Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-09-2013, 08:43 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
That was almost comprehensible, absols. I'm reading it as:
Quote:Evolution exists, but humans have stopped evolving.
Humans profit from their increasing technical expertise and accomplishments while humans themselves are lazy and hedonistic. Civilisation itself has no future when society is built on the lazy and the weak.
(short unintelligible portion)
Thousands of years before Jesus Christ great minds breathed into our culture fundamental philosophies that today's generation cannot hope to reproduce. (unintelligible)
Today's generation are all liars, and not one of them is moral, upstanding or good.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 10:07 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(10-09-2013 08:07 AM)I and I Wrote:  So do facts exist to birds? I say no....because facts require human belief in them.

Yes. That is your definition. And a bird is not a human, and therefore cannot have human belief. This could not possibly be more trivial.

Premise 1: 'fact' refers (exclusively) to a human understanding of external reality (A requires B).
Premise 2: a bird does not have a human understanding of external reality (not B).
Conclusion: a bird does not have 'facts' (not A).

This is the entire extent of what you've said in this thread. Premise 1 is simply an assertion you've made. Allowing it, the conclusion is trivial.

(10-09-2013 08:07 AM)I and I Wrote:  Birds can see a hammer, but a hammer as all the things it means to us (heidegger would say hammer as such) does not exist to a bird. Humans believe and accept the uses that a hammer has, this belief in the uses of a hammer are part of what make it a hammer.

A bird may not recognize the uses to which a hammer may be put (note: this is debatable). It does recognize the physical existence of matter which may be interacted with. That it does not have a human understanding is axiomatic. That it does not have an understanding is incorrect.

Point being?

(10-09-2013 08:07 AM)I and I Wrote:  Evolution is the result of our human minds situating the world as best we can from out perspective as to what happened in the past, a bird can never do this so evolution is not a fact according to a bird.

You have previously acknowledged the existence of external reality independent of human observation. We may then assume that, absent observation, it is either constant or inconstant.

Evolution is a concept developed by humans and used to refer to an assumed character of external reality; this referent is assumed because it provides a more coherent, more consistent, and more accurate account of all presently observable data than any other explanation of said data.

The assumption (and it is an assumption) that conclusions based on human observations are then true regardless of observation is occasionally of some use.

Come back when you have an actual thesis.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 11:55 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(10-09-2013 10:07 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 08:07 AM)I and I Wrote:  So do facts exist to birds? I say no....because facts require human belief in them.

Yes. That is your definition. And a bird is not a human, and therefore cannot have human belief. This could not possibly be more trivial.

Premise 1: 'fact' refers (exclusively) to a human understanding of external reality (A requires B).
Premise 2: a bird does not have a human understanding of external reality (not B).
Conclusion: a bird does not have 'facts' (not A).

This is the entire extent of what you've said in this thread. Premise 1 is simply an assertion you've made. Allowing it, the conclusion is trivial.

(10-09-2013 08:07 AM)I and I Wrote:  Birds can see a hammer, but a hammer as all the things it means to us (heidegger would say hammer as such) does not exist to a bird. Humans believe and accept the uses that a hammer has, this belief in the uses of a hammer are part of what make it a hammer.

A bird may not recognize the uses to which a hammer may be put (note: this is debatable). It does recognize the physical existence of matter which may be interacted with. That it does not have a human understanding is axiomatic. That it does not have an understanding is incorrect.

Point being?

(10-09-2013 08:07 AM)I and I Wrote:  Evolution is the result of our human minds situating the world as best we can from out perspective as to what happened in the past, a bird can never do this so evolution is not a fact according to a bird.

You have previously acknowledged the existence of external reality independent of human observation. We may then assume that, absent observation, it is either constant or inconstant.

Evolution is a concept developed by humans and used to refer to an assumed character of external reality; this referent is assumed because it provides a more coherent, more consistent, and more accurate account of all presently observable data than any other explanation of said data.

The assumption (and it is an assumption) that conclusions based on human observations are then true regardless of observation is occasionally of some use.

Come back when you have an actual thesis.

Do you agree or disagree with premise 1?

I am not referring to or even discussing the external world, I am referring to the methods that we humans interact/relate to the external world, for example: categorizing expereiences as "facts" this result of human interaction with the external world at some point has to be believed to be a fact. Otherwise it wouldn't get categorized as a fact in the first place.

A fact or truth or any other word that we use often that is similar is not a result of a contact with the "real world" but it is a result of the human interaction with real world. A "fact" is the result of the interaction with the real world, not the real world itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 01:16 PM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2013 01:25 PM by absols.)
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(10-09-2013 08:43 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  That was almost comprehensible, absols. I'm reading it as:
Quote:Evolution exists, but humans have stopped evolving.
Humans profit from their increasing technical expertise and accomplishments while humans themselves are lazy and hedonistic. Civilisation itself has no future when society is built on the lazy and the weak.
(short unintelligible portion)
Thousands of years before Jesus Christ great minds breathed into our culture fundamental philosophies that today's generation cannot hope to reproduce. (unintelligible)
Today's generation are all liars, and not one of them is moral, upstanding or good.

it is really incredible that strength of ur drive to deform consciously the obvious i say

no mister ur post is opposite to mine

truth exist not evolution, u do not evolve, even anything truly existing is always the same in truth

but truth is absolute objectivity so reality of absolute exponentials, since objective is an absolute necessarily

and like i said clearly, right and good humans were all killed which prove that evil is the exclusive power, and how all left are shit like u, that openly deform valuable posts for evil defense and show cheapest ways to step on rights in the wish of living by ruling on

fuck u piece of shit, ur english is worse then mine and especially ur face piece of living shit

and again i insist, there is no civilisation anymore in anyway, that was before when right humans were still existing

while it is obvious how u insist on civilsation to abuse others and call them lazy and weak, it is sc fictionnal the way truth is being anyone words maker

there are no more slaves to pretend u building anything, all left are like u ur same dirty kind so they want to rule upon u too and i think from what i see that they are way smarter so they will, while u did nothing ever but the knowledge of evil to apply with pleasure
them they learned from being true evil, at least they know their needs for living
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 06:05 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(10-09-2013 01:16 PM)absols Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 08:43 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  That was almost comprehensible, absols. I'm reading it as:

it is really incredible that strength of ur drive to deform consciously the obvious i say

no mister ur post is opposite to mine

truth exist not evolution, u do not evolve, even anything truly existing is always the same in truth

but truth is absolute objectivity so reality of absolute exponentials, since objective is an absolute necessarily

and like i said clearly, right and good humans were all killed which prove that evil is the exclusive power, and how all left are shit like u, that openly deform valuable posts for evil defense and show cheapest ways to step on rights in the wish of living by ruling on

fuck u piece of shit, ur english is worse then mine and especially ur face piece of living shit

and again i insist, there is no civilisation anymore in anyway, that was before when right humans were still existing

while it is obvious how u insist on civilsation to abuse others and call them lazy and weak, it is sc fictionnal the way truth is being anyone words maker

there are no more slaves to pretend u building anything, all left are like u ur same dirty kind so they want to rule upon u too and i think from what i see that they are way smarter so they will, while u did nothing ever but the knowledge of evil to apply with pleasure
them they learned from being true evil, at least they know their needs for living

You are an idiot. Of course homo sapiens evolved.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 06:13 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(10-09-2013 01:16 PM)absols Wrote:  fuck u piece of shit, ur english is worse then mine and especially ur face piece of living shit

Laughat

Who let the 12 year old that can't spell for shit in here?

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 06:18 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(10-09-2013 11:55 AM)I and I Wrote:  I am not referring to or even discussing the external world, I am referring to the methods that we humans interact/relate to the external world, for example: categorizing experiences as "facts" this result of human interaction with the external world at some point has to be believed to be a fact. Otherwise it wouldn't get categorized as a fact in the first place.

A fact or truth or any other word that we use often that is similar is not a result of a contact with the "real world" but it is a result of the human interaction with real world. A "fact" is the result of the interaction with the real world, not the real world itself.

Sure. Of course, you're deliberately and repeatedly ignoring that while that is your definition, others use 'fact' to refer to the assumed characteristics of external reality in and of themselves.

Accepting your definitions and premise, your conclusion is trivial. Do you have a follow-up, or did you just want to introduce a circular tautology?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 07:31 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(10-09-2013 06:18 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 11:55 AM)I and I Wrote:  I am not referring to or even discussing the external world, I am referring to the methods that we humans interact/relate to the external world, for example: categorizing experiences as "facts" this result of human interaction with the external world at some point has to be believed to be a fact. Otherwise it wouldn't get categorized as a fact in the first place.

A fact or truth or any other word that we use often that is similar is not a result of a contact with the "real world" but it is a result of the human interaction with real world. A "fact" is the result of the interaction with the real world, not the real world itself.

Sure. Of course, you're deliberately and repeatedly ignoring that while that is your definition, others use 'fact' to refer to the assumed characteristics of external reality in and of themselves.

Accepting your definitions and premise, your conclusion is trivial. Do you have a follow-up, or did you just want to introduce a circular tautology?

The methods that humans use to understand the external world (use whatever word you want) can only be used if humans are around to implement these methods. Calling something a fact is part of that method that humans use to relate to the external world. What "fact" means to you or me is not the issue at all, THE MERE USE OF IT IN RELATING TO THE EXTERNAL WORLD IS A HUMAN METHOD OF RELATING TO THE EXTERNAL WORLD.

So now you get to explain to me how "facts" exist without human minds to believe in them?

Another philosophical issue being brought up by you guys is what is "the real" or "external world" you guys are confusing the result of human interaction with the external world with the external world itself. You guys are operating under the premise that one can gain access to the real world. I am saying 1. The real world exists 2. We can't gain access to this real world free of our human methods, we have to use the means we can use to relate to this external world, therefore what we call "fact" or "real world" is a result of the interaction with the real world. The result of our interaction with the real world - the real world. I am saying that only one of these we have access to.

Therefore if humans aren't around to know of evolution or believe in evolution then guess what, that form of relating to the world doesn't exist therefore evolution can't be a fact to those minds. (I am not saying evolution isn't a fact to our minds).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 09:49 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(10-09-2013 07:31 PM)I and I Wrote:  The methods that humans use to understand the external world (use whatever word you want) can only be used if humans are around to implement these methods.

Yes. That is trivially true.

(10-09-2013 07:31 PM)I and I Wrote:  Calling something a fact is part of that method that humans use to relate to the external world.

Sure.

(10-09-2013 07:31 PM)I and I Wrote:  What "fact" means to you or me is not the issue at all, THE MERE USE OF IT IN RELATING TO THE EXTERNAL WORLD IS A HUMAN METHOD OF RELATING TO THE EXTERNAL WORLD.

So now you get to explain to me how "facts" exist without human minds to believe in them?

Except no, because fact is a word and thus has a definition which is not absolute.

It is also used as proxy for the consistent elements of external reality we assume to exist and assume we can know. Need I remind you why we make those assumptions?

(10-09-2013 07:31 PM)I and I Wrote:  Another philosophical issue being brought up by you guys is what is "the real" or "external world" you guys are confusing the result of human interaction with the external world with the external world itself. You guys are operating under the premise that one can gain access to the real world.

I never said that. Who did?

What I said was that that was indeed an occasionally useful premise.

(10-09-2013 07:31 PM)I and I Wrote:  I am saying 1. The real world exists 2. We can't gain access to this real world free of our human methods...

Trivial, but sure.

(10-09-2013 07:31 PM)I and I Wrote:  ... we have to use the means we can use to relate to this external world, therefore what we call "fact" or "real world" is a result of the interaction with the real world. The result of our interaction with the real world - the real world. I am saying that only one of these we have access to.

That is a reasonable premise. Do you have any non-trivial conclusions to draw from it? Stating that premise alone, and nothing further, is useless.

(10-09-2013 07:31 PM)I and I Wrote:  Therefore if humans aren't around to know of evolution or believe in evolution then guess what, that form of relating to the world doesn't exist therefore evolution can't be a fact to those minds. (I am not saying evolution isn't a fact to our minds).

Notwithstanding that if evolution occurs regardless of human observation, as we assume it does, then it, necessarily, occurs regardless of human observation. The same is true of any 'fact' referring to fundamental laws of nature.

If there are indeed constancies to external reality (and once again we note: it is generally of some use to assume so), then we (humans, generally and collectively) use the word 'fact' to refer to our best guesses as to what those may be. You have so thoroughly not admitted or recognized this when it was pointed out to you that it cannot but be deliberate. Why?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
10-09-2013, 10:16 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
yes, to our minds today evolution is a fact and was a fact, we are using all the available data to us today to make that conclusion and therefore it is called a fact by humans today.

People thousands of years ago to their mind and the way they understood and related to the external world, no, evolution is/was not a fact to their minds. Hence the purpose of the thread, if no mind is going to believe or know of a fact then what makes it a fact? A fact needs belief in order for the fact to function as a fact. At some point one has to believe or disbelieve in a fact. Cultures and people do this all the time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: