Skepticism!

[Dejarma]

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The problem lies in what you consider proof

there's no problem for me- or any other logical thinking person, mate! what are you on about!?

the word 'consideration" doesn't come into it when talking about facts= you don't get it, do ya...

again (forget the words consideration/ feelings/ beliefs etc etc) ====give me a fact? what is fact?

Australia is real... the continent exists- fact? yes or no?

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, Podo said:

Yeah but we didn't do it, so clearly it did take too much imagination. Roundness of the Earth is not a new piece of knowledge, but we certainly didn't know it 10k years ago.

And you know that how?  Can I be skeptical of this assumption?  15th century European peasants and the Catholic church might have thought of flatness with edges, some of the Greeks knew better.  Maybe our spiral and circle drawing hunter gatherer ancestors knew better too. I have no facts to determine whether they did or not. 

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I wouldn't even try. I would sooner try to convince a rock that it was a sparrow. To willfully and deliberately reject facts because they conflict with your beliefs enables one to create false premises to explain away reality. To put it bluntly, as my mother used to say: "Never argue with an idiot, people won't be able to tell the difference."

I am not implying that your wife is an idiot, but rather that once people have decided to accept BS as an explanation, they will not be swayed by logic or facts.

 

I accept those facts BECAUSE they are facts, not because I have "faith" in them.  Please Walker, do not adopt will due's M.O. of twisting statements to mean their opposite. It doesn't suit you.

It is true that  belief is more powerful than knowledge or facts My wife is neither dumb nor stupid. She has a life built around a central core, that defines who she is and how she behaves  To remove the central plank of that  life would be to destroy her whole life and existence 

And YET, you also  are looing out from within your own paradigm of belief, and can not see around, or past, it.

You insist  that your "facts" are indisputable ( to me they are theoretically challengable, but i accept them, on faith, as best the  fit, most logical and reasonable explanation,  so i am an evolutionist )

Sorry, but you cannot KNOW  how old the  earth is,  you can only accept, on faith, the evidences provided by others and trust that they are not lieing, mislead,  or wrong.

Don't worry. I do the same but at least i know, recognise, and am honest, about how and why  i accept this explanation it makes sense, is coherent, and fits what i can observe of the world  its a better answer than an omnipotent  omniscient god creating everything,

  IMO  God is an evolved product of the universe just as you and i am.   

[Mr Walker]

8 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

there's no problem for me- or any other logical thinking person, mate! what are you on about!?

the word 'consideration" doesn't come into it when talking about facts= you don't get it, do ya...

again (forget the words consideration/ feelings/ beliefs etc etc) ====give me a fact? what is fact?

Australia is real... the continent exists- fact? yes or no?

Yep 

"I am hungry"

Fact? yes or no? 

You know when you are hungry, It is not a belief, but knowledge, and a fact,   You have internal evidences for your hunger 

BUT, you cannot prove that you are hungry, to anyone else.

To take it further.

I had a piece of flat bread with margarine, avocado promite and sliced cheese, for breakfast at approx 11 am today

Is that true? 

yes. 

Is it a fact ? 

yes

Can it be demonstrated to be true to anyone else ? NO. Not now after the event. 

so.  Many facts exist which can never, are never, demonstrated to others They only need to be CAPABLE of being proven true in order to be a fact.

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

Did Einstein test Newton's facts?

Or did he test facts that were not known yet?

He tested Newton's facts and found them wanting in some cases.

Facts that are not known yet are in the category of ideas that have not yet been put in our model and linked to facts we do know. There is a lot we don't know, for a skeptic the slow and painful way to find out things we don't know is to examine what we do know and look for consistency and links.  Same with the idea of  god.  It is not a fact until we can prove it is a fact, until then it is a belief or an idea.

 

[Dejarma]

6 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Yep 

"I am hungry"

Fact? yes or no? 

You know when you are hungry, It is not a belief, but knowledge and a fact,   You have internal evidences for your hunger 

BUT, you cannot prove that you are hungry, to anyone else.

 

well that's not a fact then, is it!!! like i said:

you do not know the real meaning of the word: 'FACT' i rest my case

[Mr Walker]

7 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

well that's not a fact then, is it!!! like i said:

you do not know the real meaning of the word: 'FACT' i rest my case

Ah ha then you ARE arguing that you cannot KNOW for a fact  the condition of your own mind or body  

Nup It is not me that doesn't understand  the nature of a fact 

You are arguing that  you cannot know, for a fact,  when you are feeling cold, or hungry, or tired, or happy, or sad, or angry.  

yes i know they can be subjective feelings, but our body has evidences by which it can recognise their objective existence in our mind and body 

 A fact does not have to have TRANSFERABLE proofs and evidences, to be a,fact it can be a fact if you have internal  proofs and evidences that it is true.

You do not have to be able to prove to me what you ate for breakfast to know for a fact wht you ate   

 

It must be strange never KNOWING when you are hungry (or happy or sad ) never knowing the truth  of your internal existences.    

 

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Dejarma]

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

Ah ha then you ARE arguing that you cannot KNOW for a fact  the condition of your own mind or body  

Nup It is not me that doesn't understand  the nature of a fact 

You are arguing that  you cannot know, for a fact,  when you are feeling cold, or hungry, or tired, or happy, or sad, or angry.  

yes i know they can be subjective feelings, but our body has evidences by which it can recognise their objective existence in our mind and body 

 A fact does not have to have TRANSFERABLE proofs and evidences, to be a,fact it can be a fact if you have internal  proofs and evidences that it is true.

You do not have to be able to prove to me what you ate for breakfast to know for a fact wht you ate   

 

 

right now as you read this=== give me a fact

[Mr Walker]

4 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

right now as you read this=== give me a fact

I am 67 years old.

I am enjoying this debate

You got two (or 3 if you include this )  for the price of one  

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Dejarma]

Just now, Mr Walker said:

I am 67 years old.

 

 

you say you're 67 years old=== that IS NOT a fact!!!!

Australia exists, it's real===== fact

my watch strap is made of black leather==== NOT a fact!!

can you see the difference? 

[Will Due]

11 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

He tested Newton's facts and found them wanting in some cases.

Facts that are not known yet are in the category of ideas that have not yet been put in our model and linked to facts we do know. There is a lot we don't know, for a skeptic the slow and painful way to find out things we don't know is to examine what we do know and look for consistency and links.  Same with the idea of  god.  It is not a fact until we can prove it is a fact, until then it is a belief or an idea.

 

 

Not until the fact of true religion is personally experienced, can there ever be any proof of God.

That's the difference between skepticism and faith. 

One has to do with ideas based on facts, while the other is a revelation founded on experience. 

 

 

[Jodie.Lynne]

4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

One has to do with ideas based on facts, while the other is a revelation founded on experience. make believe  

I fixed your typo for you.

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I fixed your typo for you.

 

This is the only thing left.

 

 

[Mr Walker]

8 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

you say you're 67 years old=== that IS NOT a fact!!!!

Australia exists, it's real===== fact

my watch strap is made of black leather==== NOT a fact!!

can you see the difference? 

NUP There is no difference in the nature of such statements   I just see that you have no idea what the word fact means or refers to.

My age is as true and real as the existence of Australia. I can prove it to be true  The statement about your watch is a  statement of fact because it can be proven to be true Or false.

Would you mind explaining what you see the word fact as meaning and referring to?  i think you must have a very limited and restricted view on what constitutes a fact.   

[Dejarma]

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

The statement about your watch is a  statement of fact because it can be proven to be true Or false.

brilliant reply-- thanks for that- just what i was hoping for...

NOW, how can i prove to you my watch strap is black? if i turned the table & asked you the same question:

how would you prove to me that your watch strap is black? this is fascinating== seriously, i'm not joking

[Mr Walker]

8 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

brilliant reply-- thanks for that- just what i was hoping for...

NOW, how can i prove to you my watch strap is black? if i turned the table & asked you the same question:

how would you prove to me that your watch strap is black? this is fascinating== seriously, i'm not joking

lol That is MY point and argument. You do not have to be able to prove  to me that your watch strap is black The fact that it is capable of being proven makes it a fact 

Something is not a fact based on it being proven but upon its abilty to be proven true. 

I must  take your word for it or not, but YOU KNOW the truth, because it is knowable.

Now if you said your watch is pretty , that would NOT be a fact because it is a subjective opinion 

This is different to you knowing you are hungry, which is a measurable biological feeling Yes hunger is a subjective feeling but the feeling exists and is recognisable  from its symptoms So if you say you are  feeling hungry, that is a statement of fact about a subjective feeling.

In other words, you do not BELIEVE you are hungry, you KNOW you are hungry 

Yet, you  cannot prove this to anyone else,  because it is an internal fact or truth 

One person can NEVER prove to another person that something is real or true unless or until the second person has shared the same experience. So if i see your watch on your hand and it has a black band i will KNOW your watch (or at least one of them ) has a black band

All non personal- experience based  knowledge, is actually belief based on faith in thee source  We call it " justified true belief" and use it as IF it was knowldge, but it is not.

So i KNOW Australia exists but i can only have a justified true belief that, for example, England , exists.   I mean i can be almost positive that it does, but until I see it for myself, i cant know for sure     

Edited December 1, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Dejarma]

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

lol That is MY point and argument. You do not have to be able to prove  to me that your watch strap is black The fact that it is capable of being proven makes it a fact 

Something is not a fact based on it being proven but upon its abilty to be proven true. 

I must  take your word for it or not, but YOU KNOW the truth, because it is knowable.

Now if you said your watch is pretty , that would NOT be a fact because it is a subjective opinion 

This is different to you knowing you are hungry, which is a measurable biological feeling Yes hunger is a subjective feeling but the feeling exists and is recognisable  from its symptoms So if you say you are  feeling hungry that is a statement of fact about a subjective feeling.

In other words, you do not BELIEVE you are hungry, you KNOW you are hungry 

Yet, you  cannot prove this to anyone else,  because it is an internal fact or truth     

you didn't answer the question

 

[Mr Walker]

2 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

you didn't answer the question

 

Hopefully the bit i was still adding has done so,  but basically, I do not have to be able to prove something to you, for it to be  a  fact.  It just has to be something that could theoretically be proven using evidences  Just one person can have knowledge and know truth  For example very few men know truly what it is like to walk on the moon's surface. No one knows what it will be like to stand on the surface of mars, but the first person to do so will know for a fact.  

[Dejarma]

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I do not have to be able to prove something to you, for it to be  a  fact

it has nothing to do with proving anything!! a fact is a fact, period!!!

humour me here please= can you do me the honour of answering a very basic question:

does Australia exist, is it real= yes or no?

[danydandan]

Guys this has gone miles off topic. It your not going to discuss skepticism specifically b***** off. 

I asked a simple question, I'd rather not turn this into a MrWalker vs the World Thread. If it continues I'll ask for it to be shut down. 

All I asked was a simple enough question, what does skepticism mean to you. 

[XenoFish]

3 hours ago, danydandan said:

Guys this has gone miles off topic. It your not going to discuss skepticism specifically b***** off. 

I asked a simple question, I'd rather not turn this into a MrWalker vs the World Thread. If it continues I'll ask for it to be shut down. 

All I asked was a simple enough question, what does skepticism mean to you. 

Skepticism means to question. Might be a good idea to get this shut down. You know the Walker discussion won't stop.

[eight bits]

15 hours ago, Will Due said:

So in a court of law when new facts enter into the logical conclusion of guilt or innocence, there isn't anything to implement on appeal because "what difference does it make"?

Funny that you'd bring up law courts. In the "English" systems (e.g. UK, US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, ,,,), law courts are practically temples of skepticism. The burden of proof is not some metaphor - if you want a court to change the status quo, then you damned well prove to its satisfaction that that change is a good idea. And prove means with evidence, and the courts are picky about what evidence is "clean" enough for you to use. Good luck with unsupported hearsay (which pretty much puts your lot out of business, doesn't it?). Oh, and if any of the witnesses is caught trimming the truth a bit (speaking of putting your lot out of business), then that witness just might end up in jail.

And since you mention the appellate level, what happens there varies from country to country, even within the "English" systems. Here in the US, there is a strong presumption that the trial court's findings were valid. (So, you see a lot of appeals based on procedural questions, that the trial court didn't follow its own rules, compared with only a few based on "new evidence."). Oh, and if the finding at trial was that a criminal defendant was not guilty (there is no "innocent" verdict, that is beyond the competence of any court, maybe any human being, to judge about somebody else), then the state has no appeal at all. New facts? Like the murder weapon wrapped in a signed confession along with the victim's left ear, tossed onto the judge's bench? You said it exactly:

there isn't anything to implement on appeal because "what difference does it make"?

That is the rule against double jeopardy. You not only have to prove your case, but if you don't, you don't get to keep bringing up the same claim over and over. In free discussion, we're much more forgiving than that, 'cause if we weren't, yet again, your lot would be out of business.

Thanks for the pointer.

 

[Will Due]

50 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Funny that you'd bring up law courts. In the "English" systems (e.g. UK, US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, ,,,), law courts are practically temples of skepticism. The burden of proof is not some metaphor - if you want a court to change the status quo, then you damned well prove to its satisfaction that that change is a good idea. And prove means with evidence, and the courts are picky about what evidence is "clean" enough for you to use. Good luck with unsupported hearsay (which pretty much puts your lot out of business, doesn't it?). Oh, and if any of the witnesses is caught trimming the truth a bit (speaking of putting your lot out of business), then that witness just might end up in jail.

And since you mention the appellate level, what happens there varies from country to country, even within the "English" systems. Here in the US, there is a strong presumption that the trial court's findings were valid. (So, you see a lot of appeals based on procedural questions, that the trial court didn't follow its own rules, compared with only a few based on "new evidence."). Oh, and if the finding at trial was that a criminal defendant was not guilty (there is no "innocent" verdict, that is beyond the competence of any court, maybe any human being, to judge about somebody else), then the state has no appeal at all. New facts? Like the murder weapon wrapped in a signed confession along with the victim's left ear, tossed onto the judge's bench? You said it exactly:

there isn't anything to implement on appeal because "what difference does it make"?

That is the rule against double jeopardy. You not only have to prove your case, but if you don't, you don't get to keep bringing up the same claim over and over. In free discussion, we're much more forgiving than that, 'cause if we weren't, yet again, your lot would be out of business.

Thanks for the pointer.

 

 

So what skepticism means to some is that in order to know what's true about any given thing is only determinable on the facts already known at the time to the exclusion of any facts yet to become known in the future because "what difference does it make."

 

 

[+joc]

21 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

As a spokesperson for what the OP probably labels a 'believer'....I use the best analysis of the  evidence and argumentation in forming my views on everything.....I do not use blind faith at any point as a believer is held to do. 

Sounds like a huge contradiction pg.  What is it that you 'believe' without using blind faith?  God? Aliens? Ghosts?  

Basically I am skeptical about any claim made that goes against the Laws of Physics.  Consider the universe as infinite (even though it isn't) ....  the Laws of Physics apply throughout it all.  If the truth of  That  is Universal...wouldn't  That  then be the actual Law of God? (if there were such a thing)

I only form my views according to whether it is Reality based.

 

[eight bits]

14 minutes ago, Will Due said:

So what skepticism means to some is that in order to know what's true about any given thing is only determinable on the facts already known at the time to the exclusion of any facts yet to become known in the future because "what difference does it make."

I think you're losing sight of why the rules are what they are, in the situation which you yourself brought up.

Legal action is about BOTH what the facts are AND what to do about them, here and now. If there is nothing that can be done about the facts, then indeed, in your fortune-cookie-timeless words, "what difference does it make?" Like many other folks, courts are busy, and there are other factual situations about which something can be done. That may not be "skepticism," but it is wisdom.

The legal arena isn't going to be a winner for you. If for no other reason, then yes, the point of a lawsuit is to be decisive, to act on the best estimate of what's true based on what facts are known at the current time, and then move on.

The more usual situation for the skeptic is in some ways the opposite: of course, act on the best estimate of what's true based on what facts are known at the time, but if more facts arrive, then use them to know more and act better next time. Oh, and while you're waiting, don't mix rational expectation with hope (e.g. God is a friend whom we haven't met yet, and we're gonna live forever with him, our loved ones, and all things bright and beautiful, unless when we meet him, he sends us to Hell).