Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-09-2013, 08:58 AM (This post was last modified: 07-09-2013 11:04 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(06-09-2013 08:14 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(06-09-2013 06:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Ah! Let's review:


Premise granted.

(it is tautological anyway)

...


Trivial conclusion. Restatement of premise.


The question naturally arises: so what?

Maybe Bucky doesn't find it worth his time to address a tautology...

Bucky is finding it worth his time to argue that facts (human linguistic tool of relating to the world) can exist without humans.

Unless e is trying to argue that it is possible to know the "actual" real as a human without using human methods.

Wrong.
I pointed out that your intention of creating this thread was to equate the "naming of something as a fact" with "that which is actual"/reality.
Naming something does not make it real.

You have provided NOT ONE EXAMPLE where naming something as a fact, makes or alters reality.

You have admitted that there IS "external" reality" which is different from how the reality is perceived and categorized. (That's perfectly obvious, as it's done incorrectly at times, and changed, and corrected). You attempted to say that the nature of (external) reality is altered by how it's named, and is dependent on it's categorization. You failed. You provided NOT ONE example where the categorization changed the reality. You can't. Your premise is false. Now you won't admit you failed, by continuing to assert what I DID NOT SAY. So now you must lie, as you have been proven wrong.

Thanks for demonstrating to everyone what it means to create a "strawman" for your own purposes, Captain Oblivious.

Relating to the world (linguistically or however) has nothing to do with what is actually IN the world) .... which is your OP. ....and which is what I outed you as attempting to do. Either you are so stupid you don't get it, or you are doing it on purpose. I honestly no longer know which. Either way, your thread is another worthless piece of crap, waste of time, and you have demonstrated/said/succeeded in saying nothing, per your usual. You were asked for evidence, (just like theists here are asked for evidence). You provided none. You are the same as they are. You posit crap pulled out of your sick brain, and provide no evidence.

If you disagree with this, all you have to do is provide ONE example that would support your nonsense.
You can't, and you won't.
Troll.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2013, 10:06 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(06-09-2013 08:14 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(06-09-2013 06:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Ah! Let's review:


Premise granted.

(it is tautological anyway)

...


Trivial conclusion. Restatement of premise.


The question naturally arises: so what?

Maybe Bucky doesn't find it worth his time to address a tautology...

Bucky is finding it worth his time to argue that facts (human linguistic tool of relating to the world) can exist without humans.

Unless e is trying to argue that it is possible to know the "actual" real as a human without using human methods.

It's Platonic, looking for forms, I'm thinking the looking more than the forms, but fuck it, they're constant enough.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2013, 02:25 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(06-09-2013 11:23 PM)I and I Wrote:  There are philosophical problems with logic as well.

You would have to elaborate on what you mean.

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
07-09-2013, 03:44 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(07-09-2013 08:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-09-2013 08:14 PM)I and I Wrote:  Bucky is finding it worth his time to argue that facts (human linguistic tool of relating to the world) can exist without humans.

Unless e is trying to argue that it is possible to know the "actual" real as a human without using human methods.

Wrong.
I pointed out that your intention of creating this thread was to equate the "naming of something as a fact" with "that which is actual"/reality.
Naming something does not make it real.

You have provided NOT ONE EXAMPLE where naming something as a fact, makes or alters reality.

You have admitted that there IS "external" reality" which is different from how the reality is perceived and categorized. (That's perfectly obvious, as it's done incorrectly at times, and changed, and corrected). You attempted to say that the nature of (external) reality is altered by how it's named, and is dependent on it's categorization. You failed. You provided NOT ONE example where the categorization changed the reality. You can't. Your premise is false. Now you won't admit you failed, by continuing to assert what I DID NOT SAY. So now you must lie, as you have been proven wrong.

Thanks for demonstrating to everyone what it means to create a "strawman" for your own purposes, Captain Oblivious.

Relating to the world (linguistically or however) has nothing to do with what is actually IN the world) .... which is your OP. ....and which is what I outed you as attempting to do. Either you are so stupid you don't get it, or you are doing it on purpose. I honestly no longer know which. Either way, your thread is another worthless piece of crap, waste of time, and you have demonstrated/said/succeeded in saying nothing, per your usual. You were asked for evidence, (just like theists here are asked for evidence). You provided none. You are the same as they are. You posit crap pulled out of your sick brain, and provide no evidence.

If you disagree with this, all you have to do is provide ONE example that would support your nonsense.
You can't, and you won't.
Troll.

Do we live in a reality where the US spent billions of dollars, killed thousands ( really millions but I am throwing a bone) of Iraqis on the FUCKING BELIEF that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? THE FACT that no evidence was ever provided or confirmed was not believed therefore the belief altered The perception and therefore changed reality ( you know, the whole turning a country into a shit hole). The reality of the results in Iraq was based on a belief, a belief had more of an impact than facts did and altered reality for millions of Iraqis.

Now you stupid fuck, you still seem to not comprehend what cljr and house of cantor understand, that the HUMAN METHODS for understanding and relating to "the real" don't exist without humans. your brain is so fucking stupid that you can't comprehend that sentence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2013, 09:54 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
it is the lie vs the fact that win, not the belief

u r confusing two different thing

like now, us knows so is everyone that in syria what they call themselves rebels are the terrorists who meant to use chemical weapons to give the us the lie it needs to hit syria now for what it is winning over the terrorists

will the lie succeed ? of course, everything happen that way, a cheap lie is confirming life base and ways, all is evil forever

what about facts known?? the truth?? shouldnt b superior to lies in existence realms and realities ???
yeaa theorically, but truth is free objective existence, so free superior realisations and free positive realities ends, then smthg noone sees

the other perspective of ur question is about smthg else

do a fact needs to b confirmed or adopted by the one perceiving it to become an objective fact or real ??

yes relatively, meaning, only concerning the human objective space existence

the way of humans realities, is by recognizing objective existence, so true facts

the more a human is sincere in its recognition in considering objective as else existence present, the more it would get back to him as being recognized existing present too, which is the way of true existence reality bases

there is always an absolute isolated freedom and an absolute isolated object

the freedom must realize itself objectively by recognizing object being also free

and the object gets up freely above its fact by considering else freedom superiority so the right for else to b objectively existing too

in truth it is about the same thing

infinite superiority sense so base value of true existence which happen freely

if any seem existing then it is free superiority

and if any is free then it is possible positive self existence realisation alone
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2013, 10:51 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
this what proves how only truth exist, not anyone nor anything
it is the concept of continuous plus by the sense of else perceived then as plus which become objective

awareness or even conscious of that fact, is responsable of all evil always

the relative thing or being perceiving else freedom would want to get from more resources to its positive state

and the free eye seeing objective existence would want also to use its perspective to pretend its superiority as free being increased as if it did or does anything

that is how individuals will always b relative free existing selves identities so only within themselves facts alone never could b recognized as individuals by else nor others

but they can b true livings from the result of admitting right being relative to positive objective truth existence

which should make them being present for others individuals needs and help as true livings so in principle of being from recognzing objective true values sincerely alone

that standard is for sure impossible to mean as to reach, but the fact is that truth is objectively existing and nothing else exist so unfortunately infinite unjustice and crimes are on what is relatively right
while relative wrong found its way of forcing its eternity by reversing totally the principles of true livings and name its powerful life will, god
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2013, 12:04 AM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2013 08:14 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(07-09-2013 03:44 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(07-09-2013 08:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong.
I pointed out that your intention of creating this thread was to equate the "naming of something as a fact" with "that which is actual"/reality.
Naming something does not make it real.

You have provided NOT ONE EXAMPLE where naming something as a fact, makes or alters reality.

You have admitted that there IS "external" reality" which is different from how the reality is perceived and categorized. (That's perfectly obvious, as it's done incorrectly at times, and changed, and corrected). You attempted to say that the nature of (external) reality is altered by how it's named, and is dependent on it's categorization. You failed. You provided NOT ONE example where the categorization changed the reality. You can't. Your premise is false. Now you won't admit you failed, by continuing to assert what I DID NOT SAY. So now you must lie, as you have been proven wrong.

Thanks for demonstrating to everyone what it means to create a "strawman" for your own purposes, Captain Oblivious.

Relating to the world (linguistically or however) has nothing to do with what is actually IN the world) .... which is your OP. ....and which is what I outed you as attempting to do. Either you are so stupid you don't get it, or you are doing it on purpose. I honestly no longer know which. Either way, your thread is another worthless piece of crap, waste of time, and you have demonstrated/said/succeeded in saying nothing, per your usual. You were asked for evidence, (just like theists here are asked for evidence). You provided none. You are the same as they are. You posit crap pulled out of your sick brain, and provide no evidence.

