How do you decide if something is factual?

[Kylie]

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?

 

[AV1611VET]

In this thread, I'd like to discuss how we reach our conclusions as to what is factual or not.

I use a set of Boolean standards:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

 

[LionL]

Testing a theory is a good way to find whether or not it is true.

The Sun looks as though it circles the Earth, but tests show otherwise. Theory is false.
Disease could be the work of evil spirits. Microbes discovered. Theory is false.
There is a god. No concrete evidence either way. Theory is open but not proved.

You can test any theory you have this way. Although many are neither provable nor disprovable. In the end, you have to use common sense (I can't prove that fairies don't exist, but I have little evidence to support the theory so don't believe it). If there is a good deal of evidence, as is the case with evolution, then it is almost certainly factual. If there is little or no evidence then it is almost certainly unfactual.

 

[Tolworth John]

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

I agree with av1611vet re bible and science.

As for creation v evolution it not so much a case of what facts as a case of what presuppositions are held and how they use these to interpret the same facts.

 

[mozo41]

clarity comes from seeing something from many advantage points

 

[Radagast]

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.

Methods for determining truth depend on the discipline.

In mathematics, for example, we don't determine truth by testing. Instead, we consider something true if it has a mathematical proof. Consequently, there is no such thing in mathematics as "more and more factual." There is just "proven true," "proven false," and "don't know."

The Pythagorean Theorem? Proven true.

Goldbach's Conjecture? Don't know.

 

[Hidden In Him]

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?

No offense there, Kylie, but it is my experience that absolutely no topic on earth is safe from subjectivity. Some are so obstinate and contrary that they will even tell you that water isn't wet. So in the end it always comes down to what people want to believe, regardless of objective realities, at least until cold hard reality intrudes on their thought processes. People can believe sitting on a highway will do them no harm, at least until something bad happens. Likewise, many can believe God does not exist, until they stand before Him in judgment. Likewise, many can believe that Hell does not exist, but they too will have to reconcile their beliefs with the reality of what they are experiencing once they get there.

Maybe my hand isn't actually being damaged in any way when I accidentally hit it with a hammer, but the pain will still be there and it will still hurt. Likewise, there are unfortunately many who are going to experience great pain in eternity because they did not heed the warnings of God. Arguing about whether the sufferings they will experience are "factual" or not won't do them much good at that point.

 

[Kylie]

I use a set of Boolean standards:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

And how do you determine if what is written in the Bible is literal or metaphorical?

 

[Radagast]

And how do you determine if what is written in the Bible is literal or metaphorical?

That's not actually very hard.

 

[Kylie]

No offense there, Kylie, but it is my experience that absolutely no topic on earth is safe from subjectivity. Some are so obstinate and contrary that they will even tell you that water isn't wet. So in the end it always comes down to what people want to believe, regardless of objective realities, at least until cold hard reality intrudes on their thought processes. People can believe sitting on a highway will do them no harm, at least until something bad happens. Likewise, many can believe God does not exist, until they stand before Him in judgment. Likewise, many can believe that Hell does not exist, but they too will have to reconcile their beliefs with the reality of what they are experiencing once they get there.

Maybe my hand isn't actually being damaged in any way when I accidentally hit it with a hammer, but the pain will still be there and it will still hurt. Likewise, there are unfortunately many who are going to experience great pain in eternity because they did not heed the warnings of God. Arguing about whether the sufferings they will experience are "factual" or not won't do them much good at that point.

Feel free to take the question as "factual for ourselves" rather than "objectively true for everyone."

I'm asking how individual people decide for themselves what is true and what isn't true.

 

[Kylie]

That's not actually very hard.

I'd like to see how AV makes that determination.

 

[The Brown Brink]

Testing a theory is a good way to find whether or not it is true.

The Sun looks as though it circles the Earth, but tests show otherwise. Theory is false.
Disease could be the work of evil spirits. Microbes discovered. Theory is false.
There is a god. No concrete evidence either way. Theory is open but not proved.

You can test any theory you have this way. Although many are neither provable nor disprovable. In the end, you have to use common sense (I can't prove that fairies don't exist, but I have little evidence to support the theory so don't believe it). If there is a good deal of evidence, as is the case with evolution, then it is almost certainly factual. If there is little or no evidence then it is almost certainly unfactual.

You say there's no concrete evidence that there is a God...

Where did all this stuff around us come from then?
Did it just poof into existence?

Seems like there's evidence for God to me...

 

[Hidden In Him]

Feel free to take the question as "factual for ourselves" rather than "objectively true for everyone."

I'm asking how individual people decide for themselves what is true and what isn't true.

Oh! Ok... but my answer would still be largely the same. I get subjective, just like everyone else on the planet.

My sincerest apologies, Kyrie. Maybe I shouldn't have even responded to this thread. It's just that I see constant debating even among Christians on a whole variety of different topics, and at some point you just sit back and wonder if it isn't all a waste of time. Most still end up believing whatever they want to believe until nearly forced to believe something different, and even then they'll often refuse to back off of their original position.

Do you feel there is a way to decide what is factual without being subjective in some way? I'm honestly asking.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Factual = impossible to be proven false (zero assumption & zero speculation)

 

[Radagast]

Methods for determining truth depend on the discipline.

In mathematics, for example, we don't determine truth by testing. Instead, we consider something true if it has a mathematical proof.

Questions about history aren't decided by testing either. Where and when was the Battle of Mons Graupius? How many people died there?

The battle happened once -- we can't run a test to make it happen again. We can develop increasing certainty by collecting evidence, but we can't "test."

 

[Zoii]

Im so into this thread. Im 1st year BSc.
Firstly a statement has to be accurate and precise. Those two words are different. The first implies the capacity to actually objectively measure something. By objective it means that if we must exclude all forms of bias.

Second terms implies reliability. If I got 100,000 people to measure the same thing would the result be the same and if not exactly the same, within what limits.

Scientific studies go to exhaustive lengths to exclude bias. Double blinded control trials are an example of that. To explain: the hypothesis might be "blue crystals placed on your forehead, decrease your chances of getting lung cancer"

So you set up a test where some subjects have blue crystals placed on their forehead, while others get plain glass placed on their forehead. Neither the subject or the measurer know whether its crystal or glass on the patient. Then we measure for evidence of lung cancer.

Discussions concerning God are matters of faith, but none are provable. Most of whats said, although not provable, doesnt mean it doesn't exist. But it certainly means theres no evidence.

 

[Dave-W]

The Sun looks as though it circles the Earth, but tests show otherwise. Theory is false.

You need to take another look at Einstein's Theory of Relativity and his use of "frames of reference."

 

[Hidden In Him]

Feel free to take the question as "factual for ourselves" rather than "objectively true for everyone."

I'm asking how individual people decide for themselves what is true and what isn't true.

I'm not even sure if the kitten I've got playing on my chest is factual or not, but he sure is a lot of fun.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

Usually, I listen to and incorporate the methods of people who have come before me who are experts in their own respective fields, and I do this all before I attempt to have self-assurance about my own "factualizing" of the world around me.

So, let's say I want to do something scientifically, then I first CHOOSE a person to listen to, like Eugenie C. Scott, for instance, if I want to learn to approach something scientifically. If, by contrast, I want to consider how the whole ball of wax fits together, i.e. consider all of the disparate pieces of evidence which humanity has about the material world and how it all becomes entangled, then I'll listen to and consider the ideas of a multitude of degreed philosophers. And if I want to know about religion, I'll listen to and consider the ideas of a bunch of ancient Jewish people, one in particular.

yep, that's about it.

 

[com7fy8]

2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y

But if the "Y" can be wrong when you have the Bible for evaluation, then also the "Y" could be wrong when there is no statement one way or the other by the Bible.