Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-09-2013, 02:02 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
amazing how far they go to justify evil as truth

forcing letters being without any mean as the sky source, dreaming of manipulating a lot of minds with that cheap blue ink

sure the sky is the source of evil and evil absolute reason, which prove that the sky has a limit so it is time to fall and stop pretending flying anywhere
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 03:21 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(12-09-2013 02:02 AM)absols Wrote:  amazing how far they go to justify evil as truth

forcing letters being without any mean as the sky source, dreaming of manipulating a lot of minds with that cheap blue ink

sure the sky is the source of evil and evil absolute reason, which prove that the sky has a limit so it is time to fall and stop pretending flying anywhere

[Image: tumblr_m66uhzKAny1r3k1m8o1_500.png]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
12-09-2013, 05:09 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(10-09-2013 04:18 AM)I and I Wrote:  Are you implying that a bird can "know" what a rock is?

Birds don't know what rocks are?



Their actions indicate otherwise.

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
12-09-2013, 10:38 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(11-09-2013 08:25 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  If you accept it as self-evident, it is not.

It's self-evident because of it's circularity. 'Self-evident' doesn't mean there isn't a reason, it means the reason is obvious.

(11-09-2013 08:25 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  If he was attempting to argue that some thing(s) is/are categorically or self-evidently true, that is obviously useful.

That would be the basis for all of human understanding.

Is he attempting to argue that?

Attempts to interact with the universe must necessarily be based on one's understanding of the universe. I've stated several times why assuming a consistent, knowable reality is useful.

Let us define 'fact' as a human conclusion reached by human means. Sure, why not? What is then relevant is how that informs our actions and understanding. The underlying questions are: is reality consistent? is reality knowable? If the answers are no and no, what then? If the answers are yes and yes, well. The direct questions are, if 'facts' are a human artifact, of what use are they? How are they put to use?

I've been waiting on those answers for the whole thread.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 04:05 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(12-09-2013 10:38 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It's self-evident because of it's circularity. 'Self-evident' doesn't mean there isn't a reason, it means the reason is obvious.

It wasn't circular, at least in any important way.

Self-evident doesn't mean the reason is obvious. People would not have any problems with mathematics if what was self-evident was obvious.

Circular is a term used to described a specific type of unaccepted reasoning--take a look at what you were doing for example. It starts with someone begging the question by making an assumption that isn't agreed upon as being self-evident, then involves a certain form of arrangement for the argument.

It is not fair to confuse that with fundamental, necessary truths of understanding, like definitions, etc. If you are agreeing that something is fundamental and self-evident, it is ridiculous to call it circular, as that is supposed to imply that you are not agreeing.

(12-09-2013 10:38 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Attempts to interact with the universe must necessarily be based on one's understanding of the universe. I've stated several times why assuming a consistent, knowable reality is useful.

Let us define 'fact' as a human conclusion reached by human means. Sure, why not? What is then relevant is how that informs our actions and understanding. The underlying questions are: is reality consistent? is reality knowable? If the answers are no and no, what then? If the answers are yes and yes, well.

I don't know what you mean by "interact with the universe" or "understanding".

You don't have to assume a consistent, knowable reality. Your perceptions constitute a reality, and are either in relation to something objectively/independently the case or not, and are either consistent or not.

You don't have to know any thing in relation to some objective reality, and if something changes, you just adapt. If something that you, yesterday, thought seemed to be one way ends up being another way, you just have to go along with it.

Fact is, still, what is (actually) the case. If that ends as, maybe logically, only things that humans concluded by their means, then that is a conclusion based on that definition.

If the answer is irrelevant and irrelevant, you have a more philosophical, productive version of the scientific method, that might actually be useful.

(12-09-2013 10:38 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The direct questions are, if 'facts' are a human artifact, of what use are they? How are they put to use?

I've been waiting on those answers for the whole thread.

Perceptions are of you(r ) (mind). You can't assume those as representing facts, in correspondence to an objective, independent reality. Your perceptions would be the basis for that conclusion, which is not self-evident, and thus would be legitimately question begging and/or circular.

Fact is a word, part of language, which is used as a construct of concepts and truths use to understand perceptions. Something self-evident, might be that there is something, which includes your perceptions, and that would automatically exclude the possibility that there is nothing. The absence of perceptions, relative to you, would render nothing--that is relative to you, but since that is your basis, it wouldn't matter regardless.

With regard to an objective reality, your only path to facts are your perceptions, so it is irrelevant as to the independence and objectivity.

What is put to use, with regard to reality/perceptions would be things, I don't know if you would consider them facts or not, in language/math, etc., of which the word 'fact' is even a part. It is not just simply empiricism, and it is not just simply rationalism. It is taking things that can work independent of experience, regardless of their basis in experience, and applying them to experience-- that is what is at work in science.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 04:51 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  It wasn't circular, at least in any important way.

Meh.

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Self-evident doesn't mean the reason is obvious. People would not have any problems with mathematics if what was self-evident was obvious.

Mathematics is axiomatic; the axioms are not (necessarily) self-evident.

