My OPINION

[Montoya]

You're still hung up on that. If you want to argue the substance of this, pry yourself off your problems with my use of the word "science." It does not matter, since I explained, many times, what I meant.


It was a fact that we believed there were only three dimensions, or it was a fact there were only three dimensions when we believed there were only three dimensions (and for the sake of argument let's assume that we now know there are more than three dimensions)? If you mean "it was a fact there were only three dimensions when we believed there were only three dimensions," that's the ludicrous, human-centric "it's only a fact if humans experience it" view of the universe. Perhaps you have to make clear what you mean by "fact." One definition is "something that actually exists." The actual existence of something is not dependent on our knowing it exists.


No.

But isn't what you said above the other's point? That what is true and what we (or what we call science) believes as true may or may not be ACTUALLY true?

[Krago]

So the facts or truth is that there are laws of physics that govern the universe we live in, but we as humans may or may not interpret those laws correctly. But those laws are the truth, whether we as humans get those laws correct.

Bran, have I interpreted your view correctly? Your vocabulary, along with Borror0's is quite verbose and above my understanding sometimes.

[branmakmuffin]

But isn't what you said above the other's point? That what is true and what we (or what we call science) believes as true may or may not be ACTUALLY true?

Borro0 seems to be saying that something is a fact when we know it (implying that if we don't know it, it's not a fact). If fact means "what we know," then of course, it's tautological to say "it's a fact when we know it." If "fact" means "that which exists," then "facts" are independent of our knowledge of them. "Fact" as "what we know" is, as I have said many times, a very human-centric (and child-like, even childish) view of the universe.

So the facts or truth is that there are laws of physics that govern the universe we live in, but we as humans may or may not interpret those laws correctly. But those laws are the truth, whether we as humans get those laws correct.

That sounds pretty good.

[Montoya]

Borro0 seems to be saying that something is a fact when we know it (implying that if we don't know it, it's not a fact). If fact means "what we know," then of course, it's tautological to say "it's a fact when we know it." If "fact" means "that which exists," then "facts" are independent of our knowledge of them. "Fact" as "what we know" is, as I have said many times, a very human-centric (and child-like, even childish) view of the universe.

right, but we are discussing this as pertains to a discussion which means that "the earth is round" is a fact as we currently understand space and in our framework of science that exists at this time. But if there is something we have not discovered yet, say something that redefines our perception of what "round" is then it could be false.
Borror0 I believe stated that those are facts that we agree on in a framework of understanding. I think I'm understanding both of of your points but please correct me if I misunderstood.

[Borror0]

"Fact" as "what we know" is, as I have said many times, a very human-centric (and child-like, even childish) view of the universe.

No, bran, it is not. It's the only meaningful use of the word.

For example, if you or I were to say "It's fact!" would we mean that it is an unquestionable truth or do we mean that this is we, humans, knows to the best of our knowledge and that new arguments are needed to challenge that idea? We mean the latter, of course, as the former would be the anthropocentric usage of the word and be, quite frankly, meaningless in all conversations as none of us can rightfully state to possess ultimate knowledge on a topic.

[Milolyen]

One of my favorite movie quotes "Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." from Men in Black. As others have said there have been many things thought of as "fact" or "true" that have been proven wrong sense then. All we can do is do our best with what we know and keep trying to figure things out as we move into the future. The key is not to be hindered by what we consider to be fact.

Milolyen

P.S. If you had not noticed yet ... it is pretty much pointless to argue with Bran unless you want to gain a little more insight to why you think/feel/belive something because it is like argueing with a 3 year old. There are just some things they will not understand no matter how many ways you figure out how to explain it to them.

[branmakmuffin]

right, but we are discussing this as pertains to a discussion which means that "the earth is round" is a fact as we currently understand space and in our framework of science that exists at this time. But if there is something we have not discovered yet, say something that redefines our perception of what "round" is then it could be false.

It either is or it isn't. What we know about it has no bearing on whether it's true or false.

Borror0 I believe stated that those are facts that we agree on in a framework of understanding. I think I'm understanding both of of your points but please correct me if I misunderstood.

If "fact" means "something we all know and is within our common framework of understanding," then of course a fact is something we all know and is within our common framework of understanding. It's tautological. If "fact" is "something which exists," then it's existence is independent of out knowledge, with or without a common framework of understanding.

This all started when Borror0 wrote (and he can correct me if I'm getting this wrong, as I am not trying to deliberately misrepresent what he wrote) that, under the right circumstances, its possible for the statement "The Earth is round" to be an opinion. I said it's not possible for that statement to ever be an opinion because it is demonstrably true or false. Opinions, as clarified to mean "personal preference opinions" as opposed to the "scientific opinions" (since opinions about DDO are pretty much all opinions of the "personal preference" type), are not demonstrably true or false. Scientific opinions are demonstrably true or false, but it seemed pointless to be discussing scientific opinions when we're talking about a subject about which almost any opinion will be the personal preference type. Of course, the discussion spiraled from there.

[bobbryan2]

Epistemological arguments tend to be a waste of time....for both sides.

That would be true if I ever entered a conversation with Bran expecting him to see the light. Nah, I just engage in this conversation because it interests me.

As an interesting point though... It's rare to meet someone that actually defines his point... DEFINES his point as the ultimate truth.

And doesn't see anything wrong with that.

[branmakmuffin]

No, bran, it is not. It's the only meaningful use of the word.

It's the only meaningful use of the word "fact" because it comports with your position. "Something which exists" is also a definition of the word "fact," or do you simply discard it because it does not help you?

For example, if you or I were to say "It's fact!" would we mean that it is an unquestionable truth or do we mean that this is we, humans, knows to the best of our knowledge and that new arguments are needed to challenge that idea?

Words have multiple meanings. One clue as to which meaning is meant is given by context. Are you implying that if the word "fact" means one thing in one context, it means the same thing in all contexts? In the context of this discussion, I say "fact" means "something which exists," which is one definition of "fact." You choose to ignore that definition.

That would be true if I ever entered a conversation with Bran expecting him to see the light

And of course you have seen the light.

It's rare to meet someone that actually defines his point... DEFINES his point as the ultimate truth.

And doesn't see anything wrong with that.

I smell irony.

[bobbryan2]

It's the only meaningful use of the word "fact" because it comports with your position. "Something which exists" is also a definition of the word "fact," or do you simply discard it because it does not help you?

Right... you're going to chastise him for saying he's using the definition that comports with his position...

after you defined science in your argument as "all that is infallible and true."

[Emili]

As Da had told me time and again...

"I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken."

[bobbryan2]

I smell irony.

Please point out where I ever said science and religion (either one) were ultimate truth. I might believe I'm right. But that's a different matter entirely. I know you believe you're right. I didn't know that the starting point for your argument was that your point was infallible.

Bit of a difference there. I expect every person arguing a position believes their right. That's why the disclaimer, "i'm just playing devil's advocate here" is so widespread.

[branmakmuffin]

Right... you're going to chastise him for saying he's using the definition that comports with his position...

after you defined science in your argument as "all that is infallible and true."

I was up front about what I meant by "science." He is choosing to ignore a common definition of the word "fact" because it undermines his position.

See the difference?

[bobbryan2]

I was up front about what I meant by "science." He is choosing to ignore a common definition of the word "fact" because it undermines his position.

See the difference?

Wait.. are you saying you weren't choosing to ignore a common definition of the word "science" because it undermined your position?

I'm confused.

[Borror0]

You choose to ignore that definition.

I ignore it because it is not a meaningful definition.

But fine, I'll play your game. If we consider your definition of fact as the meaning of the word fact in the sentence "It's a fact!" that sentence would express one's opinion because that sentence is not a fact, if we are using your definition of fact, unless you are pretentious enough to assume you can disprove every other possibilities.

[Krago]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krago
So the facts or truth is that there are laws of physics that govern the universe we live in, but we as humans may or may not interpret those laws correctly. But those laws are the truth, whether we as humans get those laws correct.

That sounds pretty good.

Religion is based upon some supernatural power(s) that govern the universe and have laid the groundwork for us to live by to reach our chosen paradise. These "rules" are written in our holy books, now whether they were written correctly, or understood completely is why there are numerous religions to date. Since no one seems to know exactly how those rules are suppose to apply, we accept what is written now as the truth, whether correct or not.

How is my interpretation of your definition different than religion. We both agree that there is some set of rules that govern us that we do not fully understand but some call it physics, others call it religion.

[Krago]

I can see Bran's point of view on his definition of fact.

Fact: Gravity exists

Not-Fact: Gravity is measured at 9.8 m/s^2.

But I am basing my assumption on his definition of science though as well. Feel free to correct me Bran.

[bobbryan2]

I can see Bran's point of view on his definition of fact.

Fact: Gravity exists

Not-Fact: Gravity is measured at 9.8 m/s^2.

But I am basing my assumption on his definition of science though as well. Feel free to correct me Bran.

Well.. it's not even that clearcut. Gravity may or may not exist either. In reality, what we think of as gravity might be something as off the wall as 'low pressure areas push into high pressure areas' or something that seems as equally preposterous now.

The point is... Bran is saying science is truth. Whatever is 'really' going on is science. In short... science isn't the pursuit of truth... it actually IS the truth.

And for the record, yes... you could make the exact same arguments with religion.

In reality.. science isn't truth. religion isn't truth. Both are just pursuits of truth.

[Borror0]

Fact: Gravity exists.

The natural phenomenon that is referred to by gravity affects or day to day life. If we want to consider it, though, is left to our discretion.

Disclaimer: Expect your life to be way more challenging if you ignore the existence of we we call "gravity".

[Obmi]

You guys are ridiculous ! Is it possible to squelch peeps on the forums? Is there a prize for most overall meaningless "posts" ? Sheesh maneesh already.....