How do you decide if something is factual?

[Kylie]

I have no idea how you could possibly know this.

I don't know for sure 100%.

But I make very educated guesses based on my understanding of how things work. Which is why I don't try to make origami birds out of my socks to fix a flat tire. Because that is inconsistent with what I know about the world.

 

[Kylie]

Indeed, I don´t think you (general you) can determine that in a way that meets your (Kylie´s) standards.
But I am open to be presented such a method.

So far, the scientific method has shown itself to be a pretty good way of doing it.

You mean this was all just to confirm the very first thing I said?

Are you suggesting that when I ask, "How do you determine if something is factual?" your answer is, "I can't."

 

[quatona]

I don't know for sure 100%.

But I make very educated guesses based on my understanding of how things work. Which is why I don't try to make origami birds out of my socks to fix a flat tire. Because that is inconsistent with what I know about the world.

So, in lack of a method to know "things for sure 100%" you and I are left with the question "How much is enough to satisfy me so that I consider this thing factual", and it sounds like you go about it without having a consistent, absolute standard - but a lot depends on the situation, the subject, your preassumption, etc.
To be frank, as you put it above it almost sounds like it can be a tad circular at times.
Just like me.

 

[quatona]

So far, the scientific method has shown itself to be a pretty good way of doing it.

Yet, it restricts the answers to be scientific. You are ruling out the "metaphysical" a priori - which is your prerogative quite fine (in a way you are like your husband who stayed with his +1 "knowledge" because it works perfectly).
The only problem might be that you don´t get to participate in certain discussions (e.g. about Gods, magical pixies and the origin of the universe"), that way. Well, that´s not really a problem if you don´t want to - it gets a problem when you attempt to do that nonetheless.

Are you suggesting that when I ask, "How do you determine if something is factual?" your answer is, "I can't."

I needn´t suggest anything. I have been clear about it from my very post: I don´t have a consistent, reliable method of doing that. In particular, there is always the option that the frame of reference within which I treat something like factual could possibly be too narrow and widening it will put the "fact" in perspective . I am aware of this, but usually it´s not a problem for me. However, seeing this I don´t see myself in the position of demanding others to come up with a safe, consistent method, and I am not going to call them on working from certain preassumptions that narrow down the frame of reference. Likewise, I am not trying to criticize others for considering a wider frame of reference than I do.

 

[Kylie]

So, in lack of a method to know "things for sure 100%" you and I are left with the question "How much is enough to satisfy me so that I consider this thing factual", and it sounds like you go about it without having a consistent, absolute standard - but a lot depends on the situation, the subject, your preassumption, etc.
To be frank, as you put it above it almost sounds like it can be a tad circular at times.
Just like me.

Woah, what part of anything I have said gives you the impression that my method is not consistent?

 

[Kylie]

Yet, it restricts the answers to be scientific. You are ruling out the "metaphysical" a priori - which is your prerogative quite fine (in a way you are like your husband who stayed with his +1 "knowledge" because it works perfectly).

No.

First of all, I am not ruling out the metaphysical. I simply require that it actually provides useful information. Thoughts about whether you are a brain in a jar, for example, are interesting, but ultimately they won't tell us anything useful about the universe we perceive. If there is some aspect of metaphysics that DOES do this, then I'll happily include it.

Secondly, my husband didn't stick with his +1 idea. He tried other sequences that showed his idea was wrong (quite apart from me telling him) and he was forced to cahnge his views because he had evidence.

The only problem might be that you don´t get to participate in certain discussions (e.g. about Gods, magical pixies and the origin of the universe"), that way. Well, that´s not really a problem if you don´t want to - it gets a problem when you attempt to do that nonetheless.

So are we saying that metaphysics is definitely NOT a part of science?

I needn´t suggest anything. I have been clear about it from my very post: I don´t have a consistent, reliable method of doing that. In particular, there is always the option that the frame of reference within which I treat something like factual could possibly be too narrow and widening it will put the "fact" in perspective . I am aware of this, but usually it´s not a problem for me. However, seeing this I don´t see myself in the position of demanding others to come up with a safe, consistent method, and I am not going to call them on working from certain preassumptions that narrow down the frame of reference. Likewise, I am not trying to criticize others for considering a wider frame of reference than I do.

Then how can you claim to know anything as a fact?

 

[quatona]

Woah, what part of anything I have said gives you the impression that my method is not consistent?

The very way you described it here. I emphasized the parts in your post that seemed to give it away.
Also, the fact that on one hand you felt that I needed to be more thorough about falsifying my assumption (that my amp runs on electricity) better, but on the other hand are quite fine with ruling out possibilities a priori without being able to draw a clear line.
Just so you don´t misunderstand me: I don´t see that as a problem. I think it´s how all of us do it.

 

[quatona]

No.

First of all, I am not ruling out the metaphysical. I simply require that it actually provides useful information. Thoughts about whether you are a brain in a jar, for example, are interesting, but ultimately they won't tell us anything useful about the universe we perceive.

Interesting how your perception suddenly becomes part of the equation. Things definitely get more difficult now.

If there is some aspect of metaphysics that DOES do this, then I'll happily include it.

But you aren´t willing to falsify these possibilities in the way you asked me to falsify that my amp runs on electricity. (Because there´s some sort of line that you have explained in a pretty subjective manner).

Secondly, my husband didn't stick with his +1 idea. He tried other sequences that showed his idea was wrong (quite apart from me telling him) and he was forced to cahnge his views because he had evidence.

Cool. Howeve, more to the point: Your husband had found a solution that worked 100% perfectly for the given task. That this was not the solution you had had in mind is pretty irrelevant. Btw., how did he conclusively know it was the "correct" solution - other than by you telling him that this was what you had had in mind?

So are we saying that metaphysics is definitely NOT a part of science?

I don´t know what you say, but I will say again what I have said several times:
Applying the scientific method (methodoligical naturalism) limits you to accepting only naturalistic answers. The same way that only trying to work my amp only by feeding it electricity (and, if not functioning, only trying to fix the electric/eletronic components) won´t allow me to find out that it might run on being fed bread.

Then how can you claim to know anything as a fact?

I can´t (without explicitly or implicitly referring to a certain frame of reference of preassumptions within which I am thinking and speaking).
But I am not sure why I have to tell you this so often. It´s almost like you can´t believe that this is how I see it and go about it.
Probably pointless to repeat it (since nothing I say seems to sink in anyway): My approach is "Does it work?" rather than "Is it a fact?".

Btw., just to avoid misunderstandings: I was under the impression that the thread question was meant as "When do you consider something a fact?", not "When do you claim to know anything something as a fact?"

 

[Ophiolite]

I can´t (without explicitly or implicitly referring to a certain frame of reference of preassumptions within which I am thinking and speaking).
But I am not sure why I have to tell you this so often. It´s almost like you can´t believe that this is how I see it and go about it.
Probably pointless to repeat it (since nothing I say seems to sink in anyway): My approach is "Does it work?" rather than "Is it a fact?".

Btw., just to avoid misunderstandings: I was under the impression that the thread question was meant as "When do you consider something a fact?", not "When do you claim to know anything something as a fact?"

This is practically identical with my own thinking and why I elected to cease discussion with Kylie on this subject a few days ago. She seems offended that we would dare to have such "crazy" ideas. It's odd that someone would ask how people address a problem then get upset when they are told.

 

[Kylie]

The very way you described it here. I emphasized the parts in your post that seemed to give it away.
Also, the fact that on one hand you felt that I needed to be more thorough about falsifying my assumption (that my amp runs on electricity) better, but on the other hand are quite fine with ruling out possibilities a priori without being able to draw a clear line.
Just so you don´t misunderstand me: I don´t see that as a problem. I think it´s how all of us do it.

The amp thing was an EXAMPLE. I'm not suggesting that you go and actually do it. The idea of amps being powered by electricity is one that is incredibly well supported. It was an example to illustrate a point which may not always be so clear as in that example.

 

[Kylie]

Interesting how your perception suddenly becomes part of the equation. Things definitely get more difficult now.

Wow, this is really getting picky. Perhaps you know of a way to experience the universe WITHOUT perceiving it?

But you aren´t willing to falsify these possibilities in the way you asked me to falsify that my amp runs on electricity. (Because there´s some sort of line that you have explained in a pretty subjective manner).

