Kylie's Pool Challenge

[AV1611VET]

To be fair, we can't be certain what historical events those pictures depict.

This thread is a no brainer.

The first person did X.

The second person lied and said the first person did Y.

The third person believes the second person on faith and agrees the first person did Y.

Thus the second person lied, the third person did not lie; yet both are wrong: one wrong on purpose, the other wrong on faith.

This thread is an example of what could happen if the first person didn't document what he did, when he did it, where he did it, why he did it, what order he did it in, how long it took him to do it, why it took him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were (some eyewitnesses by name).

But even that wouldn't guarantee a second person would lie about it.

He would simply say the first person's documentation was wrong, and his was right.

 

[SkyWriting]

To be fair, we can't be certain what historical events those pictures depict. All three could have been constructed deliberately to look like actual events that never really happened (e.g. movie sets). However, we can increase our certainty by seeking corroborative evidence and eliminating alternative explanations (e.g. the local newspaper has a report of the house burning, and there's no record of a movie being made there, etc.).

I watched a special on Amelia Earhart and it showed a picture of Earhart after her plane crashed.
With amazing filters they determined that the photo was not faked but could not rule out the
possibility that the person just looked like her. I talked with a man for quite a while and he was
mad at me becasue I refused to admit I was a guy he knew as Joe. I'm not Joe.

So face to face recognition with speech is not a perfect ID system. Imagine if Joe was one of the apostles?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Imagine if Joe was one of the apostles?

OK; that would make him about 2,000 years old...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This thread is a no brainer.
...

Uh-huh. I suspect you're aware of the analogy being drawn.

 

[AV1611VET]

Uh-huh. I suspect you're aware of the analogy being drawn.

I assume evolution.

The OP says:

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.

I'm not sure who she thinks the two persons are, since she's an atheist.

If the "break" is the Big Bang, the "someone" is either God or Nature.

The "second person" is probably Moses, in her estimation; or one of those JEPD guys.

 

[Kylie]

Well clearly that wasnt my initial position, as I was putting myself in person 3's place and evaluating person 2's mindset.

But you said that position was wrong.

So you think Person 3 was right to consider person 2's documentation to be correct, even though it actually wasn't correct?

 

[Kylie]

I assume evolution.

The OP says:

I'm not sure who she thinks the two persons are, since she's an atheist.

If the "break" is the Big Bang, the "someone" is either God or Nature.

The "second person" is probably Moses, in her estimation; or one of those JEPD guys.

No, the analogy is that a person can believe the Bible and be utterly convinced that the Bible is correct and still be wrong, because putting more faith in the documentation than in the real world can lead to the wrong answer.

 

[Tinker Grey]

People who trust the documentation have never read a user's manual

 

[durangodawood]

So you think Person 3 was right to consider person 2's documentation to be correct, even though it actually wasn't correct?

No.

I said: "I'm guessing the 2nd person has never seen a pool break and has no way to conceptualize that possibility." (The possibility that its the result of a break rather than deliberate arrangement).

 

[Kylie]

No.

I said: "I'm guessing the 2nd person has never seen a pool break and has no way to conceptualize that possibility." (The possibility that its the result of a break rather than deliberate arrangement).

Not sure what difference this makes. Even if Person 2 has no idea what a pool break is, by the time Person 3 has come into the picture, the idea of a break is well understood. The physics and all that, it can be explained.

So, I'm asking for your opinion on person 3's insistence that the documentation claiming there was no break is the only correct explanation. Is person 3 justified or not?

 

[DogmaHunter]

To be fair, we can't be certain what historical events those pictures depict. All three could have been constructed deliberately to look like actual events that never really happened (e.g. movie sets). However, we can increase our certainty by seeking corroborative evidence and eliminating alternative explanations (e.g. the local newspaper has a report of the house burning, and there's no record of a movie being made there, etc.).

Yes well, I can't exactly give you guys an actual real burned down house where you can touch the burned stuff, smell it, investigate it physically...on an internet forum.

Which one of you people driving by a car wreck in the middle of an intersection does NOT conclude that an accident took place there? Has any one of you ever driven past such a scene and instead said "maybe they are shooting a movie"?

I'll go ahead and assume you didn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I watched a special on Amelia Earhart and it showed a picture of Earhart after her plane crashed.
With amazing filters they determined that the photo was not faked but could not rule out the
possibility that the person just looked like her. I talked with a man for quite a while and he was
mad at me becasue I refused to admit I was a guy he knew as Joe. I'm not Joe.

So face to face recognition with speech is not a perfect ID system. Imagine if Joe was one of the apostles?

The fact that people can lie, fooled or make honest mistakes, does not mean that the statement that the past can ONLY be taken on faith is true.

The evidence of the present allows us to unravel events of the past. Not always, no. Sometimes there is no evidence, or it's all gone already. Sometimes it's incomplete.

But your statement that you keep repeating like mantry, implies that it can NEVER be done. Which is utter and complete nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, I'm asking for your opinion on person 3's insistence that the documentation claiming there was no break is the only correct explanation. Is person 3 justified or not?

We have a saying that covers person 3's mindset:

He is sincere, but sincerely wrong.

 

[Kylie]

We have a saying that covers person 3's mindset:

He is sincere, but sincerely wrong.

I agree with that.

Now, since you (like person 3) firmly believe that the documentation is correct and anyone who disagrees is just plain wrong, do you think that it's possible (again, like person 3) that your faith in the documentation is also misplaced?

If not, why not? (And I hope you don't start talking about how there are holidays and bumper stickers, etc)

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, since you (like person 3) firmly believe that the documentation is correct and anyone who disagrees is just plain wrong, do you think that it's possible (again, like person 3) that your faith in the documentation is also misplaced?

If not, why not?

Because, unlike your scenario, I believe Person One wrote the documentation.

In your scenario, person two wrote it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes well, I can't exactly give you guys an actual real burned down house where you can touch the burned stuff, smell it, investigate it physically...on an internet forum.

Which one of you people driving by a car wreck in the middle of an intersection does NOT conclude that an accident took place there? Has any one of you ever driven past such a scene and instead said "maybe they are shooting a movie"?

I'll go ahead and assume you didn't.

Sure, but the point is we can never be absolutely certain, although given enough information and context, we can be certain beyond reasonable doubt. The best way to assess confidence levels is by a Bayesian approach:

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure, but the point is we can never be absolutely certain, although given enough information and context, we can be certain beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm well aware of that.

The point I was replying to however, stated that "events of the past can ONLY be taken on faith".


Clearly, that is an incorrect statement.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The point I was replying to however, stated that "events of the past can ONLY be taken on faith".


Clearly, that is an incorrect statement.

Oh sure; I would certainly(!) agree with that

 

[Kylie]

Because, unlike your scenario, I believe Person One wrote the documentation.

In your scenario, person two wrote it.

But you have no actual evidence, do you? Just a feeling.

Isn't it possible that Person 2 wrote the documentation and claimed that person 1 wrote it?

How would Person 3 know that this isn't the case?

 

[AV1611VET]

But you have no actual evidence, do you?

If you're talking about the Bible, someone wrote it.

I believe God wrote it, you don't.

That's why I'm a Christian and you're an atheist.

Just a feeling.

It's more than just a feeling.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
1 Thessalonians 2:14a For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus:

Call it a "sixth sense," if it will help you understand.

Isn't it possible that Person 2 wrote the documentation and claimed that person 1 wrote it?

Isn't that what your OP said happened?

You said:

Let's say someone broke, and then a second person wrote down a statement claiming that he had not broken,

This means person one broke, and person two documented otherwise.

How would Person 3 know that this isn't the case?

In your scenario, he wouldn't because person one, who broke, didn't document what he did, when he did it, who the eyewitnesses were, etc.