Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-10-2013, 11:51 PM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2013 12:37 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(02-10-2013 10:34 PM)I and I Wrote:  So only humans use concepts to better understand the world around us. So now explain how a frog comes to the conclusion that photosynthesis is a fact or fiction.

The thing Idiot Squared does often, including here, is called the Reification fallacy. It's a well known error, in Logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29

The process humans call "photosynthesis" goes on, went on, and will go on, no matter what humans name it. Reality is external to any human naming process. There were plants changing sunlight into usable energy millions of years before humans named the process, before the word "fact" was used, even a titch before I and I started to open Idiot threads. There are mountains of proof of that. The label applied to a process, is not the process. The word "fact" is a label, which signifies a concept. The label is not the process it labels. A process named "photosynthesis" or 'fact" is real. No matter what word is used to refer to the process, the process exists.

You still have not defined your idiot terms, Idiot Squared, cuz that's what idiots do.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Political skeptic .. if there is a bad reason something bad might have happened, you can bet your ass, that's why it happened.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
03-10-2013, 01:17 AM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2013 01:31 AM by absols.)
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(02-10-2013 10:34 PM)I and I Wrote:  So only humans use concepts to better understand the world around us. So now explain how a frog comes to the conclusion that photosynthesis is a fact or fiction.

If only humans can think in this way, then according to only humans, facts exist. A human can make the claim that photosynthesis affects plant life but it would be an incorrect statement to say photosynthesis is a fact according to a plant.

And yes humans use words and concepts to better understand the world, the word fact is one of them.

Any disagreements?

belief is the wrong thing there, the rule for existence is truth that is why we have obvious facts reality, or evil which is in lies absolutely ways too

believing dont make a thing nor any

so u could b correct in one thing if u didnt insist on the word belief

conscious realisation yes can have some great effect

while it would b the present reference as existing thing and what was meant would b relative to

it is not that easy to mean playing with truth or existence which is truth confirmation

it is always clear how beliefs never exist, as the fact becomes fast about urself

that is why knowledge is about one existence, from what everyone know how it always turn out to mean himself

truth is not one but it says how your idea cant stand

like u see, animals now look better then humans as beings kind

bc humans are conscious realisations, so themselves so wills and means that dont concern any fact

while animals by not meaning a thing they can look like being right

which is the fact source
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 05:59 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(02-10-2013 10:34 PM)I and I Wrote:  So only humans use concepts to better understand the world around us. So now explain how a frog comes to the conclusion that photosynthesis is a fact or fiction.

Before something can be categorised as fact or fiction it must first be comprehended. We appear to be the smartest animal on earth and it tooks us many thousands of years to understand photosynthesis so it is unlikely that a frog has any comprehension of the process of photosythesis. I am fairly confident that a frog has no concept of photosythesis. Given that it has no concept of photosythesis the issue of its truth would never arise. Further, it is doubtful that an animal with a frog-sized brain has a conception of fact versus fiction.

Quote:If only humans can think in this way, then according to only humans, facts exist. A human can make the claim that photosynthesis affects plant life but it would be an incorrect statement to say photosynthesis is a fact according to a plant.

If we can agree that a fact is an actual or potential occurrence in objective reality --as I wrote earlier--then photosyhthesis was always a fact.

There is no "according to a plant". To be a knowing subject requires a mind and mind requires a brain and plants have no brain. Plants perform photosynthesis in the same way that a (very) complicated machine performs a process--mindlessly. Photosynthesis is a fact.

Quote:And yes humans use words and concepts to better understand the world, the word fact is one of them.

Correct. But language doesn't create the objective world. Those biochemical and physical processes that comprise photosynthesis occur independently of our naming and other "languaging".

PS:- Notice that I haven't insulted you and that I am taking your questions seriously. Bucky Ball on the hand has called you an "idiot" and been generally dismissive of you. Despite this, a conga line of half-educated fuckwits is forming in my "rep" register and it is replete with unimaginative insults and attempts to sound intelligent by calling insults "ad hominems". The only people that have received a spray of invective from me are those that have initiated it. You get the Chippy that you deserve and I make no apologies for that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 06:08 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
Chippy,tgat is cuz you haven't been around i and i long enough

KC IS A LIAR!!!! HE PROMISED ME VANILLA CAKES AND GAVE ME STRAWBERRY CAKE Weeping
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 07:44 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(03-10-2013 05:59 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(02-10-2013 10:34 PM)I and I Wrote:  So only humans use concepts to better understand the world around us. So now explain how a frog comes to the conclusion that photosynthesis is a fact or fiction.

Before something can be categorised as fact or fiction it must first be comprehended. We appear to be the smartest animal on earth and it tooks us many thousands of years to understand photosynthesis so it is unlikely that a frog has any comprehension of the process of photosythesis. I am fairly confident that a frog has no concept of photosythesis. Given that it has no concept of photosythesis the issue of its truth would never arise. Further, it is doubtful that an animal with a frog-sized brain has a conception of fact versus fiction.

