What is a fact?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Incorporeal, Jan 7, 2012.

  1. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course there is a small degree of error when making any measurment. That error is reported when reporting results. 5.01 degrees C (+/- 0.02) or some such thing.

    The point is that the Freezing point of water is independing of the measuring device.

    The freezing point of the water itself does not change .. it is only the error in the measurement that changes.

    The freezing point of water does not change given the same experimental conditions. All experimental conditions leave room for a certain degree of experimantal error. The freezing point of water does not deviate to a degree greater than the error.
     
  2. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is wrong and has been proven wrong. You even stated that the measurment of the freezing point of water was independent of the measuring stick (thermometer).

    It does not matter that the numbers on the thermometer were chosen on an arbitrary basis.

    The fact that the numbers on a thermometer were chosen arbitrarily does not make the measurment results using a thermometer arbitrary.
     
  3. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,645
    Likes Received:
    2,059
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes.

    It demonstrates that you claim to believe the bible is true.

    A "fact" is simply an assertion that may be true or false. The truth of a fact is demonstrated by the body of evidence proving or disproving it.

    In your statement the only assertion made is "you believe." This is a fact. There is no evidence to prove or disprove the assertion therefore the "truth" of the fact is not known.
     
  4. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    My statement itself is the proof of the 'truth'. If you don't believe me (this body), just ask me (this body) and I (this body) will gladly tell you that I (this body) have spoken the 'truth'. If you still don't believe me (this body), then it is up to you to prove that I (this body) have not spoken the 'truth'. This body stands as a witness (evidence) to the 'truth'. Use the infamous polygraph test. Surely you could depend on your scientific equipment to determine the 'truth'? http://davidacamp.com/?p=15
     
  5. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What has been proven wrong? Are you declaring that your current posting is wrong?

    And your point? Because all measuring sticks are using arbitrary numbers that are arbitrarily placed on that 'stick' ?

    There you go admitting again, that the numbers are arbitrary. You are only pulling more dirt upon you while you are already stuck in that hole.

    What else, other than arbitrary numbers, can be produced by a 'stick' that uses 'arbitrary numbers'?
     
  6. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Math, Chemistry, Physics, Geology .. most of the technology in the world .. and so on.

    Duuuhhhhoooppphhhhhh
     
  7. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh good .. anyone spouting any nonsense is truth by your definition.

    I doubt you would pass a polygraph test.
     
  8. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    Of course it can. That's how folks determine what the error should be. And correct the error later when more folks conduct the experiment under the same conditions and find a different variance. It's even how what we believe to be the freezing point of water changed as we began to understand more about not just our instruments, not just the world around the experiment, but the nature of water itself.

    Yes a longer, narrower thermometer will lead to different results. As will conducting the experiment at a higher altitude (different air pressure) or different distance from the sun (gravity has a role too) or in a seemingly identical but different tube (microscopic variations in the surface of the glass allowing seed crystals to form more readily). But as time progressed we found that there are different purities of water, and those different mixtures have different melting and freezing points. Recently study has shown that water, even in simulation and theoretically pure beyond our ability to experience it in a lab, has a varying melting point depending on the isotopic composition of it's component hydrogen.

    Look, I understand what you're saying. You believe that for a perfect sample of absolutely pure water at exactly the same air pressure, gravity, and made of the same number and type of hydrogen and oxygen atoms... you believe you can predict the exact energy necessary to cause that sample to fully crystallize from a liquid to a solid in whatever container you have at hand. Setting aside chaos theory, many might agree with you. It might even be true. But it hasn't been proven yet. I'm not sure it can be.

    Many people believe science is about knowing truth, understanding the things casting shadows into Plato's cave. I think our guessing at the nature of the universe, our conducting experiment to disprove some of those guesses, and our subsequent relying on the guesses we don't disprove (until we do disprove them) is less about capturing truth and more about avoiding untrue things. Science is very humbling, in that all good scientists must first concede that anything they know may be proven wrong -- as a necessary part of the scientific process.

    And no, I'm not defending the claim that a person's belief changes the outcome of an experiment. Although it might affect their ability to observe, interpret, or conclude consistently with other observers which is why keeping a truly open mind is essential to good science.
     
  9. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Make the arrangements. Let's find out. Now you see how really concerned I am about your opinions.

    My "definition"? Not hardly.
    "truth (trth)
    n. pl. truths (trz, trths)
    1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
    2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
    3. Sincerity; integrity.
    4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
    5.
    a. Reality; actuality.
    b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence."

    Not my 'definition' or my 'definitions'.
     
  10. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Now you are promoting the concept that Math, Chemistry, Physics, Geology ..." are all products of 'arbitrary' numbers? Interesting. That would make the results of those named items also arbitrary due to their dependence upon 'arbitrary numbers'.
     
  11. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    Nope. You can name something arbitrarily, that doesn't mean it's action is arbitrary.

    I can hold a stick up, you can arbitrarily measure it in cubits and call it 2.1, I can measure it in cm and call it 97, my neighbor can measure it (more precisely) in cm and call it 96.6. That a cubit is arbitrarily about 46 cm or that a cm is arbitrarily about 0.022 cubits doesn't change the length of the stick or make it's length random.
     
  12. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    By picking the numbers out of thin air, they become arbitrary, regardless of what label you place upon them such as cm or cubit or inch or meter. It is the numbers that are arbitrary... as well as the name,,, but it is the arbitrary numbers which is being discussed.

    What is the fundamental unit of linear measure? Regardless of what you name that fundamental unit, the unit of measure must have assigned numbers attached to it. Where did those numbers come from? Why were those particular numbers chosen? How do those numbers relate to reality?
     
  13. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    If your goal is to know how long something is, then all you and the person who are measuring it need to do is arbitrarily agree upon some reproducible measure to use. The same is true when you want to communicate that length. The unit itself is no more important than what taxi cab you take to the airport. You still get to the airport, you still understand the length, regardless of which vehicle you arbitrarily take.
     
  14. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ahh ... Like looking out the window or in the freezer to see if the water is frozen? Reproducible in every circumstance. If the water is frozen, the water is frozen, then both methods allows one to know that the temperature that is affecting that water has reached a minimum or lower point necessary to cause that water to become frozen.

    However, regardless of what you have stated above in your comments, you have not explained what the fundamental unit of linear measure is, nor have you answered the other questions pertaining to those numbers assigned to that fundamental unit of linear measure. If 'agreement' is all that is necessary to establish a 'standard' of measure: then those standards have been made in the form of secular laws, to which everyone would be required to adhere to if they (those people affected by such laws) intend to stay within the jurisdiction and compliance of those laws. Otherwise, even those laws are arbitrary to those that do not desire to stay within such jurisdiction or in compliance to those laws.
     
  15. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    The standards are arbitrary created, as is the counting system that might be employed with it. Their value is in their reproducibility and general acceptance. You can use 1, 2, 3 to count off meters or blue, red, green to count off cubits ... you just need to be sure the person with whom you are attempting to communicate understands both the units and counting system you arbitrarily chose. Otherwise when you announce "it's green cubits!" no one will have a clue what you mean.

    ... and no, you are not required to comply with any given system of measures (the metric system has been proof of that). But neither will you have much luck communicating a measurement until you do.
     
  16. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,645
    Likes Received:
    2,059
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is a logical fallacy.

    The phrase contains no proof to support the claim that "you believe."

    The phrase is the logical equivalent to "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." or "we know where they are" which themselves were later proven false.

    BTW: I do not doubt your belief which is irrelevant to the question. The assertion, the "fact" as stated is not supported by evidence of your belief.
     
  17. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Then you ultimately admit that it is all arbitrary and is dependent upon agreement? Admitting that it is all arbitrary and dependent upon agreement only strengthens my position, as there is no PROOF of the absolute nature of those arbitrary measures that will be acceptable to all other persons viewing the object being measured with those arbitrary standards.

    You are still evading the questions pertaining to the development of those measuring systems. Where, how, when, why those systems were developed? Though you have admitted that they are arbitrary.
     
  18. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    PROVE that it is in error.