If you disagree with this, all you have to do is provide ONE example that would support your nonsense.
You can't, and you won't.
Troll.

Do we live in a reality where the US spent billions of dollars, killed thousands ( really millions but I am throwing a bone) of Iraqis on the FUCKING BELIEF that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? THE FACT that no evidence was ever provided or confirmed was not believed therefore the belief altered The perception and therefore changed reality ( you know, the whole turning a country into a shit hole). The reality of the results in Iraq was based on a belief, a belief had more of an impact than facts did and altered reality for millions of Iraqis.

Now you stupid fuck, you still seem to not comprehend what cljr and house of cantor understand, that the HUMAN METHODS for understanding and relating to "the real" don't exist without humans. your brain is so fucking stupid that you can't comprehend that sentence.

I see why you're named I and I. I^2. Idiot Squared.
Your example PROVES you haven't a clue what you're drooling about.
Look at what you just said, troll :

"The perception and therefore changed reality ( you know, the whole turning a country into a shit hole). The reality of the results in Iraq was based on a belief, a belief had more of an impact than facts did and altered reality for millions of Iraqis."


Your stupid OP did not ask what had more impact .. perception or facts. Thanks for just admitting perception and facts are not the same, and exist independent of each other. The PERCEPTION did NOT change the FACT. HE DID NOT have WMD.
Changing the goal posts is not going to help you. Idiot Squared. The belief did NOT change the reality that he did NOT have WMD. The FACT was, and IS, he did NOT have WMD. THAT's the fact in your proposition here. NOT the "perception of the fact". Are you so stupid you don't know the difference between perception, and reality ?
The BELIEF did not alter the fact. THAT was the question asked in your OP. NOT "how did they RELATE to the facts".
You're trying to CHANGE your OP, now that you LOST this argument. Your OP asked if the INITIAL facts needed belief to be a fact. You are so screwed up, you don't even know what your OP asked. You're STILL equivocating "facts". How brains "relate to the real" doesn't change the real. There still is objective reality.
The relating has consequences.

You STILL have not defined a "fact". Try harder.
You still have provided NOT ONE shred of evidence that perception changes reality, (THE INITIAL CONDITIONS).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
08-09-2013, 08:37 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(08-09-2013 12:04 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-09-2013 03:44 PM)I and I Wrote:  Do we live in a reality where the US spent billions of dollars, killed thousands ( really millions but I am throwing a bone) of Iraqis on the FUCKING BELIEF that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? THE FACT that no evidence was ever provided or confirmed was not believed therefore the belief altered The perception and therefore changed reality ( you know, the whole turning a country into a shit hole). The reality of the results in Iraq was based on a belief, a belief had more of an impact than facts did and altered reality for millions of Iraqis.

Now you stupid fuck, you still seem to not comprehend what cljr and house of cantor understand, that the HUMAN METHODS for understanding and relating to "the real" don't exist without humans. your brain is so fucking stupid that you can't comprehend that sentence.

I see why you're named I and I. I^2. Idiot Squared.
Your example PROVES you haven't a clue what you're drooling about.
Look at what you just said, troll :

"The perception and therefore changed reality ( you know, the whole turning a country into a shit hole). The reality of the results in Iraq was based on a belief, a belief had more of an impact than facts did and altered reality for millions of Iraqis."


Your stupid OP did not ask what had more impact .. perception or facts. Thanks for just admitting perception and facts are not the same, and exist independent of each other. The PERCEPTION did NOT change the FACT. HE DID NOT have WMD.
Changing the goal posts is not going to help you. Idiot Squared. The belief did NOT change the reality that he did NOT have WMD. The FACT was, and IS, he did NOT have WMD. THAT's the fact in your proposition here. NOT the "perception of the fact". Are you so stupid you don't know the difference between perception, and reality ?
The BELIEF did not alter the fact. THAT was the question asked in your OP. NOT "how did they RELATE to the facts".
You're trying to CHANGE your OP, now that you LOST this argument. Your OP asked if the INITIAL facts needed belief to be a fact. You are so screwed up, you don't even know what your OP asked. You're STILL equivocating "facts". How brains "relate to the real" doesn't change the real. There still is objective reality.
The relating has consequences.

You STILL have not defined a "fact". Try harder.
You still have provided NOT ONE shred of evidence that perception changes reality, (THE INITIAL CONDITIONS).

No fucking body is saying that perception changes reality. You haven't proven that I didn't fuck your mom last night. You keep making up shit.

What Cljr, House of Cantor and I are agreeing with is that CATEGORIZING EXPERIENCES INTO CONCEPTS LIKE "FACTS" IS A MOTHER...FUCKING...HUMAN METHOD OF RELATING TO THE EXTERNAL WORLD. WITHOUT HUMANS AROUND TO BELIEVE IN OR KNOW OF A FACT THEN FACTS CANNOT BE SAID TO EXIST SINCE A HUMAN METHOD REQUIRES FUCKING HUMANS TO IMPLEMENT IT.

Notice: you dumb mother fucker, nowhere did I say or imply the real world does not exist or that perception changes it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2013, 09:07 AM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2013 09:41 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(08-09-2013 08:37 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(08-09-2013 12:04 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I see why you're named I and I. I^2. Idiot Squared.
Your example PROVES you haven't a clue what you're drooling about.
Look at what you just said, troll :

"The perception and therefore changed reality ( you know, the whole turning a country into a shit hole). The reality of the results in Iraq was based on a belief, a belief had more of an impact than facts did and altered reality for millions of Iraqis."


Your stupid OP did not ask what had more impact .. perception or facts. Thanks for just admitting perception and facts are not the same, and exist independent of each other. The PERCEPTION did NOT change the FACT. HE DID NOT have WMD.
Changing the goal posts is not going to help you. Idiot Squared. The belief did NOT change the reality that he did NOT have WMD. The FACT was, and IS, he did NOT have WMD. THAT's the fact in your proposition here. NOT the "perception of the fact". Are you so stupid you don't know the difference between perception, and reality ?
The BELIEF did not alter the fact. THAT was the question asked in your OP. NOT "how did they RELATE to the facts".
You're trying to CHANGE your OP, now that you LOST this argument. Your OP asked if the INITIAL facts needed belief to be a fact. You are so screwed up, you don't even know what your OP asked. You're STILL equivocating "facts". How brains "relate to the real" doesn't change the real. There still is objective reality.
The relating has consequences.

You STILL have not defined a "fact". Try harder.
You still have provided NOT ONE shred of evidence that perception changes reality, (THE INITIAL CONDITIONS).

No fucking body is saying that perception changes reality. You haven't proven that I didn't fuck your mom last night. You keep making up shit.

What Cljr, House of Cantor and I are agreeing with is that CATEGORIZING EXPERIENCES INTO CONCEPTS LIKE "FACTS" IS A MOTHER...FUCKING...HUMAN METHOD OF RELATING TO THE EXTERNAL WORLD. WITHOUT HUMANS AROUND TO BELIEVE IN OR KNOW OF A FACT THEN FACTS CANNOT BE SAID TO EXIST SINCE A HUMAN METHOD REQUIRES FUCKING HUMANS TO IMPLEMENT IT.

Notice: you dumb mother fucker, nowhere did I say or imply the real world does not exist or that perception changes it.

Yes you did Idiot Squared. Read what you just wrote.
1. You did nothing in this stupid thread, until I asked you to define what a fact is. You still haven't. You did that so you could equivocate the definition, when it became convenient, which was your plan, all along, which I predicted.
2. The DEFINITION in the dictionary of a FACT, is "THAT WHICH IS ACTUAL". NOT what is perceived as actual.
If you want to re-define a word, great, Idiot, but you cannot expect anyone else to agree on your personal (new) definition, without obtaining agreement. No one here has agreed to redefine the word the way you want it redefined.
Just as I predicted, your purpose is, and was to confuse these two concepts.

And YES YOU DID. You did EXACTLY what you said now, you didn't do. You just tried to say that the PERCEPTION of the WMD CHANGED the reality of the WMD. You are so stupid, and idiotic, you don't even know what you are saying. You also are so brain-dead, can't even keep track of what you have just said.
You really think you're gonna drag others down the fucking rabbit hole you live in ?
Troll.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2013, 09:10 AM
Re: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
Seriously I and i.. That's what you're saying.

Peoples beliefs effect other peoples lives. Wow, groundbreaking. All it takes to change a fact is how peoples life is? That's a loose and practical worthless use of "fact"

We know what you're saying I and I... And that's not in any way a proven concept. And its brushed off for that reason, lack of evidence that without a label of a fact, that a fact doesn't exist.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: