Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-09-2013, 09:01 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
They don't "become" facts. There "are" facts.
The human mind is not an agent of determination.
It's an agent of recognition.
Something "actual" is actual, whether it's recognized or not.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
05-09-2013, 09:05 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(05-09-2013 08:42 PM)I and I Wrote:  Another example: The fact that there was no evidence before we invaded Iraq that Hussein possessed WMD, was totally irrelevant compared to the BELIEF that hussein had WMD. The belief in one made the fact of the other totally irrelevant. The irrelevancy of the fact was due to the non belief in that fact, more people believed opposite of the fact and that was more powerful than a fact.

Thank you, and good night.


But, seriously now. That is in no way related to prior discussion in this thread.

Relevance and import are not the same thing as truth and validity.

Is your point here that people can believe things that aren't true? I think I speak for everyone when I say that that conclusion is not particularly revelatory.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 09:52 PM (This post was last modified: 05-09-2013 10:10 PM by I and I.)
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(05-09-2013 09:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They don't "become" facts. There "are" facts.
The human mind is not an agent of determination.
It's an agent of recognition.
Something "actual" is actual, whether it's recognized or not.

So facts exist before human minds existed? Explain how. NOTE: I am not asking you to explain how our minds can know about facts and assess that they were facts in the past. I am asking how is something a fact with the absence of a mind or the absence of a mind to believe in this fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 09:55 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(05-09-2013 09:05 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 08:42 PM)I and I Wrote:  Another example: The fact that there was no evidence before we invaded Iraq that Hussein possessed WMD, was totally irrelevant compared to the BELIEF that hussein had WMD. The belief in one made the fact of the other totally irrelevant. The irrelevancy of the fact was due to the non belief in that fact, more people believed opposite of the fact and that was more powerful than a fact.

Thank you, and good night.


But, seriously now. That is in no way related to prior discussion in this thread.

Relevance and import are not the same thing as truth and validity.

Is your point here that people can believe things that aren't true? I think I speak for everyone when I say that that conclusion is not particularly revelatory.

The fact that Iraq had no WMD was irrelevant because it was a fact that wasn't believed. People's belief that Iraq had WMD became more important and had more of an impact on reality than a fact did.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 10:41 PM (This post was last modified: 05-09-2013 10:50 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(05-09-2013 09:52 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 09:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They don't "become" facts. There "are" facts.
The human mind is not an agent of determination.
It's an agent of recognition.
Something "actual" is actual, whether it's recognized or not.

So facts exist before human minds existed? Explain how. NOTE: I am not asking you to explain how our minds can know about facts and assess that they were facts in the past. I am asking how is something a fact with the absence of a mind or the absence of a mind to believe in this fact.

You missed the point, entirely. Instead of using the word "fact", use the words "that which is/was real" (or "actual"), and maybe you'll stop confusing yourself.
What is actual existed, and exists apart from human minds, and what they label things.
The word "fact" is a human linguistic invention, to describe what is perceived as actual.
What human minds call "facts" has nothing to do with what is, or is not actual.
Sometimes the label is true. Sometimes it's not. What is actual, is actual, no matter how it's labeled.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
05-09-2013, 11:08 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(05-09-2013 10:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 09:52 PM)I and I Wrote:  So facts exist before human minds existed? Explain how. NOTE: I am not asking you to explain how our minds can know about facts and assess that they were facts in the past. I am asking how is something a fact with the absence of a mind or the absence of a mind to believe in this fact.

You missed the point, entirely. Instead of using the word "fact", use the words "that which is/was real" (or "actual"), and maybe you'll stop confusing yourself.
What is actual existed, and exists apart from human minds, and what they label things.
The word "fact" is a human linguistic invention, to describe what is perceived as actual.
What human minds call "facts" has nothing to do with what is, or is not actual.
Sometimes the label is true. Sometimes it's not. What is actual, is actual, no matter how it's labeled.

The word fact is the least ambiguous of the other words you preferred to use. What is actual can contain anything, factual or not. A tribe living in the jungle believe in actual mythical stories that have an actual impact on their existence however these stories are not factual.

How does actuality exist without human minds to conceptualize an actuality?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 11:32 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(05-09-2013 11:08 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 10:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You missed the point, entirely. Instead of using the word "fact", use the words "that which is/was real" (or "actual"), and maybe you'll stop confusing yourself.
What is actual existed, and exists apart from human minds, and what they label things.
The word "fact" is a human linguistic invention, to describe what is perceived as actual.
What human minds call "facts" has nothing to do with what is, or is not actual.
Sometimes the label is true. Sometimes it's not. What is actual, is actual, no matter how it's labeled.

The word fact is the least ambiguous of the other words you preferred to use. What is actual can contain anything, factual or not. A tribe living in the jungle believe in actual mythical stories that have an actual impact on their existence however these stories are not factual.

How does actuality exist without human minds to conceptualize an actuality?

As I said before. You are equivocating the word "fact".
What is actual is real.
Sometimes what is actual is labeled a fact.
Sometimes it's not.
The mythical stories the tribe believe in are actual. What they REFER to, is not real, or actual. You are not speaking about the same things, and pretending they are the same thing. As usual, you are incoherent. Go fuck yourself already. The end.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
06-09-2013, 01:55 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
This is something I've pondered myself, and I must admit I have a bit of a problem with this word. When people think 'fact' they think 'proven to be true', but there are arguably no such things, outside of mathematics and logical proofs. There are heaps of evidence that gravity exists, but I could say undetectable invisible angels are moving things about and you couldn't prove me wrong. Likewise, I could say God is willing things to move as he sees fit with his mind. If another possibility exists, no matter how remote the odds may be against it, it isn't proven, and if you define fact as I have, then it isn't a fact. I avoid using the word 'fact' for this reason, especially when we are talking about science or philosophy other than to mean a mathematical or logical truism.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 02:28 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(05-09-2013 11:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 11:08 PM)I and I Wrote:  The word fact is the least ambiguous of the other words you preferred to use. What is actual can contain anything, factual or not. A tribe living in the jungle believe in actual mythical stories that have an actual impact on their existence however these stories are not factual.

How does actuality exist without human minds to conceptualize an actuality?

As I said before. You are equivocating the word "fact".
What is actual is real.
Sometimes what is actual is labeled a fact.
Sometimes it's not.
The mythical stories the tribe believe in are actual. What they REFER to, is not real, or actual. You are not speaking about the same things, and pretending they are the same thing. As usual, you are incoherent. Go fuck yourself already. The end.

As usual, you make a claim and can't back it up. You claim that what is actual exists regardless of human mental conceptualizing an actuality. You still have yet to explain how something is an actuality regardless of human minds existing to believe in an actuality such as photosynthesis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 06:36 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(06-09-2013 02:28 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 11:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  As I said before. You are equivocating the word "fact".
What is actual is real.
Sometimes what is actual is labeled a fact.
Sometimes it's not.
The mythical stories the tribe believe in are actual. What they REFER to, is not real, or actual. You are not speaking about the same things, and pretending they are the same thing. As usual, you are incoherent. Go fuck yourself already. The end.

As usual, you make a claim and can't back it up. You claim that what is actual exists regardless of human mental conceptualizing an actuality. You still have yet to explain how something is an actuality regardless of human minds existing to believe in an actuality such as photosynthesis.

Now, if you're not just pretending not to know the difference, you're advocating an extreme form of solipsism.

That the observable universe comprises a persistent external reality, independent of any particular human mind, is indeed an assumption; but it just happens to be one whose consequences are occasionally of some small utility.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: