How do you decide if something is factual?

[Kylie]

Since I actually know about what was and what is now being searched for at such as the LHC (large hadron collider), well....it's searching for stuff they don't know much about, and the beautiful theory of supersymmetry looks dead, and what is being looked for is truly anything unknown at this point, anything new and odd, of any kind.

Any kind. In fact, it's desperately hoped for, because without some new discovery of some real unknown stuff, unpredictable, unexpected (you could almost say "random", but it's not quite the word is it?), soon, the possibility of not being able to figure out more using the LHC soon starts to look possible. Of course, a lot of guessing is going on about what else to do, and it's...

It's searching for the unknown, in the dark, without much to go on, just guesses about possibilities.

It's....funny that your wording is almost like the reality, sort of parallel in a way -- it's sorta almost like "just trying stuff at random", although that's not very informative, and would be too hyperbolic.

Now this is pretty far from the point of discussion I was pointing at though -- whether a person could set out to try to discover if God is real. A person can. Good News -- that's not even slightly like "just trying stuff at random". Because the person that told us "love one another" also told us instructions for how to find God.

But when they built it, they had a good idea that it would be something that would give them useful information. It's not like they spent all that money on something without having any idea if it would even give them information or not.

 

[Halbhh]

But when they built it, they had a good idea that it would be something that would give them useful information. It's not like they spent all that money on something without having any idea if it would even give them information or not.

That's right.

 

[Ophiolite]

Kylie, I note that you did not respond to my query about a seemingly emotional attitude in your prior post. I offered an apology if I was in some way to blame for that. Now that attitude is there in spades. What gives? You may not agree with my perspective, but there is no need to be rude about.

We can't call anything a fact until we know it for sure. This thread is about how we get to know things for sure.

That is why did not refer to them as facts, but as potential facts. To quote you from an earlier post - pay attenion.

Do you know of a way to know if we are a brain in a jar for sure?

Offhand, no. But then I haven't given that one a lot of thought.

When I first took an interest in astronomy there was no way we could expect to detect and certainly not image planets in other systems. Science advances. I would be very cautious at ruling out too much.

True. But then again, it would have been useless for Vikings to ponder nuclear fusion. Yes, fusion is real, but since the Vikings had no way to test the idea and no way to put it to use, it would have been a waste of their time.

Clearly we have different ideas about what constitutes a waste of time. You seem to insist upon immediate practicality. I don't and it seems that annoys you. I've reread some of your exchanges with quatona and now with me and it seems you are not listening to what we say because it just doesn't make sense to you. I don't have an issue with you thinking as you do, I just choose to think differently. I thought that was part of what you wanted to explore in this thread. If it isn't just say so and I'll leave.

I did say consistently in the post you were quoting when you claimed I had use this, this is what I thought you were referring to.

You snidely suggested I should have paid attention. I'll reciprocate, perhaps if you had paid attention to your own words, words which I quoted for your convenience we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yes, I noticed that example in post 663. I replied to it in 665. You then replied to my post in post 667, where you did not address any of the points I made in post 665. So I figured you had nothing further to say.

Of course, if you aren't interested in a serious discussion, that's your prerogative. Just say so, so I can avoid wasting my time.

I'm certainly not going to waste any more of my time on you at present. It seems you are content to walk back and forth on the Yellow Brick Road and not head to The Emerald City to see if there is a curtain and someone behind it. Meanwhile, I'll continue to go one step further than that and ask "Dorothy, do you think we even are in Kansas."

Note: The last two sentences contain a condensed answer to what you have been asking. There will be no charge.

Edit: Removed extraneous extracts from Kylie quote.

 

[Halbhh]

But when they built it, they had a good idea that it would be something that would give them useful information. It's not like they spent all that money on something without having any idea if it would even give them information or not.

That's right. And while it's not a perfect analogy at all, you could search for God somewhat in a parallel way -- really trying to find what you don't know, and cannot predict what it will be like, but you have the method given (He gave it in Matthew chapter 7, verses 7-12). So the parallels are that you have a method, and can search for what you can't know much about until you find.

 

[Kylie]

That's right. And while it's not a perfect analogy at all, you could search for God somewhat in a parallel way -- really trying to find what you don't know, and cannot predict what it will be like, but you have the method given (He gave it in Matthew chapter 7, verses 7-12). So the parallels are that you have a method, and can search for what you can't know much about until you find.

Except you can't do a test for God. So it can't be used to search for God, can it?

 

[quatona]

Given that this thread is about determining what is factual, can you show me how sometimes having MORE assumptions can provide better information?

No, why would I?

When did I ever say it was to collect information for the sake of it?

I think you didn´t say it explicitly. However, as I said, the way I go about these things is depending on a lot of factors - among them my goals and purposes. Thus, when in this conversation your objectives end at "collecting accurate information", we seem to have different priorities and objectives.

That it's not random.

I can´t make sense of the concept "random". But maybe it´s random (whatever it is that you mean by it, in this context). If indeed my mind works on random, what do you think I should do?

If I gave you two explanations for why the sun shone - one being magical fairies and the other being nuclear processes - neither of those is particularly relevant to you. All that is relevant to you is that the sun continues to shine, after all. But would you consider them to have the same weight?

When I say I am indifferent about it - how can one of the options have more weight, to me?
I think that the first one is more poetic. Just assuming an agent, however, has never been an explanation how something works. So, in terms of explanatory power, the latter wins.
The thing is: Being able to explain it by nuclear processes still doesn´t preclude that magical pixies are behind those nuclear processes.

Trying to get something to work in the way you expect it to is not falsifying it. Falisification means intentionally trying something that DOESN'T work.

That doesn´t make much sense to me. When I know that it doesn´t work, why would I try it? I was under the impression that falsification is the process of finding out what works and what doesn´t.

Because if you think that something works one way and can't work another way, trying it the other way is the only way to make sure it doesn't work.

Wait - all I said was that every time I plug it in, I am at the same time risking to falsify my assumptions about electricity. I didn´t say anything about it being the only way to make it work. It´s the way it works for me, and as long as it does, that´s good enough for me.
But to satisfy your request, I just put the plug in water, and the amp didn´t start. There are of course countless possibilities of trying to make it work without supplying it with electricity. Do I have to check all of them?

You believe that your amp works via plugging it in. You might try to falsify this by seeing it it works when you spray the hose at it, to see if water will make it run instead of electricity. Now, IF (and I agree that it's a big if) the amp somehow starts working when it's receiving water instead of electricity, then you have indeed falsified your belief that it works on electricity.

No. It works on electricity, so far. Finding out that it works in a different way, too, doesn´t falsify that.

But, to be honest, I have no idea what the point of this part of the conversation is.

 

[quatona]

But this is a thread about how to find out what is factual. Unless examining metaphysical questions can lead to that, why is it being discussed in this thread?

As I said, you are free to not touch metaphysical questions even with a ten foot pole.
But as soon as you do, science is not the appropriate tool, by definition. We seemed to agree on that.

 

[Divide]

Some things just have the ring of truth when I hear it. Then I know it's factual.
I can feel it in my spirit.

Other things that I can't immediately tell...I compare it to the word of God. And in certain cases here and there, I'll pray about it.

No one easily pulls the wool over my eyes anymore. It took 50 years to get a clue and that sucks. Youth, wasted on the young, lol.

 

[Divide]

I don't take anybody's word for truth. I'll listen...then go do my own homework.
The best of preachers can be wrong here and there.
Even false prophets speak 'a little' truth, because the best lies are couched in the truth.

 

[Halbhh]

Except you can't do a test for God. So it can't be used to search for God, can it?

Yes, it can be. But notice verse 12 also is part of that section, aiding one to do verse 7, 8.

 

[Kylie]

No, why would I?

So if you can't show that making more assumptions gives any benefit, why do it?

I think you didn´t say it explicitly. However, as I said, the way I go about these things is depending on a lot of factors - among them my goals and purposes. Thus, when in this conversation your objectives end at "collecting accurate information", we seem to have different priorities and objectives.

First of all, facts don't care about your goals or purposes.

Secondly, I don't see how you read that into what I said.

I can´t make sense of the concept "random". But maybe it´s random (whatever it is that you mean by it, in this context). If indeed my mind works on random, what do you think I should do?

Random - unable to be predicted.

If your mind is random, then you should decide if that's the way you want it to work. I personally couldn't do it.

When I say I am indifferent about it - how can one of the options have more weight, to me?

If neither has more weight, surely you don't consider them equally likely to be true.

I think that the first one is more poetic. Just assuming an agent, however, has never been an explanation how something works. So, in terms of explanatory power, the latter wins.
The thing is: Being able to explain it by nuclear processes still doesn´t preclude that magical pixies are behind those nuclear processes.

But since we've never encountered anything where we've had to say, "The only way to explain this is by invoking magical fairies," there's no valid cause to assume that the fairies are there, is there?

That doesn´t make much sense to me. When I know that it doesn´t work, why would I try it? I was under the impression that falsification is the process of finding out what works and what doesn´t.

You seem to be unable to grasp this...

You are trying something to make sure the outcome of the attempt is what you expect it to be.

If the outcome IS what you expect, then it supports your idea. If the outcome is NOT what you expect, then you need to adjust or even discard your idea.

Go back and read the story about the number game I posted. My husband didn't try to falsify his assumption, and that's what lead him wrong.

Wait - all I said was that every time I plug it in, I am at the same time risking to falsify my assumptions about electricity. I didn´t say anything about it being the only way to make it work. It´s the way it works for me, and as long as it does, that´s good enough for me.
But to satisfy your request, I just put the plug in water, and the amp didn´t start. There are of course countless possibilities of trying to make it work without supplying it with electricity. Do I have to check all of them?

Please go and do your own research on what falsification actually is. I really don't want to spend post after post trying to explain it to you.

No. It works on electricity, so far. Finding out that it works in a different way, too, doesn´t falsify that.

Or maybe it just works whenever something is plugged in, and it doesn't matter what it is. In that case, it's NOT the electricity making it work, it's the fact that something is plugged in.

But, to be honest, I have no idea what the point of this part of the conversation is.

If you don't understand how the idea of falsification helps us verify that things are true, you really need to go and learn what it is.

 

[Kylie]

As I said, you are free to not touch metaphysical questions even with a ten foot pole.
But as soon as you do, science is not the appropriate tool, by definition. We seemed to agree on that.

I'm perfectly happy to talk about metaphysical questions.

But since the title of the thread is how we determine if things are factual, I would to know how examination of metaphysical questions leads to facts. Can you show even a single instance of this?

 

[Kylie]

Yes, it can be. But notice verse 12 also is part of that section, aiding one to do verse 7, 8.

Please tell me how we can do an actual scientific search for God.

Please note, "opening your heart and letting Him in" doesn't count.

 

[Halbhh]

Read more sympathetically. Try to get just what someone is saying.

 

[quatona]

I'm perfectly happy to talk about metaphysical questions.

But since the title of the thread is how we determine if things are factual, I would to know how examination of metaphysical questions leads to facts. Can you show even a single instance of this?

Why would I? I am not claiming they do.
But since you are submitting that in order to falsify our assumptions we have to explore possibilities that we haven´t yet experienced, I am not quite understanding your argument here which comes down to "I would have to know that it works before I try it.".
But if that´s where you personally draw your line, that´s not a problem for me.

 

[quatona]

Kylie, I notice that I am not happy with this conversation. I don´t even know what and why you want to argue with me. I answered your question how I go about these things, and I find you having objections to pretty much anything I say. I am wondering why that is. Since I don´t think you are just arguing for argument´s sake, I can think of only two options:
- You don´t like my approach, and you try to show me that it´s wrong. (In this case, I would like you to understand that I am neither seeking your approval nor am in any way suggesting that you or anyone should adopt my approach. So discussion or debate is uncalled for.)
- You don´t believe that this is my approach, and you want to prove that it isn´t. (I can easily live with that.)

So if you can't show that making more assumptions gives any benefit, why do it?

I was under the impression that you asked me to falsify my ideas about my amp and it working on electricity exactly by making more assumptions. So colour me confused.

First of all, facts don't care about your goals or purposes.

That wasn´t my point. My point was that I mightn´t care about establishing facts ito the extent you do.

Random - unable to be predicted.

If your mind is random, then you should decide if that's the way you want it to work. I personally couldn't do it.

Well, if the mind works on random, then that´s a given. I don´t see how this is any of my decision.
Secondly, I am quite happy with my mind being unpredictable.

If neither has more weight, surely you don't consider them equally likely to be true.

Huh?

But since we've never encountered anything where we've had to say, "The only way to explain this is by invoking magical fairies," there's no valid cause to assume that the fairies are there, is there?

But with my amp I should consider the possibility that it runs on water even though I have never encountered anything like that?

You seem to be unable to grasp this...

You are trying something to make sure the outcome of the attempt is what you expect it to be.

If the outcome IS what you expect, then it supports your idea. If the outcome is NOT what you expect, then you need to adjust or even discard your idea.

I have no problem grasping that. I am not quite seeing, though, why you sometimes insist that I try something that goes contrary to my experiences and assumptions (amp), and sometimes insist that it is pointless to try something that goes contrary to my experiences and assumptions (magical pixies). Comes across as mixed messages.

Go back and read the story about the number game I posted. My husband didn't try to falsify his assumption, and that's what lead him wrong.

You and your husband are probably both scientifically minded people, and both of you enjoy solving riddles the other one has invented.
I, however, don´t understand myself as a person whose life is about solving cosmic riddles. I want to lead my life, and if I have found out that "+1" works reliably, that´s good enough for me.
I guess it´s a bit like in the saying "The fastest way is the one you know."
So if I want to open a safe, and I know that the code 8213 opens it, then "8213 opens it" is sufficient for me, even though there might be other codes that open it, too.

Please go and do your own research on what falsification actually is. I really don't want to spend post after post trying to explain it to you.

You don´t have to. I haven´t asked you for any explanation. You are pushing your lectures on me.

Or maybe it just works whenever something is plugged in, and it doesn't matter what it is. In that case, it's NOT the electricity making it work, it's the fact that something is plugged in.

So, to humour you I have already tried water. What would be the next thing to try?
But, to be frank, I want this amp to run because I want to play music. I have found out that feeding it with electricity works reliably. That´s good enough for me.
If it doesn´t work, I bring it to my amp doctor - but not even he, to my knowledge, tries to feed it bread or talk with the magical pixies, but tries to fix the electrical issue.
If you want to spend your life checking out every single of these countless possibilities time and again, more power to you. It´s not my kind of thing, though.

If you don't understand how the idea of falsification helps us verify that things are true, you really need to go and learn what it is.

I don´t like your tone here.

 

[Kylie]

Why would I? I am not claiming they do.
But since you are submitting that in order to falsify our assumptions we have to explore possibilities that we haven´t yet experienced, I am not quite understanding your argument here which comes down to "I would have to know that it works before I try it.".
But if that´s where you personally draw your line, that´s not a problem for me.

I would have to know that it has the potential of working before I try it.

I mean, if I'm driving and I get a flat tire and I don't have a spare, and my phone has no reception, I wouldn't know what to do. But that doesn't mean I'm going to start making origami birds out of my socks just on the off chance it might accomplish something.

 

[Kylie]

Kylie, I notice that I am not happy with this conversation. I don´t even know what and why you want to argue with me. I answered your question how I go about these things, and I find you having objections to pretty much anything I say. I am wondering why that is. Since I don´t think you are just arguing for argument´s sake, I can think of only two options:
- You don´t like my approach, and you try to show me that it´s wrong. (In this case, I would like you to understand that I am neither seeking your approval nor am in any way suggesting that you or anyone should adopt my approach. So discussion or debate is uncalled for.)
- You don´t believe that this is my approach, and you want to prove that it isn´t. (I can easily live with that.)

Okay, then let me get right to the point.

I have not seen anything from you that explains how you can determine what is factual or not. Everything you have spoken of has been things you admit are inconsistently applied, and/or unverifiable.

 

[quatona]

I would have to know that it has the potential of working before I try it.

I have no idea how you could possibly know this.

 

[quatona]

I have not seen anything from you that explains how you can determine what is factual or not.

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.

Everything you have spoken of has been things you admit are inconsistently applied, and/or unverifiable.

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