How do you decide if something is factual?

[Kylie]

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

So then this implies two criteria:

1. It must be, in principle at least, able to be proven false.
2. It must withstand any and all attempts to prove it false.

Would you agree with this?

 

[Kylie]

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.

But there seems to be a difference there...

When you choose a person as your source of scientific information, then you choose someone in the relevant field. You wouldn't choose an astrophysicist if you wanted information about DNA replication. You'd go to a biochemist. And that would be a rational choice, because the biochemist can get useful and meaningful results on the subject, whereas an astrophysicist would be left scratching his head.

But when it comes to religion, there are groups of people who claim that they are the ones who have produced the meaningful results, and that the other groups have not. How is one to make a decision among them?

It seems to me that your method of deciding on a source to determine what is factual about religion is merely picking whoever agrees with what you have already decided to be true, and that's not a very good way of discovering fact.

 

[Kylie]

You have to define factual first. Is something factual a fact?

Factual: An accurate representation of reality. Real, as opposed to imaginary.

 

[Kylie]

Hi kylie,

You stated in your OP regarding how you personally test for truth/fact:


I'm going to assume, since you claim yourself to be an atheist, that you have used that method to test for God. How do you know that the facts you have apparently found to be the truth, are? More simply put, on what facts do you know that there is no God and how did you test them?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

I have never seen an idea of God that did not have contradictions, either within itself (such as a God who is all powerful, but couldn't forgive Humans without a blood sacrifice), or with reality (such as the creation account that has plants appearing before the sun). Once such a contradiction is found, I can dismiss whatever idea of God has been prevented.

 

[Tolworth John]

The presupposition of creationism seems to be that a collection of ancient tales is 100% true despite there being little to no corroboration of independent evidence supporting the more extraordinary tales.

Well there is the presupposition of evolution.
Because evolutionists are not prepared to look at the creationists arguments or to look at their own arguments honestly they will always have a bias against the bible.

If one believes there is no God, no supernatural then god did not speak to prophets nor did he do any miracles. it is self supporting belief.

Creationist have to constantly examine their beliefs against the claims of evolutionists.

 

[Kylie]

The BEST way is to find the agreement of Scripture, Science and History. When you find this agreement, it is really hard for someone to refute what you have found. There are many Evolutionists here who cannot refute that Fact, but they never cease to try. God Bless you

But we have seen countless times that it tends to be religion which adapts itself to agree with scientific discoveries, and never science which adapts itself to fit religion.

Of course, if you can show me an example of anything where we once had a scientific explanation but now consider a religious explanation to be better, I'll happily change my opinion.

 

[Kylie]

False, since it is really easy to see the evidence God left in the FIRST chapter of the Bible. God's Truth reveals that we live in a Multiverse, that ALL living creatures were created and brought forth from Water. The problem is with one's interpretation, which can ONLY be correct IF seen through the increased knowledge of the last days. Daniel 12:3 The ancient traditional Religious view is easily refuted Scripturally. Amen?

Except you are wrong.

Genesis 1:24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
​

According to the Bible, not ALL living creatures came from water. And Humans came from dust, not water.

 

[Kylie]

1.) Your husband tells you something he witnessed, and on the basis of trust, you would probably believe him.

But I would still be open to the possibility that he was mistaken, and I would disbelieve him if I was shown something that cast his claims into doubt.

2.) You hear that there is near unanimity amongst biologists regarding evolution, and, although not a biologist yourself, you assume that there must be a basis for that unanimity.

And there has been rigorous testing many times, by many different people.

3.) You are on a jury, and conclude that enough evidence has been presented for you to conclude the defendant really did rob the bank.

I'm far from convinced a jury of peers is the best way to determine guilt. If DNA evidence is presented, for example, I think it is better for it to be judged by a person who actually understands what DNA is and how the testing process works.

4.) You witness something with your own two eyes, and are disinclined to believe it was an illusion.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

That list could probably added to. In other words, there is no one way of deciding whether or not something is factual.

True. But that doesn't mean that all methods are equal. Some methods are clearly more effective than others.

 

[Kylie]

Well there is the presupposition of evolution.
Because evolutionists are not prepared to look at the creationists arguments or to look at their own arguments honestly they will always have a bias against the bible.

If one believes there is no God, no supernatural then god did not speak to prophets nor did he do any miracles. it is self supporting belief.

Creationist have to constantly examine their beliefs against the claims of evolutionists.

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!

 

[juvenissun]

Factual: An accurate representation of reality. Real, as opposed to imaginary.

If so, in the question of OP, there are only two choices: factual or not factual.
There should be no such thing as "becoming more and more factual".
If so, at the first (lowest) level, if you can not see or can not touch the object or feature, then it is not factual.

 

[Kylie]

If so, in the question of OP, there are only two choices: factual or not factual.
There should be no such thing as "becoming more and more factual".
If so, at the first (lowest) level, if you can not see or can not touch the object or feature, then it is not factual.

People once thought that if you had two objects that were the same size but of different weights, then the heavier one would fall faster.

Newton's ideas about gravity showed that this was not true, and provided a more accurate description of what really happened. But it was still not completely accurate.

Einstein and his theory of relativity gave us the more accurate view we have today.

Does this make it clear what I mean?

 

[juvenissun]

People once thought that if you had two objects that were the same size but of different weights, then the heavier one would fall faster.

Newton's ideas about gravity showed that this was not true, and provided a more accurate description of what really happened. But it was still not completely accurate.

Einstein and his theory of relativity gave us the more accurate view we have today.

Does this make it clear what I mean?

I understand. But you did not make it clear enough.
Fact or factual is a description, not an explanation. You should not mix the two together.

A magician makes a rabbit disappeared. This is a description of a fact.
A magician did not really make the rabbit disappear. This is an interpretation, someone may not accept that.

 

[Radagast]

Factual: An accurate representation of reality. Real, as opposed to imaginary.

So you hold to a correspondence theory of truth? Good.

And there has been rigorous testing many times, by many different people.

Or, to be more accurate, people that you trust say that rigorous testing has been performed, and you believe them (except for those tests that you actually ran yourself).

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

That's a problem. Can we not trust the eyewitness testimony of scientists about the results of their experiments?

True. But that doesn't mean that all methods are equal. Some methods are clearly more effective than others.

Some methods are clearly more effective than others in certain domains. As I said earlier, in mathematics we use proof, not "testing."

People once thought that if you had two objects that were the same size but of different weights, then the heavier one would fall faster.

Newton's ideas about gravity showed that this was not true, and provided a more accurate description of what really happened. But it was still not completely accurate.

Actually, it was Galileo who showed that this was not true. Let's be factual about history.

I have never seen an idea of God that did not have contradictions, either within itself (such as a God who is all powerful, but couldn't forgive Humans without a blood sacrifice)

There is actually no logical contradiction there.

such as the creation account that has plants appearing before the sun

The majority of Christians would not interpret the Creation account that way. In any case, any possible contradiction there is not a contradiction about the nature of God.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

So then this implies two criteria:

1. It must be, in principle at least, able to be proven false.
2. It must withstand any and all attempts to prove it false.

Would you agree with this?

Not quite. If a fact is something that cannot be proven false, then (1) contradicts that. Even though a fact can withstand any attempts to prove it false, anything that cannot be proven false doesn't automatically make it a fact.

I think I need to reword my definition. For something to be factual, it needs to satisfy all of the below criteria:

(i) impossible to be false
(ii) not based on assumption
(iii) not based on speculation

 

[AV1611VET]

Like I said, I like to pout things to the test.

No argument there!

 

[AV1611VET]

People once thought that if you had two objects that were the same size but of different weights, then the heavier one would fall faster.

Drop a pen and a feather off a bridge at the same time, and I predict the pen will hit the water first every time.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Like I said, I like to pout things to the test.

For example, if I want to see if a flame under a pot of water will make the water heat up, I can test that. I can place limits on the variables and I can measure the results. I can get other people to copy my tests, and I can get them to make up their own tests. And if all the tests made in different ways by different people at different times indicate that fire heats up water in a pot in a predictable way - it heats up at such and such a rate when the fire is this particular size - then I can conclude that my results are fairly accurate, and that the results I am seeing are a result of being a part of reality, and not some biased viewpoint that is unique to me.

You have a scientific mind, which I regard as a good thing. The only trouble is that when you deal with matters of evolution vs. creationism you are dealing with thousands of years at the least (w/creationism) to potentially millions and millions of years (w/evolution). Even carbon dating methods have been proven to give highly inconsistent results on occasion, such as dating living things to be thousands of years old, which throws the whole system into doubt. And interpreting the geological column is by no means as simple as running repeated tests to see how fast water heats up either. Trust me, life would be simpler for us all if it were, but with my limited knowledge of the creationism/evolution debate (which I haven't even looked at again since my college years), it seems to me that we would forever be stuck in a situation where subjectivity is inevitable. None of us were actually there 6,000 years ago, let alone 6,000,000.

 

[Kylie]

So you hold to a correspondence theory of truth? Good.

I haven't heard it referred to in those terms...

Or, to be more accurate, people that you trust say that rigorous testing has been performed, and you believe them (except for those tests that you actually ran yourself).

Given the sheer number of people who would have to be involved in a conspiracy to cover up things like evolution if it were false, I find it unlikely.

That's a problem. Can we not trust the eyewitness testimony of scientists about the results of their experiments?

If all we had was eyewitness testimony, then yes, I wouldn't trust it.

But scientists don't rely on eyewitness testimony. They carefully document everything. It's not a bunch of scientists thinking back to describe what they remember of the experiment.

Some methods are clearly more effective than others in certain domains. As I said earlier, in mathematics we use proof, not "testing."

True.

Actually, it was Galileo who showed that this was not true. Let's be factual about history.

Cheers. I was simply referring to the fact that Newton was the one who gave us a way to accurately explain what was going on.

There is actually no logical contradiction there.

I disagree.

If God is all powerful, then there can be no sentence he can truthfully say that starts with, "I am unable to..."

And yet God said, "I am unable to forgive humanity without killing someone."

The majority of Christians would not interpret the Creation account that way. In any case, any possible contradiction there is not a contradiction about the nature of God.

Isn't that begging the question? You are starting with the assumption that any perceived contradiction can't possibly be a real contradiction.

 

[Kylie]

Not quite. If a fact is something that cannot be proven false, then (1) contradicts that.

Even though a fact can withstand any attempts to prove it false, anything that cannot be proven false doesn't automatically make it a fact.

I think I need to reword my definition. For something to be factual, it needs to satisfy all of the below criteria:

(i) impossible to be false
(ii) not based on assumption
(iii) not based on speculation

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.

 

[Kylie]

Drop a pen and a feather off a bridge at the same time, and I predict the pen will hit the water first every time.

Yes, but that's not due to a difference in weight, is it? Do the same thing in a vacuum, and they will hit the ground at the same time.