    Sure it does. It contains my statement of 'truth'. Now prove my statement to be in error.

    So, as you admit above, there was a later PROOF offered, then PROVE my statement false or to be in error.

    A statement of 'truth' is not a 'truth'? Then prove my statement to be a non-truth.
     
  19. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    Yes, while there is some logic to all measuring systems ultimately a numbering system or a system of units is arbitrary. Just like language. As to who developed each, the answer depends on each. I doubt I know how all all of them were arrived at or why that question matters.

    It's not necessary or likely that we will all agree upon a single standard of measurement (again, the metric system is a good example). It's just those who choose to cling to systems not accepted by most will have a more difficult time communicating measurements.

    Also be carefull how you use arbitrary. I think you're confusing yourself in using the word. Just because a yard stick is arbitrarily chosen to a meter stick, doesn't mean the length measured with it is less reliable or reproducible.
     
  20. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The answer matters in the same way that some people discount the Bible.. Why? Because, as those others would say.... 'it (the Bible) was written by man.' So also were the manufacture of such devices as is presently being discussed.... they are all products of the mind of man... all subjective and all arbitrary when it comes down to the final PROOF.

    What you have stated above results in those things being reduced to a matter of 'belief'. So why would one belief be greater than another belief? Why would one be required to 'believe' in the same manner as another?

    "Yardstick" is the term of choice that was first used in this thread by another poster: I have simply continued using that terminology to keep things in context to that suggested choice of terms. Again, you are seemingly confusing the topic of discussion in context to the 'yard stick'. The stick or the name assigned to the stick is irrelevant,,, it is the numbers that are placed on that stick (by any associated name) that is the subject.
     
  21. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So call them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; or i, ii, iii, iv, v; or brown, red, orange, yellow, green... again whatever numbering system you choose is irrelevant too. All those symbols represent is some count of smaller sticks that make up the big one. What you call "four" sticks may be arbitrary, what it represents is not.



    That something was written by man -- whether it's the Bible, Doonesbury, or the periodic table -- isn't reason to question it's representation of reality. More than the author's sex needs to be considered.



    ... and no, no one is requiring you to believe in the freezing point of water or the golden rule. You're free to choose to ignore each. Some of the greatest discoveries in science have come from disbelieving established facts, but then so have some of the greatest tragedies in human history.

    The Bible includes revealing stories and insightful truths about human nature. (Doonesbury is also a good resource.) You can also believe that Jesus found an exception to the temperature at which water acts like a solid when he went for his famous walk, or you can rely on the Merck index for the boiling point of water.

    I'm not going to tell you which 'belief' system is greater than another. Like Bruce Lee's approach to martial arts, wisdom may be found in considering them all and keeping what's you find to be most useful. I believe the Bible is valuable and worth contemplating when facing many problems, I think Merck is more useful in other ones.
     
  22. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What part of my former statement did you not understand?
    As for your use of the word "represents" should send you a convincing message that when using something that is 'representative', that you are not using the thing represented.




    Preach that message to the atheists and other non-theists on this forum. As for your little 'sex needs' comment.... totally irrelevant, off-topic, and nothing more than a distraction.


    Preach that to the poster who is constantly returning to that dead dog in this thread.

    Again, a matter of personal or individual choice, therefore subjective.


    To each his/her own according to their individual beliefs. I just love it when all boils back down to belief.
     
  23. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don't feel a need to. If they're using the same argument as you, I've already responded to it.




    *shrug* Maybe. I think more accurately, it comes down to what works. Again, I won't tell you what to believe or not believe. Neither will I fish you out of the water if you go for a walk in July and find the freezing point of water is not what you believe.

    But if you do find yourself walking proudly on water, well... then I'll be happy to listen to why you believe it worked.
     
  24. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63



    All language is representative. That doesn't mean it's unreliable or that what it means is random.
    "Truth has nothing to do with words. Truth can be likened to the bright moon in the sky. Words, in this case, can be likened to a finger. The finger can point to the moon's location. However, the finger is not the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger, right?"​
     
  25. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48

    Reference source for your quotation?
     

Share This Page