Please show me how it can be falsified?

Cool. Howeve, more to the point: Your husband had found a solution that worked 100% perfectly for the given task. That this was not the solution you had had in mind is pretty irrelevant. Btw., how did he conclusively know it was the "correct" solution - other than by you telling him that this was what you had had in mind?

Except it wasn't 100%, he was sticking with things that he thought would match the rule, instead of trying to see if he could make it wrong.

I don´t know what you say, but I will say again what I have said several times:
Applying the scientific method (methodoligical naturalism) limits you to accepting only naturalistic answers. The same way that only trying to work my amp only by feeding it electricity (and, if not functioning, only trying to fix the electric/eletronic components) won´t allow me to find out that it might run on being fed bread.

Except there have been lots of people who have tried lots of times to use metaphysics to answer questions about the universe. And that's never actually worked, has it?

I can´t (without explicitly or implicitly referring to a certain frame of reference of preassumptions within which I am thinking and speaking).
But I am not sure why I have to tell you this so often. It´s almost like you can´t believe that this is how I see it and go about it.
Probably pointless to repeat it (since nothing I say seems to sink in anyway): My approach is "Does it work?" rather than "Is it a fact?".

Btw., just to avoid misunderstandings: I was under the impression that the thread question was meant as "When do you consider something a fact?", not "When do you claim to know anything something as a fact?"

Okay, so you consider things to be facts without knowing for sure that they are indeed facts.

But given that your criteria for reaching the decision that something is a fact is so self-admittedly inconsistent, how can you ever be sure that your decision that something is a fact is an accurate decision?

 

[quatona]

Okay, so you consider things to be facts without knowing for sure that they are indeed facts.

That´s not an accurate paraphrasing of what I said. You may want to reread my previous post.

But given that your criteria for reaching the decision that something is a fact is so self-admittedly inconsistent, how can you ever be sure that your decision that something is a fact is an accurate decision?

Even when you add more noise to the question (being "sure that reaching the decision that something is a fact" (does it get more redundant and pompous?) - which is slightly different than "considering something a fact"), the answer remains the same.
I´m always aware that I might be mistaken, that there can be a bigger or smaller frame of reference which might put a different complexion on things.
I´m not obsessed with "being sure of reaching accurate decisions that something is a fact". I am a user of life (not its analyser), and I am happy and content when things work the way I need them to. When they don´t, I start considering other options.
A lot of trial and error is involved.

(But I find myself repeating myself as you go round and round in circles, without actually being aware that every question you asked has been answered a couple of times before in this thread.)

Btw. not even the scientific method attempts to be "sure that reaching the decision that something is a fact is accurate" - all it strives to arrive at is "the currently best explanation".

So thanks for your interest, your time and your efforts that you have invested in this conversation. As far as I am concerned, everything has been said. You are free to do with it what you want.

 

[Kylie]

That´s not an accurate paraphrasing of what I said. You may want to reread my previous post.

You had said, in post 704, "I have been clear about it from my very post: I don´t have a consistent, reliable method of doing that." (The "that" you refer to is determining if something is factual.)

In Post 706, I replied, asking, "Then how can you claim to know anything as a fact?"

You answered in post 708, "I can´t (without explicitly or implicitly referring to a certain frame of reference of preassumptions within which I am thinking and speaking)."

I then took this to mean what I said in post 711: "Okay, so you consider things to be facts without knowing for sure that they are indeed facts."

If that is not what you meant, then the only other thing I can think of is that you consider none of the opinions you hold to be factual.

Even when you add more noise to the question (being "sure that reaching the decision that something is a fact" (does it get more redundant and pompous?) - which is slightly different than "considering something a fact"), the answer remains the same.
I´m always aware that I might be mistaken, that there can be a bigger or smaller frame of reference which might put a different complexion on things.
I´m not obsessed with "being sure of reaching accurate decisions that something is a fact". I am a user of life (not its analyser), and I am happy and content when things work the way I need them to. When they don´t, I start considering other options.
A lot of trial and error is involved.

(But I find myself repeating myself as you go round and round in circles, without actually being aware that every question you asked has been answered a couple of times before in this thread.)

Btw. not even the scientific method attempts to be "sure that reaching the decision that something is a fact is accurate" - all it strives to arrive at is "the currently best explanation".

So thanks for your interest, your time and your efforts that you have invested in this conversation. As far as I am concerned, everything has been said. You are free to do with it what you want.

Perhaps we can come at this from a different angle...

Do you consider it a fact that you live on the planet Earth?

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

That's true.

And this is where we're at the mercy of scientists, who have made many, many mistakes in the past, leading to many, many deaths.

The Hindenburg comes to mind here.

 

[AV1611VET]

#2 seems pretty suspect and illogical.

Not illogical ... theo⸱logical.

 

[quatona]

I then took this to mean what I said in post 711: "Okay, so you consider things to be facts without knowing for sure that they are indeed facts."

Yes, and I didn´t object to this. So feel freel to run with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

At the same time, I have to point out that you don't actually appear to follow these.

I can see where you would think that, given the fact that your examples are lacking in a proper understanding of what actually happened.

I'll rebut your first example as a QED.

For instance,

• Gen 1:17 clearly says that the moon is held up because God set it in the hard dome of the firmament. Science says it is held up by gravity. Do you reject gravity?

Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

1. There is no mention of a hard dome.

2. Since the Bible doesn't say how it is held up, then I'll go with what science says: gravity.

3. No, I do not reject gravity.

 

[Ophiolite]

[QUOTE="Kylie, post: 71931563, member: 343110"
Do you consider it a fact that you live on the planet Earth?[/QUOTE]Did we ever define "fact"?

For example, the answer to the question is "No" when using this definition:
something that actually exists; reality; truth:

But the answer is "Yes" with this definition:
something said to be true or supposed to have happened:

 

[Papias]

I'll rebut your first example as a QED.

Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

1. There is no mention of a hard dome.

Yes, there is. The word "Raqiya" means "hard structure made by beating metal". It's the same root used elsewhere in the scripture (such as Isaiah 40:19 and Num 16:39), and is well recognized by those who speak ancient Hebrew as part of their Biblical scholarship to mean that. Plus, it's obvious from Genesis itself. Gen 1:1-6 describes an ocean of liquid water, which God has to forcefully separate, lifting half of it up, and affixing a metal structure to hold it up. That's what the Hebrew literally says, and the fact that liquid water is being held up shows that has to be by something that is hard.

Here is a good explanation of this by a well known and respected Bible scholar, who reflects the view of practically all open bible scholars. In fact, the reality that the Bibles describe a flat earth, under a hard dome, underwater, is so well accepted among clergy and Bible scholars that it's taught in most seminaries. Ask your pastor - he'll probably confirm it too.


In addition to that, it's affirmed throughout the scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Anyone who works with metal knows that the best way to make metal harder is by beating it into shape, hence the hard dome (firmament -- literally "hard structure made by beating metal""- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2, Pr 8:27-29, Ezk 1:26), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Ex 24:10 suggests that it is like sapphire. Joshua 10:12 estimates how far the Sun and Moon are from Earth’s surface. The Sun was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Aijalon, showing that one wasn’t sufficient for both valleys (too close). So some basic trigonometry shows that they are therefore at a roughly similar height as the valleys are from each other – which is around 20 miles. Similarly, the whole Star of Bethlehem story in Mt (where a star designates a single house) makes no sense if stars are millions of miles across, but makes perfect sense if the stars are little lights hanging from a dome above us. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, Christians in history have interpreted it as such, and no Christian doubted that interpretation until modern science suggested otherwise.

2. Since the Bible doesn't say how it is held up, then I'll go with what science says: gravity.

3. No, I do not reject gravity.

As shown above, the Bibles are quite clear about how it's held up - it's placed in the hard dome above us.

After we discuss that, we also have the others.

For instance,

• Gen 1:17 clearly says that the moon is held up because God set it in the hard dome of the firmament. Science says it is held up by gravity. Do you reject gravity?
• Dozens of verses describe diseases being caused by demons. Science says diseases are caused by germs, etc. Do you reject germs as existing? Do you refuse to go to the doctor?
• Gen 30 says that traits are caused by what is visible during sex. Science says traits are due to DNA. Do you reject the idea of DNA?
• dozens of verses describe a flat earth, under a hard dome, with the small sun, stars and moon inside the dome. Science says we live on globe going around the sun. Are you a flat earther, like the growing number of other Christians who are rejecting a round earth based on what their Bibles say?
• Ps 139 clearly states that babies are formed by knitting, while science says it is by cell division. Do you claim that babies are formed by knitting?

