Except for a few possible tell-tales, the sun can indeed be seen as a case of Schrödinger's cat at night. That's a fact.
Good post. I took the time to look up that Schrodingers cat thing. I like what it portrays and I also believe it would be relative to the topic of this thread. Thank you for that little piece of information.
Reminder: "fact (fkt) n. 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy. 2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact. b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case. c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts. 3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact. 4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact."
Who is brave enough to face the reality of the definition highlighted in red letter below? Surely there has to be some brave people on this forum.
Who has asked for such a characterization? I have only inquired about "What is a fact?" Your question is irrelevant, as it does not address "What is" in regard to the subject "fact", unless of course you are suggesting that all 'facts' are merely 'human concepts' which would destroy all scientific theories, as they also were products of 'human concepts'.
No you haven't. I don't need to only recall in my mind what you inquired about, I can see it quite clearly a couple of posts up. Your inquiry was, "who is brave enough to face the reality of the definition highlighted in red letter below?"
Tell me something. If it is bravery to tackle the section in red, what is it to avoid everything that comes before it? While you ponder that, I'll do the brave tackling. This is exactly the same argument as the evidence thread. An individual can call whatever convinces them of something evidence, and they can call whatever they are convinced of a fact. That's all fine and good. The problem is when another party has to consider the same information. If they are not convinced in the same way as the first party, then the item is not evidence to the second. If the item in question is not believed to be true or real or known not to be true or real, then that item is not a fact to the second party no matter how much the first party believes it is or should be. Wait though, the second party may be the wrong one and the first one right, or a hundred people who share the same view of something being evidence or fact may be wrong while the one person who does not agree may be right. Maybe group wisdom is the best course and the majority is right over the minority. How do we tell? The same thing I said about evidence, I will say here as well. You need to have your claims be able to be verified somehow before anyone besides you calls them evidence or facts. Are there exceptions to this rule? Of course. You can't corroborate your story with someone elses if only one of you was witness to something. Experts in their field hold more sway on items from their field and so on. When not dealing with exceptions, the ability to verify a claim is the single best standard when it comes to labeling something evidence or a fact.
Numbers. 75.9% of the population of the United States is self-proclaimed Christians. That figure above does not include the other varieties of 'Theists' here in the United States. If you, as one of those that chooses to not believe the testimony of those that do, and those that do, also believe as they do, then it becomes your burden to 'convince' those that do believe that their belief is wrong. That is why the experts,,, the ones who wrote and published the dictionary included in the definition, the allowance of a belief to be a "fact" and why the testimony of a Theist to be 'evidence' as spoken of in the OT. Learn the language. BTW: Answer to your first question: BRAVERY. A person can be required more bravery in avoiding a needless argument when there are more important issues at hand. BRAVERY is one of those 'subjective' things that I love so much. My use of the term 'brave', served its purpose, thus proving another teaching from the Bible, that when the word goes forth, it accomplishes the task which it was sent out to accomplish. Thanks for affording the evidence of that Bible truth.
From the top: You want Christians, solely because they are the majority, to be able to claim anything without having to back it up and further, it is a fact until one of the minority disproves it. The answer is still no. The dictionary entry for fact does not say beliefs equal facts. The example given for your selective choice even states that something that is believed to be true can be a mistaken fact. Further, you have stated you had the testimonial of an expert thrown out for using the term belief. By what you're trying to pull here, the next person can just say they don't believe in it and it stops being a fact even if it's actually true or actually happened, just because it's no longer believed to be true. To what you want here, the answer is still no. Just because someone professes a belief in some aspect of religion does not increase the value of their testimony above anyone elses. If bravery is avoiding unnecessary arguments, these semantic threads of yours speak to the opposite of bravery. They're quite unnecessary.
Well, that is a nice assumption you have made, but I must remind you that you were the one who brought up the subject which engendered my mention of numbers. Please be more original. Also quit posting material that encourages immediate off-topic subjects. That is correct in the context that you speak: The definition actually says in that definition: "Something believed to be true or real:" If something is 'believed', then that something has become a 'belief'. Like I said... learn the language. Absolutely. It does state that "a document laced with mistaken facts." I also notice your alteration of that example by your addition of the 'can be'. That is OK. Now, in order for that 'mistaken' aspect of the document to be validated, PROOF has to be provided to form such validation. Without that PROOF of the document containing 'mistaken facts',,,,, the document contains 'valid facts'. My reason for offering to Shiva-td the information necessary to obtain that case file, was to show proof of my claim. The reason it was offered to Shiva was due to the fact that the information is confidential (under the secular laws) and would require the release of the REAL names of the people involved. Your comment "By what you are trying to pull here..." is indicative of a slur against my character, which is a personal attack. Who said that such testimony would increase the value of one testimony above the other? That comment above is the epitome of opinion and also speaks in violation of the TOS... discrediting a thread. "14. Off Topic Posts, Trolling, Metaposts and Thread Disruption: While a certain amount of natural ‘topic drift’, particularly on longer threads, is inevitable the golden rule is IF YOU DON’T WANT TO DISCUSS THE TOPIC, DON’T POST IN THE THREAD! Posts which are ‘Off Topic’ posts, 'Trolling' posts, ‘Metaposts’ (e.g. ‘This thread is rubbish’ or ‘Fail Thread’, or chronically pointless posts (e.g. multiple posts with the same meaning, posts using excessive amounts of blank space, irrelevant or oversized text, etc.) may be deleted without notice. Chronic violations of this rule that in the opinion of the moderators would lead to thread destruction, disruption or derailment of the thread can result in warnings, infractions, thread bans and/or eventual banning from Political Forum. (10/08/2011)
From the top: No assumption on my part. That was exactly your position clarified and stated plainly. I gave you no reason to post that bit about numbers. You did that all on your own. If my post is on-topic and violates no rule, I'll post what I please, thank you. Again, your subdefinition of fact about 'something believed to be true or real' only applies to the person holding that belief. Just because you believe something doesn't make it a fact to anyone except you, in exactly the same way that not believing something to be true does not make it false to anyone but you. The bridge you are trying to manufacture where beliefs become evidence or fact for anyone aside from the individual is you attempting to abuse the language by obfuscation. You want a fact to be valid? Validate it. The one making the claim is responsible for backing it up. Actually 'what you are trying to pull here' was a reference to your attempted language abuse, which is a valid assessment of nearly the sum total of your efforts in this thread and the ones that resemble it. When I referred to that case that was for Shiva's approval, it was to show the incompatibility of your points from post to post. You went from saying that beliefs should be allowed to be used as evidence and fact to this case where an expert witness' testimony was tossed for the word belief, and back again. That's a huge gap in consistency right there. Considering I was already given a final warning pages back, if I had actually violated TOS I probably would have gotten the boot from the thread if not the site by now. But enough about me...
The assumption: "You want Christians, solely because they are the majority, to be able to claim anything without having to back it up and further, it is a fact until one of the minority disproves it." Where is the FACT to support your assumption of what I 'want'? The reason you gave which engendered my use of numbers: I have no problem with your comment, as long as your post is on topic and is not making personal attacks or is not attempting to demean the thread in which you are posting said comments. And your point is what? OK. OK Where did I stipulate that the 'fact' would be a 'fact' for anyone else? You are making presumptions again. By definition, the 'something' that I believe is a 'fact'. If you wish to challenge that 'fact', then it is up to you to invalidate that fact. What, specifically, am I 'trying to pull here'? Show proof of your claim that I am either attempting to pull or that I am pulling something. Absolutely. The court requires that professionals use what you and others would call objective or empirical evidence... NOT beliefs.
What are you trying to pull? You know very well what. I've already pointed it out. Quote: You want Christians,solely because they are the majority, to be able to claim anything without having to back it up and further, it is a fact until one of the minority disproves it. In other words you have been trying to shift the burden of proof for religious claims on to the people who don't accept them and away from the people who make the claims. You've been trying to do that here, and in the 'what is truth' thread and in the 'religious meaning of evidence' thread. It's the same game in all three and I didn't just pull it out of thin air. These are your exact words, trying to utilize the argumentum ad populum fallacy again: You say I prompted this response. This is not true either. You quote mined me and responded to what you wanted to instead of what was actually said. Here's what was actually said, with what you chose to respond to boldened:
Occasionally, I will pull back on the mouse of my computer to cause the pointer to move in a specific direction. Other than that, I am not pulling anything. What have you pointed out that I am pulling? What did you point out? Wrong. One thread deals with the subject of 'fact', another deals with 'truth' and the last deals with "the religious meaning of 'evidence'". Three different threads; three different topics. Yes, the bold text is what I responded to. You brought up the subject of numbers as a factor in the remainder of your posting. So where did I do something wrong?
You're asking what I meant by you trying to pull something. I have told you twice already and you actually quoted what it was right after asking. Your three threads are exactly the same design, for exactly the same purpose only behind different terms, which truth be told are not so different at all. I did not bring up the 'subject of numbers' by mentioning the word numbers.
At the highlighted text: No! you did not in the referenced posting, mention the word 'number' You mentioned 'hundreds' and 'one'. Translated, that would be 100's and 1. You still have not stated what "it" is. To say that the three threads are for the same purpose is an error in judgment on your part. Especially when the purpose of each is explained in the OP.
The number thing was you taking my example out of context. The subject was not numbers. It was about why verification is important, whether the 100 or the 1 is correct. The explanation for each does not translate into the execution of each, and 'religious meaning of evidencem was an outright loaded question.
Are those numbers, numbers? If yes, then the subject of numbers was brought up by you. As for the "loaded question" notion..... That is your notion stated as an expression of your opinion. Not necessarily factual. deal with it.
You quote mined me and manufactured a numbers topic. There was no 'subject of numbers' before you did so and your inability to show it wasn't a loaded question shows me how on the mark I was.
Yes, I quote mined from your own writing about numbers. However, I would not have been able to quote mine any such topic if you had not introduced that topic as a comparison. Not a truthful statement on your part. I have already linked to and highlighted that topic that you introduced as a comparison... That is irrefutable evidence that you manufactured the topic of numbers. Your inability to that my question was a 'loaded question' "shows me how on the mark I" am.
