There is no reason to discuss "facts"

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't want to hear about the importance of discussing "facts" anymore. Why? Because everyone knows all the known facts already, and so there's no reason to further discuss them. Don't believe me? Then why can I answer any question anyone has with a factual answer, assuming the answer has been discovered. Go ahead and try me.

What we need to hear is the opinions, testimonies, and feelings that people have on issues... That's what maybe we *don't* know... And need to hear. So we can discover new facts in the future, that haven't been discovered yet.

My opinion and feeling about it, Landon, is that opinions and feelings are important but they shouldn't be classified as being either synonymous or integral to testimonies. Sometimes testimonies, as possible solid 2nd hand accounts, can go beyond the level of mere opinion and feeling.

 

[Landon Caeli]

My opinion and feeling about it, Landon, is that opinions and feelings are important but they shouldn't be classified as being either synonymous or integral to testimonies. Sometimes testimonies, as possible solid 2nd hand accounts, can go beyond the level of mere opinion and feeling.

That's a very good point. Though, as it stands, it should be okay to discuss testimonies without being required to back them up with facts, in every conversation.

My goal here, is to understand why some people refuse to accept this. Sometimes even to the point of resentment and rage.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Perhaps some people feel there should be a hard rule here on CF? Calling for all posts to have a fact included within the post, that the context should revolve around?

I'm curious.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Sometimes even to the point of resentment and rage.

Do you have examples in the real world of this? Again, I indemnify you to the extent that I can if I have somehow offended in this way.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Do you have examples in the real world of this? Again, I indemnify you to the extent that I can if I have somehow offended in this way.

Essentials, I don't know why you seem to want to insert yourself into this. I never said there was any certain person to blame, it definitely wouldn't be you, if there were. Like I told you before, you weren't the first person I've talked to about this, and there really never was any specific person I've wanted to point out. This is more philosophical than fingerpointing.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Essentials, I don't know why you seem to want to insert yourself into this.

Fine, leave me out of it.

Do you have examples in the real world of this?

(I realize this might come under the heading of facts and not be something you're prepared to address. I vow to neither resent nor rage, regardless of your response or lack thereof.)

 

[zippy2006]

Do you have examples in the real world of this?

This is the elephant in the room, in my opinion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's a very good point. Though, as it stands, it should be okay to discuss testimonies without being required to back them up with facts, in every conversation.

My goal here, is to understand why some people refuse to accept this. Sometimes even to the point of resentment and rage.

Yeah, I think I get where you're coming from. It is frustrating that society seems to have reached a point where many people are so polarized in their own ideology, they're unwillingly to listen to other people share their own life experiences and views. That sort of mindset doesn't make for good relationships.

 

[Laodicean60]

Yeah, I think I get where you're coming from. It is frustrating that society seems to have reached a point where many people are so polarized in their own ideology, they're unwillingly to listen to other people share their own life experiences and views. That sort of mindset doesn't make for good relationships.

The reason you lose elections.

 

[Landon Caeli]

This is the elephant in the room, in my opinion.

Or is the elephant actually a new cultural expectation, created by people who hate philosophy, and demand that their way of thinking must be imposed on everyone else.

...And if you don't abide by their expectations, or speak out against it, then you're a selfish person who deserves to be publicly criticized as someone who doesn't have other's best interests in mind? Of course, this is only what I've been told here, in this thread.

Others, may or may not invent ad hom style rebukes, intended to attack the speaker - as opposed to his testimonies, ideas, and philosophies.

 

[zippy2006]

Or is the elephant actually a new cultural expectation, created by people who hate philosophy, and demand that their way of thinking must be imposed on everyone else.

When you say dumb stuff you receive criticism. That's how life and society works. "My feelings don't care about facts" is a dumb thing to say. Complaining about non-existent people is also dumb. Refusing to give any examples of the so-called people is also dumb.

 

[Robban]

When you say dumb stuff you receive criticism. That's how life and society works. "My feelings don't care about facts" is a dumb thing to say. Complaining about non-existent people is also dumb. Refusing to give any examples of the so-called people is also dumb.

What do you say about Matthew 8:21-22?

The Lubavitcher Rebbe of righteous memory said, "When a cold hard heart becomes excited over a Godly idea,

is this not an awakening of the dead?"

 

[Hazelelponi]

the Discussion and Debate section. If you can’t take the heat, please get out of the kitchen.

Who declares the winner?
Where are the debate rules?
What is the word limit and time limit to respond?
After opening, how many responses are there for each opponent?

This is in no wise a "debate forum". its a discussion forum, using the word where there's no debate doesn't turn it into something it's not.

Here, people from different backgrounds and beliefs, though mainly Christians, get together and discuss the issues of our day and our faith, each from our own perspectives. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't.

The word debate is used to indicate that the forum can be more contrary than some might be used to, but it's not a real debate forum. There's no actual debates here.

 

[Landon Caeli]

When you say dumb stuff you receive criticism. That's how life and society works. "My feelings don't care about facts" is a dumb thing to say. Complaining about non-existent people is also dumb. Refusing to give any examples of the so-called people is also dumb.

Again, you just don't seem to grasp the conversation. *Nobody* is saying they "don't care about facts", all I'm saying is there's no reason to debate already known facts. Instead, we can debate or discuss ideas, testimonies and philosophies that are not known facts, in order to have a more balanced mental landscape. All of our thought processes, debate and conversation don't need to be based on the scientific method - whether you like it or not.

Basing the entirety of your psychological mindframe on the scientific method, is a *new* development, that's not necessarily beneficial in modern human social customs.

 

[zippy2006]

This is in no wise a "debate forum".

It is explicitly a debate forum.

 

[linux.poet]

Who declares the winner?
Where are the debate rules?
What is the word limit and time limit to respond?
After opening, how many responses are there for each opponent?

This is in no wise a "debate forum". its a discussion forum, using the word where there's no debate doesn't turn it into something it's not.

Here, people from different backgrounds and beliefs, though mainly Christians, get together and discuss the issues of our day and our faith, each from our own perspectives. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't.

The word debate is used to indicate that the forum can be more contrary than some might be used to, but it's not a real debate forum. There's no actual debates here.

There is a difference between formal and informal debate, and also online debate versus in-person debate.

It's like the difference between in-person and correspondence chess. In person chess has a limit for players to make moves, whereas correspondence does not. Online debate is correspondence debate. We're not in a room together, so there's no need for time limits.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Again, you just don't seem to grasp the conversation. *Nobody* is saying they "don't care about facts", all I'm saying is there's no reason to debate already known facts. Instead, we can debate or discuss ideas, testimonies and philosophies that are not known facts, in order to have a more balanced mental landscape. All of our thought processes, debate and conversation don't need to be based on the scientific method - whether you like it or not.

At the risk of being a broken record:
Do you have examples in the real world of this?

I have never really encountered scientism in the wild.

If we consider the proposition:

The 2020 presidential election was stolen.

Some people assert that's a fact.
Others will assert that it's not a fact.

No one is going to turn to the scientific method to support their position.

 

[zippy2006]

Again, you just don't seem to grasp the conversation. *Nobody* is saying they "don't care about facts", all I'm saying is there's no reason to debate already known facts. Instead, we can debate or discuss ideas, testimonies and philosophies that are not known facts, in order to have a more balanced mental landscape. All of our thought processes, debate and conversation don't need to be based on the scientific method - whether you like it or not.

Again, what I said earlier:

I don't think you will find a single person who thinks only uncontroversial "facts" should be discussed. Maybe you need to try to highlight someone who you think does this.

If there is no one who is doing what you are complaining about--either on CF or in the wider world--then the thread is otiose.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Again, what I said earlier:

No, no, Sir..! Tell me whether you agree with me or not, without trying to sneak in requests for facts and evidence.

Either you agree with my stated points, or you do not.

Because what it seems like, is that you're trying to twist my arm into using facts. And you're saying that until I do, my argument fails.

 

[Landon Caeli]

At the risk of being a broken record:
Do you have examples in the real world of this?

I have never really encountered scientism in the wild.

If we consider the proposition:

The 2020 presidential election was stolen.

Some people assert that's a fact.
Others will assert that it's not a fact.

No one is going to turn to the scientific method to support their position.

Again, I'm not presenting evidences, I am presenting ideas.

Would you say Socrates was a fool for wondering whether the mind or the body were more "important", because he couldn't pinpoint any single public figure who argued one way or the other?

Of course ideas are important! Of course we widen our mental landscape when we see things outside of physicality and material properties. Why do you hate philosophy so much?