How do you decide if something is factual?

[Kylie]

No, I'm saying it's disputabe... If anything can be disputed, then, by definition, it's not a fact.

I think it's important to point out that there's a difference between disputing something by saying, "Fraid not!" and saying that there is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion.

I hope you aren't using the word "dispute" to mean the former, because it really sounds like you are.

If you are using the word here to mean the latter, please explain how there is insufficient evidence to be reasonably certain the Earth exists.

 

[Kylie]

This doesn't appear to be a valid statement or question but I think I understand what you're trying to say or ask---and that is correct.

In what way is it invalid?

According to you, if something can be disputed, then it cannot be a fact. The existence of God is disputed. Therefore, the existence of God is not a fact.

 

[quatona]

Okay @quatona I'm just trying to get past the fact that it seems like you are telling me that, under certain circumstances, you'd be convinced that I could turn into a squirrel if I could get enough people to swear they had seen me do it.

What I am trying to tell you is that I don´t have a reliable systematic method (with rational criteria) by which I could predict what kind of evidence would satisfy me in which case.

As for humans turning into squirrels: I guess if the whole world believed that humans can turn into squirrels, this very fact would have way more significance to me than the actual question whether their opinion is accurate.
But to answer your question: If a lot of people confirmed your claim that you had turned into a squirrel and back, I suspect I wouldn´t accept that as sufficient evidence to accept your claim - but then again I am doubting that any evidence would convince me.

 

[GUANO]

I think it's important to point out that there's a difference between disputing something by saying, "Fraid not!" and saying that there is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion.

I hope you aren't using the word "dispute" to mean the former, because it really sounds like you are.

If you are using the word here to mean the latter, please explain how there is insufficient evidence to be reasonably certain the Earth exists.

I study philosophy. The only "fact" that most tend to agree on is that something exists... And even there I've seen good, logical arguments to the contrary.

The idea that there is any kind of indisputable or immutable principle or concept that should be "regarded above all" such as a "fact" is religious in nature. Which is also why i say that atheism is an impossible concept.

 

[HitchSlap]

Which is also why i say that atheism is an impossible concept.

Is it also impossible not to collect stamps?

 

[Kylie]

What I am trying to tell you is that I don´t have a reliable systematic method (with rational criteria) by which I could predict what kind of evidence would satisfy me in which case.

So your beliefs are based on irrational criteria?

As for humans turning into squirrels: I guess if the whole world believed that humans can turn into squirrels, this very fact would have way more significance to me than the actual question whether their opinion is accurate.

Do you think argument from popularity is a good argument?

But to answer your question: If a lot of people confirmed your claim that you had turned into a squirrel and back, I suspect I wouldn´t accept that as sufficient evidence to accept your claim - but then again I am doubting that any evidence would convince me.

So you first said that if everyone believed it was possible, you'd find that somewhat convincing, but now you are saying that even if you saw me change into a squirrel in front of you, you would remain unconvinced.

 

[Kylie]

I study philosophy. The only "fact" that most tend to agree on is that something exists... And even there I've seen good, logical arguments to the contrary.

The idea that there is any kind of indisputable or immutable principle or concept that should be "regarded above all" such as a "fact" is religious in nature. Which is also why i say that atheism is an impossible concept.

So how do you know you aren't just a brain in a jar, and everything you experience - including your religion - isn't just an illusion?

 

[quatona]

So your beliefs are based on irrational criteria?

That´s not really what I said. I said that the way I apply criteria isn´t following a consistent method.

Do you think argument from popularity is a good argument?

No. I wasn´t thinking of arguments, though.. I was contemplating on how I came to adopt certain beliefs.

So you first said that if everyone believed it was possible, you'd find that somewhat convincing, but now you are saying that even if you saw me change into a squirrel in front of you, you would remain unconvinced.

I think I said it a bit differently.

 

[Kylie]

That´s not really what I said. I said that the way I apply criteria isn´t following a consistent method.

Sounded to me like that was what you said: "...I don´t have a reliable systematic method (with rational criteria) by which I could predict what kind of evidence would satisfy me..."

So that leaves irrational criteria.

No. I wasn´t thinking of arguments, though.. I was contemplating on how I came to adopt certain beliefs.

If you come to adopt a particular belief because it is a common belief, then that is indeed argument from popularity.

I think I said it a bit differently.

Different phrasing, but still the same message...

 

[quatona]

Sounded to me like that was what you said: "...I don´t have a reliable systematic method (with rational criteria) by which I could predict what kind of evidence would satisfy me..."

So that leaves irrational criteria.

No. Applying irrational criteria and applying rational criteria in an inconsistent manner is not the same.
But to be honest, I am getting a bit tired with being told what I am saying.
I guess we are just in different modes of conversation. I´m more like introspective, and you seem to have a desire to set me straight. Not a good match.

If you come to adopt a particular belief because it is a common belief, then that is indeed argument from popularity.

No. Since no argument is involved, it can´t.

Different phrasing, but still the same message...

Ok Kylie, whenever I will be in doubt what it is that I want to say, I will ask you to tell me.
But thanks you for your time and effort in helping me getting a clearer view how I go about evidence and such.

 

[GUANO]

So how do you know you aren't just a brain in a jar, and everything you experience - including your religion - isn't just an illusion?

The same way you think you know everything else---faith.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The same way you think you know everything else---faith.

Failure to reject the null hypothesis requires no faith.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I study philosophy. The only "fact" that most tend to agree on is that something exists... And even there I've seen good, logical arguments to the contrary.

-_- philosophically, it tends to be thought that the only thing a person can be absolutely certain exists is their own consciousness. That's the "something" you have to be referring to, not any deity. You are only sure that you yourself exist.

The idea that there is any kind of indisputable or immutable principle or concept that should be "regarded above all" such as a "fact" is religious in nature.

No, people curious about the world just sort of pragmatically assume that the world around them does exist, and that it is capable of being understood, and work with that in mind. Otherwise, you just put yourself in a pointless dead end of "I can't be sure anything is real except myself, so why bother learning about anything?"

Which is also why i say that atheism is an impossible concept.

Why? By the logic you yourself have presented, NOT believing in anything other than oneself demands assumption. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, so nothing about it actually defies anything you have said. If anything, it fits your philosophical premise far better than theism does.

 

[GUANO]

-_- philosophically, it tends to be thought that the only thing a person can be absolutely certain exists is their own consciousness. That's the "something" you have to be referring to, not any deity. You are only sure that you yourself exist.


No, people curious about the world just sort of pragmatically assume that the world around them does exist, and that it is capable of being understood, and work with that in mind. Otherwise, you just put yourself in a pointless dead end of "I can't be sure anything is real except myself, so why both learning about anything?"



Why? By the logic you yourself have presented, NOT believing in anything other than oneself demands assumption. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, so nothing about it actually defies anything you have said. If anything, it fits your philosophical premise far better than theism does.

Atheists tend to not understand at all what a "god" is. Its easy to not believe in a "man in the clouds" but that typically only shows ignorance. I haven't yet met an atheist who doesn't believe in freedom or liberty, which are things that are not observable in nature and in the case of liberty the whole concept comes from the Roman goddess Libertas. I don't know an atheist who doesn't believe in the atmosphere which is the Egyptian god Shu, etc, etc. Atheists believe in corporate entities and believe that they can claim ownership of goods in the real world yet are non-living beings granted life by the state through legal rites and rituals... I could go on and on. Atheism is impossible. Atheists believe in the forces which influence thought and cultural evolution and information transfer (memetics), psychology and sociology and all of those principles evolved from Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek Demonology.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Atheists tend to not understand at all what a "god" is.

How so? I know of multiple definitions for what a god is, so there is a degree of subjectivity to it, but anyone with a deviant definition tends to clarify it. I've heard enough different descriptions of what a deity is to view it as subject to different people, with certain common trends. For example, nearly every description of deities has them have an immense amount of power far beyond what any human could have.

Its easy to not believe in a "man in the clouds" but that typically only shows ignorance.

Pfft, the Christian god is only a "man in the clouds" in paintings. Clearly, a burning bush and a fire tornado are better descriptions . Jokes aside, I generally don't view deities as bound by a specific physical form. From my perspective, a deity could be anything from a being with what I would call a "quantum existence" that is, if you would think of the universe as a stack of papers, a deity would be drawn on multiple pages while all the items we interact with (as well as ourselves) are all drawn on just 1 of those pages, which the deity is also drawn on, to a being which literally defies physics and can change them at will.

I haven't yet met an atheist who doesn't believe in freedom or liberty, which are things that are not observable in nature and in the case of liberty the whole concept comes from the Roman goddess Libertas.

I wouldn't say that the concept of liberty comes from that Roman goddess; I'd say it comes from people, which may or may not be the same people that came up with that goddess. However, when I look up the origin of the concept of liberty, it originated with the ancient Greeks, not the Romans.

Biomedical ethics also aren't practiced "in nature", and I am not sure why you are pointing out that human made concepts aren't applied by every other species on this planet.

I don't know an atheist who doesn't believe in the atmosphere which is the Egyptian god Shu, etc, etc.

Pfft, it's one thing to say that we believe in the atmosphere we breathe and a whole different thing to say that we believe it's a conscious deity named Shu. That is, both atheists and ancient Egyptians would agree that we breathe in something, but we'd disagree on the nature and origin of that something.

Atheists believe in corporate entities and believe that they can claim ownership of goods in the real world yet are non-living beings granted life by the state through legal rites and rituals... I could go on and on.

I don't view corporate entities as non-living, as they are ultimately groups of people that control various resources. I also take great issue with the idea of treating a business as an individual person, such as allowing the business as a whole to have a religious view.

Atheism is impossible.

An impossible position to have altogether? That doesn't make any sense, you're debating with an atheist right now! You'd actually have to believe that, since you are the only thing you can be sure of the existence of, and since you are a theist, that means that all atheists aren't demonstrably real so you can treat atheism itself as non-existent.

Yet, I am being absolutely honest when I say I don't believe in any deities. I have no motivation, no reason whatsoever, to lie about it.

Atheists believe in the forces which influence thought and cultural evolution and information transfer (memetics), psychology and sociology and all of those principles evolved from Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek Demonology.

Uh, what? The development of language and writing (information transfer) has nothing to do with demonology, what kind of anthropology education do you have? Psychology as a study is part of why performing exorcisms is on the decline (since so many mental illnesses used to be attributed to demons and curses rather than chemical imbalances and deviant brain structure). I guess if you consider demonology to be such a big part of human society, it's understandable that you'd think it's a big for sociology, but that's the study of human societies as a whole. No matter how big demonology may be in any given society, it will still only be a fraction of what sociology investigates.

 

[GUANO]

How so? I know of multiple definitions for what a god is, so there is a degree of subjectivity to it, but anyone with a deviant definition tends to clarify it. I've heard enough different descriptions of what a deity is to view it as subject to different people, with certain common trends. For example, nearly every description of deities has them have an immense amount of power far beyond what any human could have.



Pfft, the Christian god is only a "man in the clouds" in paintings. Clearly, a burning bush and a fire tornado are better descriptions . Jokes aside, I generally don't view deities as bound by a specific physical form. From my perspective, a deity could be anything from a being with what I would call a "quantum existence" that is, if you would think of the universe as a stack of papers, a deity would be drawn on multiple pages while all the items we interact with (as well as ourselves) are all drawn on just 1 of those pages, which the deity is also drawn on, to a being which literally defies physics and can change them at will.


I wouldn't say that the concept of liberty comes from that Roman goddess; I'd say it comes from people, which may or may not be the same people that came up with that goddess. However, when I look up the origin of the concept of liberty, it originated with the ancient Greeks, not the Romans.

Biomedical ethics also aren't practiced "in nature", and I am not sure why you are pointing out that human made concepts aren't applied by every other species on this planet.


Pfft, it's one thing to say that we believe in the atmosphere we breathe and a whole different thing to say that we believe it's a conscious deity named Shu. That is, both atheists and ancient Egyptians would agree that we breathe in something, but we'd disagree on the nature and origin of that something.


I don't view corporate entities as non-living, as they are ultimately groups of people that control various resources. I also take great issue with the idea of treating a business as an individual person, such as allowing the business as a whole to have a religious view.


An impossible position to have altogether? That doesn't make any sense, you're debating with an atheist right now! You'd actually have to believe that, since you are the only thing you can be sure of the existence of, and since you are a theist, that means that all atheists aren't demonstrably real so you can treat atheism itself as non-existent.

Yet, I am being absolutely honest when I say I don't believe in any deities. I have no motivation, no reason whatsoever, to lie about it.


Uh, what? The development of language and writing (information transfer) has nothing to do with demonology, what kind of anthropology education do you have? Psychology as a study is part of why performing exorcisms is on the decline (since so many mental illnesses used to be attributed to demons and curses rather than chemical imbalances and deviant brain structure). I guess if you consider demonology to be such a big part of human society, it's understandable that you'd think it's a big for sociology, but that's the study of human societies as a whole. No matter how big demonology may be in any given society, it will still only be a fraction of what sociology investigates.

I dont think your making the right connections to what I'm saying on many of these points. I'll edit this post later when I have more time to include citations and all that.

 

[Kylie]

No. Applying irrational criteria and applying rational criteria in an inconsistent manner is not the same.

When did I ever say they were the same thing? You said you did not have a method with rational criteria. So you have an method with irrational criteria, don't you?

But to be honest, I am getting a bit tired with being told what I am saying.

And I'm getting tired with this very unclear communication.

I guess we are just in different modes of conversation. I´m more like introspective, and you seem to have a desire to set me straight. Not a good match.

No, I have a desire to properly comprehend, and you can't seem to communicate that.

No. Since no argument is involved, it can´t.

Wow, dude, are you really telling me that the argument from popularity isn't an argument? It's literally saying, "Lot's of people believe X, and since that many people can't be wrong about something, X must be true."

Argumentum ad populum - RationalWiki

Ok Kylie, whenever I will be in doubt what it is that I want to say, I will ask you to tell me.
But thanks you for your time and effort in helping me getting a clearer view how I go about evidence and such.

Then why don't you try communicating clearly?

 

[Kylie]

The same way you think you know everything else---faith.

Yeah, I put things to the test, check to see if they work the same way each time.

Lots of faith there...

 

[quatona]

When did I ever say they were the same thing?

When I said one thing and you insisted it was the other.

You said you did not have a method with rational criteria. So you have an method with irrational criteria, don't you?

Look, here you are doing the same thing again, even though I have explained the difference and clarified more than once now. It might be helpful to take in the clarification rather than insisting that I initially had said something that lead to a misunderstanding?

And I'm getting tired with this very unclear communication.

I can relate to your frustration.

No, I have a desire to properly comprehend, and you can't seem to communicate that.

I´m sorry - I am doing the best I can.

Wow, dude, are you really telling me that the argument from popularity isn't an argument?

No. I am saying that something needs to be presented as an argument before it can be called an "argument from...".

It's literally saying, "Lot's of people believe X, and since that many people can't be wrong about something, X must be true."

Except that this was not what I was saying nor meant to say.

Then why don't you try communicating clearly?

Rest assured that I´ve been trying very hard. I can´t do any better.
Maybe the problem is that I am merely describing something, and you keep misunderstanding it as being an argument for it?

 

[AV1611VET]

If Ford was all knowing, I think that they would program their cars to not work on the day they would have otherwise caused a fatal collision, don't you?

No.