Quote:If only humans can think in this way, then according to only humans, facts exist. A human can make the claim that photosynthesis affects plant life but it would be an incorrect statement to say photosynthesis is a fact according to a plant.

If we can agree that a fact is an actual or potential occurrence in objective reality --as I wrote earlier--then photosyhthesis was always a fact.

There is no "according to a plant". To be a knowing subject requires a mind and mind requires a brain and plants have no brain. Plants perform photosynthesis in the same way that a (very) complicated machine performs a process--mindlessly. Photosynthesis is a fact.

Quote:And yes humans use words and concepts to better understand the world, the word fact is one of them.

Correct. But language doesn't create the objective world. Those biochemical and physical processes that comprise photosynthesis occur independently of our naming and other "languaging".

PS:- Notice that I haven't insulted you and that I am taking your questions seriously. Bucky Ball on the hand has called you an "idiot" and been generally dismissive of you. Despite this, a conga line of half-educated fuckwits is forming in my "rep" register and it is replete with unimaginative insults and attempts to sound intelligent by calling insults "ad hominems". The only people that have received a spray of invective from me are those that have initiated it. You get the Chippy that you deserve and I make no apologies for that.

Yes people here have clicks and me and you are not in it, which means they will bully us. Yet when we insult back, they pretend as if we just insulted for no reason, hence the negative reps. People here in general are the least skeptical and as conservative politically as any rightwing website.

If humans are needed to conceptualize events as facts or not facts then it takes a human mind willing to engage in this manner for facts to exist, Hence the original statement that a believing mind is necessary for facts to exist. According to ancient tribal peoples photosynthesis was not a fact. According to us humans today and constructing a narrative of the past using what we know today then it is correct for us to say that photosynthesis is and WAS a fact (according to humans today).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 08:19 AM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2013 08:23 AM by ClydeLee.)
Re: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
Just please stop generalizing and exaggerating peoples views for humanities sake. Youve been told it constantly, Is it that impossible for you to understand?

You could of made EVERYTHING in this thread easier if you also acted reasonable like people asked.and defined Fact everytime you use it as you are.. Or pick a different word.

In the world around, evolution and photosynthesis was a fact, an existing occurrence in the world, when tribal people roamed around. That's irrelevant whether they knew it or not.

To them it was not fully understood, so it wasn't a "fact" as you put it. It was not a defined understanding. They didn't analysis the whole process for a study.

Do may need some belief of how the system works to be able to understand it completely, even if so. Yes, There is an angle of human bias in the understanding of the world; And scientists and the fields of science are aware of this, which is why they don't affirm something to be definitively "True." So what is your grand point anyway?

"Love is hot, Truth is molten!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 02:57 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(03-10-2013 07:44 AM)I and I Wrote:  If humans are needed to conceptualize events as facts or not facts then it takes a human mind willing to engage in this manner for facts to exist, Hence the original statement that a believing mind is necessary for facts to exist. According to ancient tribal peoples photosynthesis was not a fact. According to us humans today and constructing a narrative of the past using what we know today then it is correct for us to say that photosynthesis is and WAS a fact (according to humans today).

I think you are confusing fact with concept of a fact.

If we can agree that a fact is an actual or potential occurrence in objective reality --as I wrote earlier--then photosynthesis was always a fact. Photosynthesis wasn't always a concept but it was always a fact.

However, the existence of facts does not depend on the concept of a fact. Only our thinking about facts depends on the concept of a fact.

At the bottom of the huge edifice of human discourse is blind and indifferent physical reality that cares naught for our thinking, speaking and writing.

The hypothetical primitive tribe had no concept of photosynthesis but it was reliant on the process for its food (and its very evolution). Given the definition I provided above, a fact does not depend on for its facticity a conception of facticity. Facts and concepts are two different things and concepts about facts are subsets of concepts not of facts.

Have you been reading about social constructivism?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 06:42 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(14-09-2013 04:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-09-2013 04:14 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  You would like to think that.

He was treated unfairly from the beginning, simply because he was challenging the complacency, credulity, folly, lack of skepticism and lack of concern with regard to the approach certain people take toward thinking and information.

Well before you got mad at him and called him the "most dishonest poster on this forum".

Immediately him and Bucky Ball went at it in the Time thread.

You are wrong. He has a long history here; I suggest you investigate it.

Yet if Trulyx finds benefit in I&I, it makes I&I less wrong. Consider

And!

Facts require faith. Big Grin

trololololol... Big Grin

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 09:46 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(04-10-2013 02:57 AM)Chippy Wrote:  I think you are confusing fact with concept of a fact.

If we can agree that a fact is an actual or potential occurrence in objective reality --as I wrote earlier--then photosynthesis was always a fact. Photosynthesis wasn't always a concept but it was always a fact.

Props for trying, Chippy, but if he refused to acknowlege that before, I don't think it's likely he'll do so now.

Not that I'd mind being surprised.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 01:10 PM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(03-10-2013 07:44 AM)I and I Wrote:  People here in general are the least skeptical and as conservative politically as any rightwing website.

You seriously still believe that bullshit strawman you created of other people's beliefs?

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: