blessed them, and God (Elohim-The Trinity) said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The above verse happens AFTER Jesus returns and gives us dominion or rule over all of God's creatures. You seem confused by His and Their kinds? Amen?

I see nothing in that passage about the trinity making creatures, only blessing them.

 

[Kylie]

So start out with a belief you have. Then try and prove a negative and if you cannot prove a negative it is most likely true. Absurd! To begin with this admits that the belief did not arise FROM the data (and thus may bias the interpretation of the data).

No. The idea may come from incomplete data, but the validation of it comes from continual testing.

Please provide an example of a belief you hold that you tried to prove wrong ober and over.

That two objects of the same volume and mass will fall at different speeds under the right conditions.

I do this with my daughter every no and then (although now that she's getting older it holds less amazement for her, so it's been a while.

Take two sheets of paper from the printer. They are both the same size and weight. But if you scrunch one up into a ball, it will fall faster than the one that stays flat. When she was younger, my daughter was mystified by this, and I wouldn't tell her the answer. She figured it out when she was about 10. But until then, she would often ask me to do the experiment so she could try and figure it out.

 

[pshun2404]

How did you determine that there could not possibly be an natural explanation for whatever these events were?

Perhaps there is! Perhaps you can suggest how the shower turned itself on without any persons there and then turned off when we unlocked the door with still no persons inside? It shattered my worldview! Or even how the writer of the Book of Job knew that there were trenches in the bottom of the seas that had fountains (springs) deep within them? Maybe he was Job Cousteau? No, some things simply defy natural explanation.

 

[SkyWriting]

Between the Creationists and the Evolutionist (I hate to use that particular word, but...), there is a clear difference between what they consider to be factual. One group believes that some sort of creationism is factual, and the other group accepts the scientific account of the formation of the earth and the development of life as factual.

Not really. Creationists are called to have Faith that God is their for them and the
benefits only occur after the Faith is present.

Others are called to not ever have faith and test everything.
You can test your faith but God doesn't like an oxymoron.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But surely, if it was real, two people could examine it and they would reach the same conclusion.

No, there is little to nothing to guarantee that, as I said in my previous post. There are epistemological aspects of religious faith that are out of the control of both of us. There can also be methodological aspects that are out of our control. As Eugenie C. Scott, an atheist and leader in science education in the U.S., states that if you plan on doing some investigation which involves scientific experimentation, God is not a variable that can be controlled in those experiments. So, that's one complication to outcomes we need to recognize.

Another complication to outcomes, at least as far as Christianity is concerned, is the fact that the content of the New Testament indicates that God won't be "tested," so even if you or I wanted to test God, say along the lines as to whether prayer offers pragmatic results, God won't cooperate. You might as well be wrestling with quantum mechanics...

And there's another complication or two, but I won't get into those now.

Isn't it more likely that the differences are down to the differences between each person's opinions?

Yes, some relativity of perception and conception will play into the complexity involved in any attempts undertaken by either of us to "examine" religion. That's to be expected.

And thus when a person believes some religious statement is true, it's really just their opinion about that religious statement.

Well, not quite. There is a difference between establishing the truth or falsity of a religious statement, on the one hand, and using hermeneutical considerations to establish the meaning of some religious statement, on the other hand. Of course, then we might disagree as to what interpretive principles should apply in our interpretive efforts on ANY text of any kind, even of scientific ones, or especially texts that belong to the past (history), all of which may also be influenced by other considerations we hold within our respective view points.

And wouldn't that mean that religion is all subjective and can never actually be objective?

That depends. Is religion constituted of just one element that has to be haggled over, or is it made of many elements that have to be identified and evaluated? Wouldn't it be more likely that with what I've said above, various elements within the makeup of a religion would also have varying degrees of either subjectivity or objectivity?

 

[pshun2404]

That two objects of the same volume and mass will fall at different speeds under the right conditions.

I do this with my daughter every no and then (although now that she's getting older it holds less amazement for her, so it's been a while.

Take two sheets of paper from the printer. They are both the same size and weight. But if you scrunch one up into a ball, it will fall faster than the one that stays flat. When she was younger, my daughter was mystified by this, and I wouldn't tell her the answer. She figured it out when she was about 10. But until then, she would often ask me to do the experiment so she could try and figure it out.

Good for her... you must be proud.

And how is that attempting to prove that a belief You have is wrong, over and over?

What is the belief here that YOU have, and how was this an attempt to prove this belief wrong?

 

[Tolworth John]

You do realise that there are many people who believe the Bible and who AREN'T creationists, yes?

Why, there are many Christians who are also scientists! Even biologists!

Yes Kylie I do know that.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

No, I don't think you understand what I mean.

If it is possible to conceive of something which would show that an argument is false, then that argument is falsifiable.

For example, gravity is falsifiable, since I can conceive of something that would show it is false - namely, if everything start to float up into the air, if satellites flew off out of orbit, if the Earth raced away from the sun, etc.

But the idea that there is an invisible, intangible elephant sitting in my living room is not falsifiable. Can't see him? That's because he is invisible. Can't touch him? That's because he's intangible and has no physical form. Can't smell him? He produces no odors. Can't hear him? He is very quiet. Any possible claim you could make to say the elephant is not there, I can respond by saying, Oh but he is there, and your claim is wrong because of such and such.

If something can't be falsified, then it should not be believed. Anything that is factual must be falsifiable.

A fact does not have to be falsifiable. For example, it is a fact that I ate strawberries today. But I can't prove to you that I did eat strawberries, and you can't prove that it is false that I ate strawberries. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that I did eat strawberries today, regardless of whether you believe it or not.

A fact is a fact, its truthfulness is independent of human perception. Whether human believe a fact or not does not change the fact that it is true, because...it is a fact.

 

[tas8831]

In my studies most scientists I have read either do tests to show their hypothesis was correct, or else to obtain data (which then may change or shape the hypothesis) or to determine a fact (like yes you have HIV or no you do not have HIV or yes Bacteria communicate biochemically and so on).

In your studies, did you learn that sometimes when comparing genes, not all sequences are complete?

 

[tas8831]

Well...
It's not proof that there's a big man-like God up in the sky, true...
But all this stuff had to come from somewhere...

Yes - isn't "I don't know" a valid answer at this point?

And nothing could create this stuff except "God"...whatever God actually is...

That is a mere assertion.

 

[Kylie]

Perhaps there is! Perhaps you can suggest how the shower turned itself on without any persons there and then turned off when we unlocked the door with still no persons inside? It shattered my worldview!

Okay. So you didn't even see the shower running? Must be ghosts...

Or even how the writer of the Book of Job knew that there were trenches in the bottom of the seas that had fountains (springs) deep within them? Maybe he was Job Cousteau? No, some things simply defy natural explanation.

Job 38:16 says "springs OF the sea", not IN the sea. Nothing about trenches. Besides, people back then knew of water coming from springs. Not a hard leap to make to think they thought of the sea the same way. I mean, living in a desert environment, they wouldn't think there was enough rain to fill up the sea. So springs is the next option for them.

There is nothing in the Bible that clearly and unambiguously states some scientific knowledge that would have been impossible for them to come to.

 

[Kylie]

No, there is little to nothing to guarantee that, as I said in my previous post. There are epistemological aspects of religious faith that are out of the control of both of us. There can also be methodological aspects that are out of our control. As Eugenie C. Scott, an atheist and leader in science education in the U.S., states that if you plan on doing some investigation which involves scientific experimentation, God is not a variable that can be controlled in those experiments. So, that's one complication to outcomes we need to recognize.

In other words, there's no consistency.

How, then, can you ever claim something as religious fact?

Another complication to outcomes, at least as far as Christianity is concerned, is the fact that the content of the New Testament indicates that God won't be "tested," so even if you or I wanted to test God, say along the lines as to whether prayer offers pragmatic results, God won't cooperate. You might as well be wrestling with quantum mechanics...

Sounds like a good way to get around the lack or results. The element of handwavium.

And there's another complication or two, but I won't get into those now.

These excuses haven't been complicated so far.

Yes, some relativity of perception and conception will play into the complexity involved in any attempts undertaken by either of us to "examine" religion. That's to be expected.

Funnily enough, the problems doesn't seem to exist so much when it comes to science...

Well, not quite. There is a difference between establishing the truth or falsity of a religious statement, on the one hand, and using hermeneutical considerations to establish the meaning of some religious statement, on the other hand. Of course, then we might disagree as to what interpretive principles should apply in our interpretive efforts on ANY text of any kind, even of scientific ones, or especially texts that belong to the past (history), all of which may also be influenced by other considerations we hold within our respective view points.

So you can figure out what it means metaphorically. Doesn't make it real though, does it?

That depends. Is religion constituted of just one element that has to be haggled over, or is it made of many elements that have to be identified and evaluated? Wouldn't it be more likely that with what I've said above, various elements within the makeup of a religion would also have varying degrees of either subjectivity or objectivity?

Varying degrees of objectivity? How does that work? What's objectivity measured in? Is it anything like a plausibility unit? How can something be more objective than another thing?

 

[Kylie]

And how is that attempting to prove that a belief You have is wrong, over and over?

By doing it over and over again to see if the results were anomalous or typical.

What is the belief here that YOU have, and how was this an attempt to prove this belief wrong?

That objects fall according to their surface area rather than their weight - just because an object falls faster doesn't mean it is heavier.

 

[Kylie]

Yes Kylie I do know that.

So, why did you say:

Because evolutionists are not prepared to ... look at their own arguments honestly they will always have a bias against the bible.
​

From post 65.

Are you suggesting that a Christian biologist will be biased against the Bible?

 

[pshun2404]

A fact does not have to be falsifiable. For example, it is a fact that I ate strawberries today. But I can't prove to you that I did eat strawberries, and you can't prove that it is false that I ate strawberries. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that I did eat strawberries today, regardless of whether you believe it or not.

A fact is a fact, its truthfulness is independent of human perception. Whether human believe a fact or not does not change the fact that it is true, because...it is a fact.

Well put Lily...and undeniably true!

 

[Kylie]

A fact does not have to be falsifiable. For example, it is a fact that I ate strawberries today. But I can't prove to you that I did eat strawberries, and you can't prove that it is false that I ate strawberries.

But there is some conceivable test which would falsify it, isn't there - if I pumped your stomach and found strawberry remnants, or got you to poop in a cup and found strawberry seeds, or strawberry seeds between your teeth. I can conceive of something which would indicate that you didn't.

I don't think you understand what falsifiability actually means...

A fact is a fact, its truthfulness is independent of human perception. Whether human believe a fact or not does not change the fact that it is true, because...it is a fact.

But it should not be accepted as a fact if you can't think of something that proves it wrong.

I mean, if you can just handwave away any evidence that suggests it is wrong, you have something that can't be disproven, but that doesn't make it a fact, does it?