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Circular is a term used to describe a specific type of unaccepted reasoning--take a look at what you were doing for example. It starts with someone begging the question by making an assumption that isn't agreed upon as being self-evident, then involves a certain form of arrangement for the argument.

Semantics. Don't get me wrong, I love sematics as much as the next guy (if not more!), but that is a semantic distinction.

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  It is not fair to confuse that with fundamental, necessary truths of understanding, like definitions, etc. If you are agreeing that something is fundamental and self-evident, it is ridiculous to call it circular, as that is supposed to imply that you are not agreeing.

I'd say a fundamental truth can be circular. Whatever. Thumbsup

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  I don't know what you mean by "interact with the universe" or "understanding".

What information do my senses convey? How and why does that information arise? That would be the sort of thing I mean by interaction.

Understanding, then, would be a set of answers to those questions.

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  You don't have to assume a consistent, knowable reality. Your perceptions constitute a reality, and are either in relation to something objectively/independently the case or not, and are either consistent or not.

Sure. I define consistency as related to prediction. Can one infer future observation from past observation?

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  You don't have to know any thing in relation to some objective reality, and if something changes, you just adapt. If something that you, yesterday, thought seemed to be one way ends up being another way, you just have to go along with it.

Yes. Do you then attempt to find out why a seeming change occurred? Is it possible to find out?

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Fact is, still, what is (actually) the case. If that ends as, maybe logically, only things that humans concluded by their means, then that is a conclusion based on that definition.

Sure.

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  If the answer is irrelevant and irrelevant, you have a more philosophical, productive version of the scientific method, that might actually be useful.

If by that you mean only yes has useful consequences, then I agree.

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Perceptions are of you(r ) (mind).

Yes.

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  You can't assume those as representing facts, in correspondence to an objective, independent reality. Your perceptions would be the basis for that conclusion, which is not self-evident, and thus would be legitimately question begging and/or circular.

Yes. I said that the conclusions were assumed to so correspond, and only insofar as not doing so is a dead end.

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Fact is a word, part of language, which is used as a construct of concepts and truths use to understand perceptions. Something self-evident, might be that there is something, which includes your perceptions, and that would automatically exclude the possibility that there is nothing. The absence of perceptions, relative to you, would render nothing--that is relative to you, but since that is your basis, it wouldn't matter regardless.

Yes. I think therefore I am, in other words. (well - insofar as 'there is something' overlaps with 'there is me'!)

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  With regard to an objective reality, your only path to facts are your perceptions, so it is irrelevant as to the independence and objectivity.

Yes.

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  What is put to use, with regard to reality/perceptions would be things, I don't know if you would consider them facts or not, in language/math, etc., of which the word 'fact' is even a part. It is not just simply empiricism, and it is not just simply rationalism. It is taking things that can work independent of experience, regardless of their basis in experience, and applying them to experience-- that is what is at work in science.

One observes. One acts. One observes reaction.

The third is an assumption - science.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 10:43 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(11-09-2013 08:45 PM)I Am Wrote:  ...his gem log toy hints sex...
You owe me a cup of coffee and a new monitor..... Censored

[Image: 2aane4j.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like LostLocke's post
13-09-2013, 03:35 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(13-09-2013 10:43 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  
(11-09-2013 08:45 PM)I Am Wrote:  ...his gem log toy hints sex...
You owe me a cup of coffee and a new monitor..... Censored

What did I just read
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 05:58 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(12-09-2013 04:51 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  It wasn't circular, at least in any important way.

Meh.

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Self-evident doesn't mean the reason is obvious. People would not have any problems with mathematics if what was self-evident was obvious.

Mathematics is axiomatic; the axioms are not (necessarily) self-evident.

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Circular is a term used to describe a specific type of unaccepted reasoning--take a look at what you were doing for example. It starts with someone begging the question by making an assumption that isn't agreed upon as being self-evident, then involves a certain form of arrangement for the argument.

Semantics. Don't get me wrong, I love sematics as much as the next guy (if not more!), but that is a semantic distinction.

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  It is not fair to confuse that with fundamental, necessary truths of understanding, like definitions, etc. If you are agreeing that something is fundamental and self-evident, it is ridiculous to call it circular, as that is supposed to imply that you are not agreeing.

I'd say a fundamental truth can be circular. Whatever. Thumbsup

I wouldn't care if the axioms were considered self-evident or not. I was just saying that if, in general, people were good at grasping the self-evident, that would translate to math skills. That probably wasn't the best example, though, as I don't know if that would be the case or not.

By self-evident I meant something can be substantiated by means of itself. In certain cases where things are self-evident, it isn't always the case that it is easily understood or perceived, i.e., obvious--it can be subtle or easily overlooked.

And circular, as you know, is used to describe circular reasoning (logical fallacy).

I was simply pointing out: 1) If something can be substantiated by itself, accepted as such, there is no need for the additional input, that leads to circularity; 2) And if the circularity comes up, maybe through explaining, once accepted, it isn't fair to use something that describes a fallacy in logic/argument, toward something that is accepted as true based on definition, etc. At least, make the distinction.

However, I get how you are saying it is circular.

(12-09-2013 04:51 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  I don't know what you mean by "interact with the universe" or "understanding".

What information do my senses convey? How and why does that information arise? That would be the sort of thing I mean by interaction.

Understanding, then, would be a set of answers to those questions.

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  You don't have to assume a consistent, knowable reality. Your perceptions constitute a reality, and are either in relation to something objectively/independently the case or not, and are either consistent or not.

Sure. I define consistency as related to prediction. Can one infer future observation from past observation?

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  You don't have to know any thing in relation to some objective reality, and if something changes, you just adapt. If something that you, yesterday, thought seemed to be one way ends up being another way, you just have to go along with it.

Yes. Do you then attempt to find out why a seeming change occurred? Is it possible to find out?

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Fact is, still, what is (actually) the case. If that ends as, maybe logically, only things that humans concluded by their means, then that is a conclusion based on that definition.

Sure.

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  If the answer is irrelevant and irrelevant, you have a more philosophical, productive version of the scientific method, that might actually be useful.

If by that you mean only yes has useful consequences, then I agree.

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Perceptions are of you(r ) (mind).

Yes.

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  You can't assume those as representing facts, in correspondence to an objective, independent reality. Your perceptions would be the basis for that conclusion, which is not self-evident, and thus would be legitimately question begging and/or circular.

Yes. I said that the conclusions were assumed to so correspond, and only insofar as not doing so is a dead end.

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Fact is a word, part of language, which is used as a construct of concepts and truths use to understand perceptions. Something self-evident, might be that there is something, which includes your perceptions, and that would automatically exclude the possibility that there is nothing. The absence of perceptions, relative to you, would render nothing--that is relative to you, but since that is your basis, it wouldn't matter regardless.

Yes. I think therefore I am, in other words. (well - insofar as 'there is something' overlaps with 'there is me'!)

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  With regard to an objective reality, your only path to facts are your perceptions, so it is irrelevant as to the independence and objectivity.

Yes.

(12-09-2013 04:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  What is put to use, with regard to reality/perceptions would be things, I don't know if you would consider them facts or not, in language/math, etc., of which the word 'fact' is even a part. It is not just simply empiricism, and it is not just simply rationalism. It is taking things that can work independent of experience, regardless of their basis in experience, and applying them to experience-- that is what is at work in science.

One observes. One acts. One observes reaction.

The third is an assumption - science.

Well, I definitely do not feel like responding to all of that individually, so I'll try to cut this short.

What I was basically saying is that science shouldn't be viewed as attempting to prove any thing, especially in relation to something real, external, independent and objective, and I don't think that is a very productive view of science.

You perceptions are just all that you have, so that is your only basis for reality, apart from, and which is better than, simply making things up.

You have hypothetical, theory, constructs, etc., that can be used to postulate, which should not be confused with actually being an exact representation of an objective reality, and it is unnecessary to assume those as such.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 06:21 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(13-09-2013 05:58 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  I wouldn't care if the axioms were considered self-evident or not. I was just saying that if, in general, people were good at grasping the self-evident, that would translate to math skills. That probably wasn't the best example, though, as I don't know if that would be the case or not.

While I do think I know what you're getting at, it is indeed not the best example. Mathematics is interesting so far as it is not a self-evident consequence of the chosen axioms.

(13-09-2013 05:58 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  I was simply pointing out: 1) If something can be substantiated by itself, accepted as such, there is no need for the additional input, that leads to circularity; 2) And if the circularity comes up, maybe through explaining, once accepted, it isn't fair to use something that describes a fallacy in logic/argument, toward something that is accepted as true based on definition, etc. At least, make the distinction.

However, I get how you are saying it is circular.

Yes. I didn't mean to imply fallacy, merely tautology. I'd thought that clear; I guess it wasn't!

(13-09-2013 05:58 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  What I was basically saying is that science shouldn't be viewed as attempting to prove any thing, especially in relation to something real, external, independent and objective, and I don't think that is a very productive view of science.

Yes. But, the assumed independence and reproducibility of experiment and physical models is the very definition of the scientific method. That is my premise; knowable reality is the conclusion (by way of explanation).

(13-09-2013 05:58 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  You perceptions are just all that you have, so that is your only basis for reality, apart from, and which is better than, simply making things up.

Sure.

(13-09-2013 05:58 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  You have hypothetical, theory, constructs, etc., that can be used to postulate, which should not be confused with actually being an exact representation of an objective reality, and it is unnecessary to assume those as such.

Perhaps this is another difference in definitions. When I say a fact is a reflection of underlying reality, then that is just the supposition made to account for its apparent self-contained consistency. Which is to say: if we think we know something, it proceeds from something knowable; if something is not knowable, we do not and cannot know it. Treating something as knowable admits of study. The unknowable admits no such opportunity. What then is the point?


Now; notice how we have had an interesting and enlightening philosophical discussion. Notice how a certain OP has literally nothing to do with it.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: