How do you decide if something is factual?

[Kylie]

Your mind perceived that measurement; it becomes subjective.

Are you suggesting that another person might measure its length differently?

 

[Kylie]

Well, Kylie, I have been trying to explain my position in my own words. Then you asked if one could paraphrase it with "extraordinary" being the keyword, and I responded "No, doesn´t work for me.". I think it´s unnecessarily complicated to work my way back to my position from your way of paraphrasing it - would you agree?

I'm sorry, I'm merely trying to establish that we both agree that the harder to believe a claim is, the more impressive the evidence required to convince us of that claim needs to be. Regardless of the words used, I think you understand the concept I am trying to communicate, and I'd rather not waste time quibbling over the specific words used. Do you agree with that concept or not?

I don´t think so. The sort of evidence would still be the same (e.g. "I want a video" - there´s nothing extraordinary about a video).

But the evidence is not the video, the evidence is what the video shows.

As I said already, I can hear the same claim ("I had cereals for breakfast"), but - depending on the circumstances - sometimes demand evidence or even conclusive evidence or not.
Say, there was a box of cereals and a bar of chocolate in our household, you tell me you ate ceareals - but the cereal box is still unopened but the chocolate is gone...
Or, what you ate for breakfast is crucial for your alibi in a murder case...
Or, you have a gluten intolerance, you tell me you ate cereal for breakfast, but you don´t have any symptoms....

Then it seems you prefer the term "conclusive evidence" rather than "extraordinary evidence."

If I claimed that I could turn into a squirrel, you would not believe me until I presented "conclusive evidence", is that right?

To be honest, I probably wouldn´t accept it at all. I wouldn´t even ask for evidence. I would take you straight to the doctors.
But in case I would want evidence, the evidence wouldn´t anything special or extraordinary (e.g. "I want to see a video of it.").
However, the thing is: The sun is still there. You haven´t eaten it. I know that any evidence you will come up with must be fake.

Ah, but I said I replaced the sun with an exact duplicate, so your method of disproving me falls flat. How then could you prove I didn't?

So what sort of evidence would you demand from me in order to accept my claim that I have eaten the sun?

Let me watch you do it.

Ah, so in the meantime you have already added more to the story, and on top have made your claim unfalsifiable.

Yeah, but then again, I see people around here doing that all the time, coming up with ways to make their viewpoints unfalsifiable.

But let´s get back to your "extraordinary evidence" category: Again, what would be the extraordinary evidence I had to bring to the table in order to convince you that I have eaten the sun and replaced it by a duplicate?

Like I said, let me watch you do it.

This isn´t even in dispute. I am wondering how the category "extraordinary evidence" helps here, though.

Because "I ate the sun for breakfast" is an extraordinary claim, while "I ate cereal for breakfast" is not.

It´s all a matter of "frames of reference". Everything within the universe can possibly be explained by the forces at work within the universe. However, if someone starts asking "(How) did the laws of physics come into being", it would be absurd (a category error) to try to explain that by means of the laws of physics. We would have to widen the frame of reference.

What if the laws of nature we have are an emergent property of the universe?

I think we have a misunderstanding here.
I haven´t been talking about tasks to accomplish, in the first place.

How have we not? A person working to fulfill their expectations is a task they can accomplish, yes?

Secondly, I was talking about beliefs that people actually hold (not about beliefs that they are told to accept).

I don't see how that's relevant. If they hold a belief, what difference does it make why they hold it?

Two weeks ago, a friend of mine went to Ireland for vacation. She knew in advance that it would be terrible, and that everything would go wrong. It didn´t surprise me at all that this came true for her.

Which can be explained in any number of ways. Confirmation bias, for example. Maybe she was so convinced that it would be bad that she subconsciously sabotaged it. For example, maybe it was raining, so she decided not to go on the seaside tour. And then she counts missing the seaside tour as a bad thing.

 

[Kylie]

I'd say that reality is 'other' and it is what it is in total, whether we can measure it or not. And if there is presently some aspect of it we can't measure, it could manifest at some point in our future and bite us in the butt... such as an uncharted asteroid that we don't know about until.....WHAMMO!!!! In such a case, we can't say "reality is [only] what we can measure objectively." Conversely, reality is not [only] what we think we experience subjectively, either.

I agree that there are things in reality that we can't currently detect, and that doesn't make those things any less real.

But we can't say then that there is a particular thing that exists if we can't detect it. We can't say that Gloobles are real, just presently undetectable.

So, with my definition of reality in mind...I then turn to contemplate the processes of discerning our 'world' through science--, and in doing so, I like to diversify my sources of methodology so as to bring to myself more awareness and more understanding as to the possibilities of measurment, such as can be seen by comparing the methodologies of two atheists who differ as to their respective understandings of the relationship of 'science and religion,' particularly as it applies to our evolved universe.

But isn't that assuming that the things religion says are true actually exist, despite being undetectable by science? Doesn't that make them like Gloobles?

In any case, in the example presented in the video - namely, can you be a Christian and still accept evolution - it comes down to how rigidly the person in question holds to their RELIGIOUS belief. Do they have the belief that the Bible is 100% literally true? Or is the Bible more metaphorical? I find it very interesting and very informative that it is ALWAYS religion which is the flexible thing in these situations. It's never science. And I think that's because science is testable. If you doubt a claim made in science, then you don't need to just take someone's word, you can go and see for yourself. But how do you do that in religion? You can't. Religion RELIES on subjective interpretation, but science does not.

So, how do I determine what is a fact? I use science for the physical world first, and secondly for my religion, I use 'hermenuetics', an approach to the world of human thought as it is reflected in what Dr. Zimmerman states below:

He says that hermeneutics is a way of establishing rules for the interpretation of written communication, or words to that effect. I feel that could be inaccurate if the original authors of that communication were not writing it according to the same rules that we would be using in the early 21st century to understand it.

I also disagree with much of the other stuff he has to say. I don't think that everything is subjective. There is an objective truth out there, and while our interpretations of that truth may be subjective, there are ways which we can minimize those biases.

 

[Kylie]

No, it's simply the demonstration of the willful ignorance of being born again Spiritually. Tell us HOW you can become unborn physically and I will understand HOW you can become unborn Spiritually. You were born physically into this world. Some choose to be born again Spiritually into the 3rd Heaven. Others choose eternal death for themselves. It's called Free Will. Amen?

Why do you demand that I demonstrate how a person can become physically unborn when we are not talking about physical birth or unbirth?

 

[quatona]

I'm sorry, I'm merely trying to establish that we both agree that the harder to believe a claim is, the more impressive the evidence required to convince us of that claim needs to be. Regardless of the words used, I think you understand the concept I am trying to communicate, and I'd rather not waste time quibbling over the specific words used. Do you agree with that concept or not?

If I may say it in my own words : The harder to believe a claim is to me (and this depends on a lot of circumstancial factors, not only on the nature of the claim), the more inclined I am to ask for evidence.

But the evidence is not the video, the evidence is what the video shows.

Yes, the evidence is that the video shows that which is claimed. If A is claimed, it would be nonsensical to demand a video that shows B.

Then it seems you prefer the term "conclusive evidence" rather than "extraordinary evidence."

Depends entirely on the rest of the sentence.

If I claimed that I could turn into a squirrel, you would not believe me until I presented "conclusive evidence", is that right?

Yes, and I would be the one to determine what evidence I find conclusive.

Ah, but I said I replaced the sun with an exact duplicate, so your method of disproving me falls flat. How then could you prove I didn't?

Well, I don´t even have the onus of disproving your claim.

Let me watch you do it.

Well, technically watching you eat the sun wouldn´t be evidence that you have done it before (and on top you couldn´t even eat the sun anymore, but just a duplicate).
But apart from that, we seem to agree that "I want to see it" is the typical question for evidence, no matter what the claim.

Yeah, but then again, I see people around here doing that all the time, coming up with ways to make their viewpoints unfalsifiable.

Sure, but extraordinary and unfalsifiable are two entirely different criteria.
Yet another problem would be the ad hoc and post hoc "explanations" that people come up with in order to keep up an untenable claim (like "embedded age" or "hypostatic union").You know, the stuff that makes them sound like your typical compulsive liar that - once a lie is exposed - comes up with an even wilder story, and so forth.
To be honest, there is a point where I wouldn´t even start asking for evidence.

Because "I ate the sun for breakfast" is an extraordinary claim, while "I ate cereal for breakfast" is not.

I have no problem (and didn´t ask about) "extraordinary claim", I have a problem with (and asked about) "extraordinary evidence".

What if the laws of nature we have are an emergent property of the universe?

Then the issue persists: The universe cannot have come about by natural forces.
Thus, for considering these questions, we have to use a bigger frame of reference - or else we are a priori excluding a lot of options.

How have we not? A person working to fulfill their expectations is a task they can accomplish, yes?

I´m sorry - but when I say "this hasn´t been what I was talking about" I would kindly ask you to simply believe me. I´m afraid I can´t bring evidence to the table that proves that my statement was meant to be about something else.

I don't see how that's relevant. If they hold a belief, what difference does it make why they hold it?

Well, in your example (if I have understood it correctly), it wasn´t about a belief people held, but merely about something they were told.

Which can be explained in any number of ways.

Exactly.
You, however, asserted that the cause could be conclusively tested - and that was what I responded to.

 

[Aman777]

Why do you demand that I demonstrate how a person can become physically unborn when we are not talking about physical birth or unbirth?

It's the same with Spiritual birth. You cannot receive eternal life and then decide to refuse it. There are NO former Christians since God is perfect and does not make mistakes. When the Trinity agrees and sends the Holy Spirit inside the new believer, he is a certain for Heaven as Jesus. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 John 14:16 Some say, Once saved, always saved. God Bless you

 

[Tinker Grey]

It's the same with Spiritual birth. You cannot receive eternal life and then decide to refuse it. There are NO former Christians since God is perfect and does not make mistakes. When the Trinity agrees and sends the Holy Spirit inside the new believer, he is a certain for Heaven as Jesus. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 John 14:16 Some say, Once saved, always saved. God Bless you

One can easily refuse what never was. There are no former Christians because there are no Christians; no second birth; no second life; and, no second death. There is no god about which to decide if it makes mistakes. There is no trinity.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Amen?

 

[ananda]

Are you suggesting that another person might measure its length differently?

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that even that is subjective - your mind observes someone else measuring length.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree that there are things in reality that we can't currently detect, and that doesn't make those things any less real.

But we can't say then that there is a particular thing that exists if we can't detect it. We can't say that Gloobles are real, just presently undetectable.

Usually the way things work is that some new word is applied to a new entity when a new entity of import is detected. So, maybe Gloobles do exist and we just don't know yet what entity it will be that will be assigned that label.

But isn't that assuming that the things religion says are true actually exist, despite being undetectable by science? Doesn't that make them like Gloobles?

No, not really.

In any case, in the example presented in the video - namely, can you be a Christian and still accept evolution - it comes down to how rigidly the person in question holds to their RELIGIOUS belief.

No, not really.

Do they have the belief that the Bible is 100% literally true? Or is the Bible more metaphorical? I find it very interesting and very informative that it is ALWAYS religion which is the flexible thing in these situations.

Well, to actually SAY what you're saying, you'd have to have studied ALL of the various positions within the said religion before assessing and concluding that all the various positions are just more of the same ol' wishful thinking. Somehow, I don't think you've done the academic work to say that. (And I'm hoping that you did understand that in the first video, Eugenie C. Scott is an atheist, not a Christian).

It's never science. And I think that's because science is testable. If you doubt a claim made in science, then you don't need to just take someone's word, you can go and see for yourself. But how do you do that in religion? You can't. Religion RELIES on subjective interpretation, but science does not.

IF religion is MORE like history than it is science, then there isn't going to be much in the way of "going and seeing for yourself." Man, Kylie, you make a lot of remarks as to being "in the know" for someone I'm not confident has done the homework.

He says that hermeneutics is a way of establishing rules for the interpretation of written communication, or words to that effect. I feel that could be inaccurate if the original authors of that communication were not writing it according to the same rules that we would be using in the early 21st century to understand it.

I also disagree with much of the other stuff he has to say. I don't think that everything is subjective. There is an objective truth out there, and while our interpretations of that truth may be subjective, there are ways which we can minimize those biases.

You can disagree, but I'm not sure you necessarily understood all that he said. Besides, a teaser trailer of a video isn't much to go on as far as giving one an understanding of how hermenuetics applies...and in Zimmerman's case, we aren't talking simply about hermeneutics as applied to the Bible, but it can include that.

 

[Kylie]

If I may say it in my own words : The harder to believe a claim is to me (and this depends on a lot of circumstancial factors, not only on the nature of the claim), the more inclined I am to ask for evidence.

And fair enough.

But if I say I had cereal for breakfast and you ask for evidence, I think you would be satisfied by my daughter saying, "I was there, and my mum did have cereal."

But if I told you I could turn into a squirrel and you asked for evidence, would you be satisfied if my daughter said, "I was there, and my mum did turn into a squirrel." I doubt it. So, once again, we get to the QUALITY of the evidence.

Yes, the evidence is that the video shows that which is claimed. If A is claimed, it would be nonsensical to demand a video that shows B.

So then we are agreed, the video is NOT the evidence. You need to watch it and make sure that the footage contained on the video supports the claim made. The fact that there is a video is not evidence in itself.

Otherwise you could demand evidence, I could drop a VHS tape on your desk and say, here's a video, and you should accept it without watching the video. This, obviously, is a dumb way to get evidence.

Depends entirely on the rest of the sentence.

Can we stop quibbling over words?

Yes, and I would be the one to determine what evidence I find conclusive.

And the more unbelievable the claim was, the higher the standard you would require from that evidence before you would accept it, yes?

Well, I don´t even have the onus of disproving your claim.

So the person making an unfalsifiable claim is the one who needs to prove that their claim is true?

Well, technically watching you eat the sun wouldn´t be evidence that you have done it before (and on top you couldn´t even eat the sun anymore, but just a duplicate).
But apart from that, we seem to agree that "I want to see it" is the typical question for evidence, no matter what the claim.

First hand observation does tend to work pretty well.

Sure, but extraordinary and unfalsifiable are two entirely different criteria.

I don't recall saying they were the same...

Yet another problem would be the ad hoc and post hoc "explanations" that people come up with in order to keep up an untenable claim (like "embedded age" or "hypostatic union").You know, the stuff that makes them sound like your typical compulsive liar that - once a lie is exposed - comes up with an even wilder story, and so forth.

This sounds very familiar...

To be honest, there is a point where I wouldn´t even start asking for evidence.

And what point would that be?

I have no problem (and didn´t ask about) "extraordinary claim", I have a problem with (and asked about) "extraordinary evidence".

Watching me eat the sun (or a replica of it) would not count as "extraordinary" to you?

Then the issue persists: The universe cannot have come about by natural forces.

Why not?

A bubble is shaped into a sphere by natural forces, specifically, surface tension. You could call surface tension a "law of bubbleness." But that law exists outside of bubbles as well as within them. But a creature that exists entirely within the bubble would say, "The universe, our bubble, is spherical, and we know it is spherical because of surface tension. But surface tension is a law of bubbleness, so it can't have existed prior to our universe bubble being formed! So where did the forces that created our bubble come from?"

Thus, for considering these questions, we have to use a bigger frame of reference - or else we are a priori excluding a lot of options.

But aren't you excluding the options that DON'T consider a bigger frame of reference?

I´m sorry - but when I say "this hasn´t been what I was talking about" I would kindly ask you to simply believe me. I´m afraid I can´t bring evidence to the table that proves that my statement was meant to be about something else.

In a discussion like this, clear communication is vital.

Well, in your example (if I have understood it correctly), it wasn´t about a belief people held, but merely about something they were told.

And if people have a belief because they were told about it repeatedly as children, then isn't that also a belief that they hold?

Exactly.
You, however, asserted that the cause could be conclusively tested - and that was what I responded to.

We can conclusively test whether it is true as a general principle by studying how many different people react. Get a group of people to go through an event, like your friend's holiday. Condition some of them to expect the event to be miserable, condition some of them to expect the event to be very enjoyable, and give the remainder no conditioning. If such conditioning really does create a self fulfilling prophecy, then we would expect to see that the group told it would be miserable had a generally bad time, the group told it would be enjoyable had a generally good time, and the group told nothing had a variety of different experiences. This would indicate a general principle - people's expectations of an event lead to biased opinions of how the event actually goes. And then we can say, "Well, people's expectations can lead them to have a biased opinion about a future event, leading them to interpret that event in a way that matches their preconceived notions. Thus, if your friend was absolutely convinced she would have a horrible holiday, she may have focused on the negative aspects, inflating their importance, while giving the positive aspects a much lower weight, making them seem less important in the overall experience. Thus, she most likely said she had a horrible time because she was expecting to have a horrible time."

 

[Kylie]

It's the same with Spiritual birth. You cannot receive eternal life and then decide to refuse it. There are NO former Christians since God is perfect and does not make mistakes. When the Trinity agrees and sends the Holy Spirit inside the new believer, he is a certain for Heaven as Jesus. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 John 14:16 Some say, Once saved, always saved. God Bless you

Yeah, that only works if you are correct.

If you are incorrect, then it is just an opinion that you have and may not reflect reality at all.

And as for the claim that God makes no mistakes, I think that leaving the tree that he didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from in an easily-accessible location was pretty bad. Like leaving a loaded gun on the table and then being surprised when the toddler picks it up and accidentally shoots himself...

 

[Kylie]

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that even that is subjective - your mind observes someone else measuring length.

Then we might as well say that my mind is just observing what appears to be another person measuring the length, and maybe I'm the only person who actually exists, and you're just a figment of my imagination.

I'll be honest with you; I've never met another solipsist before...

 

[Kylie]

Usually the way things work is that some new word is applied to a new entity when a new entity of import is detected. So, maybe Gloobles do exist and we just don't know yet what entity it will be that will be assigned that label.

True. But if Gloobles aren't going to be found for another 50 years, it would be a stupid person who thinks they can know anything about them today.

No, not really.

Unsupported claim. Back up this claim or it is meaningless.

No, not really.

And again...

Well, to actually SAY what you're saying, you'd have to have studied ALL of the various positions within the said religion before assessing and concluding that all the various positions are just more of the same ol' wishful thinking. Somehow, I don't think you've done the academic work to say that. (And I'm hoping that you did understand that in the first video, Eugenie C. Scott is an atheist, not a Christian).

Yes, I know she's a Christian. It's totally irrelevant.

Scott's position is that a Christian who does not view the Bible as a literal description of what happened is able to believe in evolution because evolution does not contradict anything they consider to be factual. Dawkins' position is that a Christian who believes that the Bible is 100% literal description can't also believe in evolution because the Bible contradicts evolution when you take the Bible literally.

So, they are BOTH correct, and whether or not you can be a Christian and still accept evolution comes down to how flexible your interpretation of the Bible is. Which is exactly what I said in my previous post.

IF religion is MORE like history than it is science, then there isn't going to be much in the way of "going and seeing for yourself." Man, Kylie, you make a lot of remarks as to being "in the know" for someone I'm not confident has done the homework.

Yeah, it';s not like there are lots of sources regarding historical events that were made at the time of those events, are there?

You can disagree, but I'm not sure you necessarily understood all that he said. Besides, a teaser trailer of a video isn't much to go on as far as giving one an understanding of how hermenuetics applies...and in Zimmerman's case, we aren't talking simply about hermeneutics as applied to the Bible, but it can include that.

Isn't it funny how they never use hermeneutics to find out things that are objectively right or wrong, like physics, or maths? It's always with subjective stuff. "What did the author of this 2000 year old scroll mean when he wrote such-and-such?"

 

[ananda]

Then we might as well say that my mind is just observing what appears to be another person measuring the length, and maybe I'm the only person who actually exists, and you're just a figment of my imagination.

I'll be honest with you; I've never met another solipsist before...

Are you a solipsist?

Whether or not others "really exist" independently, I can only say I am only sure of my own phenomenological perceptions.

 

[Kylie]

Are you a solipsist?

Whether or not others "really exist" independently, I can only say I am only sure of my own phenomenological perceptions.

No, I'm not really a solipsist, I was making a joke.

But solipsism is the logical conclusion of what you said, so where do you draw the line?

 

[ananda]

No, I'm not really a solipsist, I was making a joke.

But solipsism is the logical conclusion of what you said, so where do you draw the line?

Phenomenology. I don't think our experiences can be broken down any further.

Our issues with existence are best addressed on the phenomenological level, IMO.

 

[Kylie]

Phenomenology. I don't think our experiences can be broken down any further.

Our issues with existence are best addressed on the phenomenological level, IMO.

But there's no definite way to approach the field, is there? It is nowhere near objective, so it can never be used to determine any objectivity with any accuracy.

 

[ananda]

But there's no definite way to approach the field, is there? It is nowhere near objective, so it can never be used to determine any objectivity with any accuracy.

I think it answers the original question ... the only thing we can truly know as "factual" is our own experience.

 

[Kylie]

I think it answers the original question ... the only thing we can truly know as "factual" is our own experience.

Are you a solipsist?

 

[quatona]

But if I say I had cereal for breakfast and you ask for evidence, I think you would be satisfied by my daughter saying, "I was there, and my mum did have cereal."

What kind of evidence I need depends on the circumstances, the situation and the importance of the claim in this given situation. I´m sorry, but that´s the way I would word it.

But if I told you I could turn into a squirrel and you asked for evidence, would you be satisfied if my daughter said, "I was there, and my mum did turn into a squirrel." I doubt it. So, once again, we get to the QUALITY of the evidence.

Yes, there are undisputedly different degrees of evidence.

So then we are agreed, the video is NOT the evidence. You need to watch it and make sure that the footage contained on the video supports the claim made. The fact that there is a video is not evidence in itself.

Otherwise you could demand evidence, I could drop a VHS tape on your desk and say, here's a video, and you should accept it without watching the video. This, obviously, is a dumb way to get evidence.

Of course - not sure whom or what you are arguing against here.

Can we stop quibbling over words?

Apparently not. Look: You ask how I go about it; I answer the question; you aren´t satisfied with what I said and want me to use (and/or agree with) a different wording. So apparently, the way it is worded is very important to you (and understandably so). You do not simply agree with the way I worded it, so the difference between the way I say it and the way you say it makes an important difference (or else you would simply agree with me, instead of insisting that my wording should be replaced with yours. What we seem to be doing here is: finding out what difference it makes.
Besides, further down you say: "In a discussion like this, clear communication is vital."

And the more unbelievable the claim was, the higher the standard you would require from that evidence before you would accept it, yes?

Yes, sometimes I don´t demand any evidence, sometimes hearsay is sufficient, sometimes I would demand a video, sometimes I would even check if the video is edited, sometimes I want to see it happening in real life - and all sorts of stuff in between.

So the person making an unfalsifiable claim is the one who needs to prove that their claim is true?

Depends on what they want. One thing is clear to me, though: It´s not me who has to disprove them.

I don't recall saying they were the same...

And I didn´t say you said it. However, I was asking about the first, and in your response you replaced it by the latter.

And what point would that be?

(Most) important part of my first response and the follow up responses is to communicate that I don´t seem to have a clearly cut system that can be comprised into a set of rules or criteria.

Watching me eat the sun (or a replica of it) would not count as "extraordinary" to you?

You eating the sun would be extraordinary. The quality of the evidence (which we seemed to agree makes the difference) is: A video that displays what is claimed. That´s not an extraordinary quality of evidence, but a pretty ordinary one.

Why not?

Well, if the laws of nature are an emanation of the universe, they cannot have brought about the universe. That´s simple logic.

But aren't you excluding the options that DON'T consider a bigger frame of reference?

No, the bigger frame of reference doesn´t exclude any option. It allows for all logical possibilities.
Assuming that a watertank must itself swim in water because everything in the watertank swims in water is an unwarranted a priori limiting of the options. Allowing for the watertank to exist in different conditions than the conditions within it doesn´t exclude that it swims in water. However, if it turns out that the water swims in water, we have to let go of the idea that water is an emanation of the watertank.

In a discussion like this, clear communication is vital.

Yes.
What is unclear about "This is not what I meant?".

And if people have a belief because they were told about it repeatedly as children, then isn't that also a belief that they hold?

Sure, exactly my point. The important part is that they actually hold it. It doens´t matter how they got to hold it.

We can conclusively test whether it is true as a general principle by studying how many different people react. Get a group of people to go through an event, like your friend's holiday. Condition some of them to expect the event to be miserable, condition some of them to expect the event to be very enjoyable, and give the remainder no conditioning. If such conditioning really does create a self fulfilling prophecy, then we would expect to see that the group told it would be miserable had a generally bad time, the group told it would be enjoyable had a generally good time, and the group told nothing had a variety of different experiences. This would indicate a general principle - people's expectations of an event lead to biased opinions of how the event actually goes. And then we can say, "Well, people's expectations can lead them to have a biased opinion about a future event, leading them to interpret that event in a way that matches their preconceived notions. Thus, if your friend was absolutely convinced she would have a horrible holiday, she may have focused on the negative aspects, inflating their importance, while giving the positive aspects a much lower weight, making them seem less important in the overall experience. Thus, she most likely said she had a horrible time because she was expecting to have a horrible time."

Yes, exactly, that´s one of the options how self-fulfilling prophecies work.
The thing is: "negative", "horrible" and so forth are subjective terms. They describe a way of experiencing.

Should we talk about placebos?
Would you agree that expecting to fail is likely to increase the risk of failure (and that a test like the one you are suggesting is going to confirm that)?
Would you agree that successfully balancing on a high rope isn´t only a matter of skills but also a matter of confidence?