My OPINION

[bobbryan2]

i came here for an argument, this is just contridction

No it isn't

[Borror0]

No, facts are not decided by consensus, unless you're saying that the Earth was flat until Archimedes (or whoever it was) proved it was round.

If the entire population of the Earth voted "The Earth is flat," that wouldn't make the Earth flat, although it might mean people would behave as if the Earth were flat. But that's not the same thing.

To view something as a fact, you have to view it as a fact. In other words, you have to proceed the information with your brain and analyze the validity/plausibility of that information to be truth. If you come to the conclusion that this proves the existence of something, you will view it as a fact. This means that you made the judgment yourself on whether or not this was a 'fact'. Common sense might agree that one thing is a fact or that one isn't, but common sense does not make it true.

Our analysis can be biased. One example of this is TAG, also known as the Transcendental argument for the existence of God. To some, this is the proof that God exists. To others, it's circular reasoning or begging the question. No matter what is believed, we can disagree on if an argument is an opinion or a 'fact'.

No matter what is currently known, it is what it is. If the Earth is round and I believe it's flat, it still is round. If there is a god and I believe there is no God, there still is a God. If evolution is really how life came to be, but I don't believe in it, evolution still remains how life came to be. Not believing in something does not make it false, but likewise believing that something has been proved by facts does not make it true unless you work within a framework, which is my point.

Another last example, where it might be more obvious. In the English criminal laws, one is innocent until proved guilty. This means evidences have to be brought up for one to be proved guilty. This means that human beings have to recognize elements as facts. A witness can be accepted or rejected, depending on how credible that person is. Either way, you have to conclude: either that person lies or is telling the truth. You have to analyze and judge. DNA is viewed as viable because we feel we can trust the data, etc.

We make a judgment on whether or not we view something as truth.

At the very least, we believe we can rely on our senses.

[Vardak]

This thread really delivers. I guess that would be my opinion anyway.

[Kistilan]

This thread really delivers. I guess that would be my opinion anyway.

I believe the forum elites needed to get their J-stomping on. Silly forum elites....

Notice all were attracted... few did not deliver what the OPs expectations were. Epic success.

[Kistilan]

Wrong.

Edit; Holy ****, didnt realise this nightmare had gone on for 7 pages!

Wrong!

We're on 8 pages. FACT!

(now I've made an obligatory forum elite post -- thanks for the opportunity, OP)

[ShaeNightbird]

*Munches another handful of popcorn and settles in to watch*

[Grond]

You guys make me laugh.

seriously.

It doesnt take much to point out flaws in others, but I implore you to find a mirror and use your own sharp wit and rhetoric on yourself.

Most would accuse the mirror of being WRONG, blame the manufacturer, then make posts on the manufacturer's website claiming doom for mirrors unless they were remade immediately to make the poster look better...

[GlassCannon]

WRONG!!

Wait... what was the topic again??

<Insert meaningless and heavily skewed opinion here, backed by fake numbers and fuzzy math>

<Insert random smileyface>

<Insert picture of kittens with cupcakes dancing the conga in an Olive Garden restaurant on the tabletops with empty Wineglasses nearby>

[branmakmuffin]

To view something as a fact, you have to view it as a fact.

Not quite. You must be a "when a tree falls in the forest and no one is near to hear it, it does not make any noise" type.

Our analysis can be biased. One example of this is TAG, also known as the Transcendental argument for the existence of God. To some, this is the proof that God exists. To others, it's circular reasoning or begging the question. No matter what is believed, we can disagree on if an argument is an opinion or a 'fact'. If the Earth is round and I believe it's flat, it still is round. If there is a god and I believe there is no God, there still is a God.

More disnigenuousness and attempts to divert. The latter is not demonstrably true or false, and never can and never will be, therefore is opinion, of the "personal preference" type. The former is demonstrably true of false. Science does not lie. People lie (including to themselves).

Another last example, where it might be more obvious. In the English criminal laws, one is innocent until proved guilty. This means evidences have to be brought up for one to be proved guilty. This means that human beings have to recognize elements as facts. A witness can be accepted or rejected, depending on how credible that person is. Either way, you have to conclude: either that person lies or is telling the truth. You have to analyze and judge. DNA is viewed as viable because we feel we can trust the data, etc.

I figured you might bring this up. Conviction in court means the person was found legally culpable for the deed. It does not prove he or she did the deed. Therefore, guilt in court is still a matter of opinion, never demonstrably true or false.

[Samadhi]

Not quite. You must be a "when a tree falls in the forest and no one is near to hear it, it does not make any noise" type.

Broad generalizations FTW!!!

[Borror0]

Not quite. You must be a "when a tree falls in the forest and no one is near to hear it, it does not make any noise" type.

No, because I recognize as a fact that when a tree fall, it makes sound.

Science does not lie.

Wrong. Science does not care about truth, it cares about results. Science does not lie in the context of science, but out of it, yes, it can "lie" as much as it wants.

You seem to want to separate science from everything else. To say something science says is true, it requires a non-scientific criteria. Science does not tell you "evolution is how life came to be", nor does it tell you "the Earth is round". We do that. That's what we conclude. Science tells us how to get results. Science gives us more of what we want, not the truth.

[bobbryan2]

More disnigenuousness and attempts to divert. The latter is not demonstrably true or false, and never can and never will be, therefore is opinion, of the "personal preference" type. The former is demonstrably true of false. Science does not lie. People lie (including to themselves).

Science definitely lies. I'm a science man too... but saying that science doesn't lie is silly. Do I have to show you all the times prevailing science has been wrong?

It's sorta like this... I'm a logic person. Yet there is no way to use logic to prove logic is right in every imaginable circumstance. The belief in the power of logic is a faith. Similarly, there is no way to prove that science is, will be, or has been right about everything. That belief is also a faith.

[branmakmuffin]

Science definitely lies. I'm a science man too... but saying that science doesn't lie is silly. Do I have to show you all the times prevailing science has been wrong?

You're serious? People can be wrong about science, but science cannot be wrong.

I can't even believe you wrote what you wrote.

It's sorta like this... I'm a logic person. Yet there is no way to use logic to prove logic is right in every imaginable circumstance. The belief in the power of logic is a faith. Similarly, there is no way to prove that science is, will be, or has been right about everything. That belief is also a faith.

If you think science and logic require faith, then you're not a "science man" or a "logic person," despite what you claim.

Wrong. Science does not care about truth

Then that would make me right, not wrong.

Science gives us more of what we want, not the truth.

You, and bobbyan2," seem to be confusing "the scientific truths of the universe" with "our knowledge of the scientific truths of the universe."

[Garth_of_Sarlona]

No, because I recognize as a fact that when a tree fall, it makes sound.

In space, nobody hears trees fall.

Garth

[branmakmuffin]

In space, nobody hears trees fall.

They would if they got close enough. And took off their space helmets.

[Samadhi]

science Definitely Lies. I'm A Science Man Too... But Saying That Science Doesn't Lie Is Silly. Do I Have To Show You All The Times Prevailing Science Has Been Wrong?

It's Sorta Like This... I'm A Logic Person. Yet There Is No Way To Use Logic To Prove Logic Is Right In Every Imaginable Circumstance. The Belief In The Power Of Logic Is A Faith. Similarly, There Is No Way To Prove That Science Is, Will Be, Or Has Been Right About Everything. That Belief Is Also A Faith.

Qft

[bobbryan2]

If you think science and logic require faith, then you're not a "science man" or a "logic person," despite what you claim.

Oh trust me... I am.

I also understand the limits of logic... and I'm a logic man because I truly believe in logic. But make no mistake... there's no real difference between a belief in logic and a belief in God. One has slightly more observable and circumstantial evidence... but that's even in the eye of the beholder. A true god believer sees god's influence everywhere as well.

But... if you're intent on believing that belief in logic isn't faith. Do this for me.

Prove logic is right.

[Borror0]

If you think science and logic require faith, then you're not a "science man" or a "logic person," despite what you claim.

Prove me logic then.

Then that would make me right, not wrong.

You, and bobbyan2," seem to be confusing "the scientific truths of the universe" with "our knowledge of the scientific truths of the universe."

Wrong.

Let me remind you how this started:

Borror0: Without common ground, it is possible to say that "the Earth is round" is an opinion.
branmakmuffin: Wrong. Anything which is demonstrably true or false is not opinion.

If you admit the distinction between what you call the scientific truths of the universe" and what you call "our knowledge of the scientific truths of the universe" that you just conceded my point. You have to build everything on a common ground. I will agree that "The Earth is round" is scientifically consistent. However, to say it is true it's not scientific. That would be assuming we possess ultimate on the knowledge, which is an opinion and unscientific.

By making a distinction, you acknowledge the existence of the common ground.

[branmakmuffin]

Oh trust me... I am.

I don't need to trust you. Your statements reveal all.

Prove logic is right.

The old "prove it" ploy. That's like saying "prove math works." Give me one example in the area of science (not human behavior) where logic does not work.

Let me remind you how this started:

Borror0: Without common ground, it is possible to say that "the Earth is round" is an opinion.
branmakmuffin: Wrong. Anything which is demonstrably true or false is not opinion.

If you admit the distinction between what you call the scientific truths of the universe" and what you call "our knowledge of the scientific truths of the universe" that you just conceded my point.

Hardly, but it's yet another disingenuous rhetorical technique for you to state such. Let's keep this simple: is it demonstrably true or false that the Earth is round? I'll go ahead and answer that for you: yes. Therefore, the shape of the Earth is never subject to one's opinion. Even back in ye olden tymes, when people thought the Earth rode on the back of a giant turtle, the Earth was a giant ball floating in space. People may have behaved as if the Earth rode on the back of a giant turtle, but that didn't make it so.

You and bobbyran2 need to get clear on the difference between the "personal preference" type of opinion and the "scientific conjecture" type of opinion.

[bobbryan2]

I don't need to trust you. Your statements reveal all.


The old "prove it" ploy. That's like saying "prove math works." Give me one example in the area of science (not human behavior) where logic does not work.

That's observational and circumstantial evidence.

A mathematical or logical proof is only true if it works for every possible contingency.

The problem with logic is that you can't prove logic WITH logic... as that would be a complete contradiction.

The belief in math is also a faith. All of my mathematician friends realize this. Sure... it hasn't been wrong yet. But you can't prove it won't ever be wrong.