I think that in all these cases and others, it's not so much what the Bibles actually say, as what the person considers socially acceptable among other Christians. In the case of evolution, it's still socially acceptable (even required) among many Christian circles do deny the metaphorical nature of Genesis 1 and reject the evidence showing evolution. This is especially odd since those same people simultaneously say that Gen 1:17 is not literal when discussing what holds the moon up (gravity?), yet that is literal when discussing creationism.
There are plenty of clearly metaphorical and allegorical verses here (especially Gen 1), and it seems to me that it's local social acceptance that determines what science will be rejected more than what the scripture actually says.​

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, there is. The word "Raqiya" means "hard structure made by beating metal". It's the same root used elsewhere in the scripture (such as Isaiah 40:19 and Num 16:39), and is well recognized by those who speak ancient Hebrew as part of their Biblical scholarship to mean that. Plus, it's obvious from Genesis itself. Gen 1:1-6 describes an ocean of liquid water, which God has to forcefully separate, lifting half of it up, and affixing a metal structure to hold it up. That's what the Hebrew literally says, and the fact that liquid water is being held up shows that has to be by something that is hard.

Here is a good explanation of this by a well known and respected Bible scholar, who reflects the view of practically all open bible scholars. In fact, the reality that the Bibles describe a flat earth, under a hard dome, underwater, is so well accepted among clergy and Bible scholars that it's taught in most seminaries. Ask your pastor - he'll probably confirm it too.


In addition to that, it's affirmed throughout the scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Anyone who works with metal knows that the best way to make metal harder is by beating it into shape, hence the hard dome (firmament -- literally "hard structure made by beating metal""- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2, Pr 8:27-29, Ezk 1:26), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Ex 24:10 suggests that it is like sapphire. Joshua 10:12 estimates how far the Sun and Moon are from Earth’s surface. The Sun was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Aijalon, showing that one wasn’t sufficient for both valleys (too close). So some basic trigonometry shows that they are therefore at a roughly similar height as the valleys are from each other – which is around 20 miles. Similarly, the whole Star of Bethlehem story in Mt (where a star designates a single house) makes no sense if stars are millions of miles across, but makes perfect sense if the stars are little lights hanging from a dome above us. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, Christians in history have interpreted it as such, and no Christian doubted that interpretation until modern science suggested otherwise.



As shown above, the Bibles are quite clear about how it's held up - it's placed in the hard dome above us.

After we discuss that, we also have the others.

For instance,

• Gen 1:17 clearly says that the moon is held up because God set it in the hard dome of the firmament. Science says it is held up by gravity. Do you reject gravity?
• Dozens of verses describe diseases being caused by demons. Science says diseases are caused by germs, etc. Do you reject germs as existing? Do you refuse to go to the doctor?
• Gen 30 says that traits are caused by what is visible during sex. Science says traits are due to DNA. Do you reject the idea of DNA?
• dozens of verses describe a flat earth, under a hard dome, with the small sun, stars and moon inside the dome. Science says we live on globe going around the sun. Are you a flat earther, like the growing number of other Christians who are rejecting a round earth based on what their Bibles say?
• Ps 139 clearly states that babies are formed by knitting, while science says it is by cell division. Do you claim that babies are formed by knitting?

I think that in all these cases and others, it's not so much what the Bibles actually say, as what the person considers socially acceptable among other Christians. In the case of evolution, it's still socially acceptable (even required) among many Christian circles do deny the metaphorical nature of Genesis 1 and reject the evidence showing evolution. This is especially odd since those same people simultaneously say that Gen 1:17 is not literal when discussing what holds the moon up (gravity?), yet that is literal when discussing creationism.
There are plenty of clearly metaphorical and allegorical verses here (especially Gen 1), and it seems to me that it's local social acceptance that determines what science will be rejected more than what the scripture actually says.​

In Christ-

Papias

Great post, but is it in the wrong thread?