Kylie's Pool Challenge

[Kylie]

Like I said if one REALLY and TRULY does know the one who knows all
then he or she or would KNOW the answer , no matter what the other called himself.
Anyone can be led astray , specially by one who claims to KNOW all.
But if one truly does know the real ONE who knows all, they wont be deceived.
Pontius pilate once said But what is TRUTH to ONE who IS TRUTH.

Like I said...

The third person is not such a person. They may believe that the second person is such a person, or that the second person spoke to such a person, but they still have no way of actually knowing.

So this talk of there being some person who knows for a fact isn't really going anywhere.

 

[Kylie]

It's explained in the documentation.

I have a note from Bill Gates that says he wants me to have billions of dollars.

Never mind that it's written in my own handwriting. He dictated it to me.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

From AV's Pool Challenge thread...

​

Now, I looked at this and thought that the situation wasn't taking into account everything it should have. So I presented an alternative situation...

Let's say someone broke, and then a second person wrote down a statement claiming that he had not broken, but had simply placed the balls in this position. Later, a third person comes in, reads the documentation and concludes that the documentation MUST be right, and anyone who says the balls reached this position as a result of regular play is terribly wrong. The third person refuses to consider any alternative, and claims, "The documentation says it, that settles it!"

Is the third person right?

no, of course not. Who would be so dogmatic about a belief dictated second-hand from alleged facts that aren't apparent, especially when we know how normal gameplay would render this configuration?

Good OP btw... My hat off to you!

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

One would need to take into account the reputation
for honesty of the writer. If they had a history of
fabrication. Or if they had motive to lie that would
potentially ruin their future reputation.

even if you never met the writer, nor still have the original written document?

In Illinois, a large number of scientists signed onto
research supporting Cold Fusion. They were seeking
to be famous, but it turned out that the researcher
had falsified his findings. A bad gamble on the reputation
of a co-worker.

All historical events are a matter of faith.

but wait, how did these Scientists find out this researcher had falsified his findings, did they find this out by faith? Also, are these Scientists who signed on, still steadfastly refusing to let the idea go and research on despite the evidence?

What would really help, however, would be bumper stickers, edifices, hymns, carols, iconography and other things attesting to his integrity.

All provided and dictated by other third persons who also had never met the second person either, right?

 

[SkyWriting]

but wait, how did these Scientists find out this researcher had falsified his findings, did they find this out by faith? Also, are these Scientists who signed on, still steadfastly refusing to let the idea go and research on despite the evidence?

Pretty much accurate. People have worked to reproduce the original claimed results for years.
The original researcher insists that he got results but falsified data to back up what he believed was true. As do many researchers.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Pretty much accurate. People have worked to reproduce the original claimed results for years.
The original researcher insists that he got results but falsified data to back up what he believed was true. As do many researchers.

What's pretty much accurate? That Scientists found out by Faith that the independent testing didn't back up the original claim?? Which Scientists still believe in Cold Fusion despite the evidence being contrary to the Claim? Citation Please!

 

[SkyWriting]

What's pretty much accurate? That Scientists found out by Faith that the independent testing didn't back up the original claim?? Which Scientists still believe in Cold Fusion despite the evidence being contrary to the Claim? Citation Please!

All what you described is pretty much accurate.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

All what you described is pretty much accurate.

Again, Citation Please!

 

[SkyWriting]

Again, Citation Please!

You created the claim, I agreed it was accurate.
If you voiced a fiction you may show it wrong if
you wish to. I've already done my homework
on the subject over the years becasue I worked
a couple miles from Bell Labs.

Death of a Rat

10 Scientific Frauds that Rocked the World.
Cold Fusion in a Paper Cup?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

You created the claim, I agreed it was accurate.

I made no such claim. I prompted you on how they found out he had falsified his claims, and whether Scientists continued to believe in this Cold Fusion claim despite the evidence to the contrary.

Anyone who makes a claim about reality will be tested, this is not a surprise. Since you affirmed the two points I brought up, I want you to back it up. Let's see your evidence that A) Scientists stopped believing these claims on Faith instead of evidence from reality, and B) Scientists continued to believe it after the results failed to match the claim.

 

[SkyWriting]

I made no such claim. I prompted you on how they found out he had falsified his claims, and whether Scientists continued to believe in this Cold Fusion claim despite the evidence to the contrary.

Anyone who makes a claim about reality will be tested, this is not a surprise. Since you affirmed the two points I brought up, I want you to back it up. Let's see your evidence that A) Scientists stopped believing these claims on Faith instead of evidence from reality, and B) Scientists continued to believe it after the results failed to match the claim.

Covered in my links.
All historical events are Faith Based.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Covered in my links.
All historical events are Faith Based.

Well, this is nonsense and your affirmations aren't covered in your links. Nowhere does it say that Scientists found out these results were falsified by Faith, nor do they still believe in their Cold Fusion claims despite the evidence. You fail on both counts. Perhaps you could quote the specific parts in those links that you think relevant?

Also, you're now asserting another claim, that all historical events are Faith Based. Will that be as equally supported as your other claims are?

 

[pitabread]

All historical events are Faith Based.

Does this include what you had for lunch yesterday?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

From AV's Pool Challenge thread...

​

Now, I looked at this and thought that the situation wasn't taking into account everything it should have. So I presented an alternative situation...

Let's say someone broke, and then a second person wrote down a statement claiming that he had not broken, but had simply placed the balls in this position. Later, a third person comes in, reads the documentation and concludes that the documentation MUST be right, and anyone who says the balls reached this position as a result of regular play is terribly wrong. The third person refuses to consider any alternative, and claims, "The documentation says it, that settles it!"

Is the third person right?

This depends on whether David Hume was right or not ... he had something to say about billiard balls and the appearance of causation. He would say that no one "really" knows if or how one billiard ball ends up where it is; we just think we see causal connections due to the movement of other billiard balls. But, who knows? Maybe Hume was wrong.

 

[Kylie]

I have to admit that I'm more than a little disappointed that the one member who is proud to go with the documentation, @AV1611VET hasn't said much in this thread...

 

[AV1611VET]

I have to admit that I'm more than a little disappointed that the one member who is proud to go with the documentation, @AV1611VET hasn't said much in this thread...

I answered NO to your OP.

Is there something else I can answer for you?

 

[DogmaHunter]

All historical events are a matter of faith.

This house burned down:

People walked here:

This car has crashed while driving:

All these are "historical events". None requires faith.

 

[Kylie]

I answered NO to your OP.

Is there something else I can answer for you?

Yes. I'd like to know why you are so happy to agree that the hypothetical person can be wrong about the documentation when you routinely use your version of the documentation as hard proof that you're right.

In other words, if you recognize that the person's claim, "The documentation says it, that settles it!" is a deeply flawed argument, why are you so happy to use the same argument yourself?

 

[AV1611VET]

All these are "historical events". None requires faith.

I don't know about that bottom one.

Either that picture was photoshopped, or that tree is made of steel.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. I'd like to know why you are so happy to agree that the hypothetical person can be wrong about the documentation when you routinely use your version of the documentation as hard proof that you're right.

In other words, if you recognize that the person's claim, "The documentation says it, that settles it!" is a deeply flawed argument, why are you so happy to use the same argument yourself?

Because God is the Author of the Bible, not man.