kagetora wrote:tzor wrote:To understand the importance of facts and faith: Imagine a blind man at a swimming pool. He goes to the diving board and climbs up the 15' ladder to the diving board. Once there he gets on the diving board. At this point he remembers that he didn't check the temperature of the water before he walked up. If indeed there is any water in the pool at all!
Now he had checked the water the previous day and the people at the facility generally maintain the facility quite well so he is confident that the water would not be too cold seeing that it wasn't too cold the other day, but it might have been possible someone drained the pool during the night.
Whether there is water in the pool is not per se a fact. There may be water in the pool or there may not be water in the pool. At this point he can't verify if there is water in the pool or not. Given the general evidence he could be confident in an assumption that there is water in the pool but that is hardly a "fact." There either is water in the pool or not, there is a fact we just don't know what that fact is. In the absence of solid proof some degree of faith must take over. That doesn't mean to say that if the person doesn't believe there is water in the pool and jumps off he will crash into an empy pool. (As juan implied by suggesting that if he doesn't believe in hell he can't go there.)
You are both wrong.
kagetora wrote:Look at my first point of what I consider a fact. It is irrevocably true.
A fact is a fact when one perceives it to be irrevocably true.
A fact to one person is not necessarily a fact to another.
The highlighted words, in particular are some of the most dangerous word on earth. You do not have the authority OR the right to change definitions to suit you. PARTICULARLY about what consititutes a fact!
A fact is INDISPUTABLE, PROVEN and REAL. If it is not, then it is NOT a fact, it is something else.
Tzor .. I am quite surprised. Usually you take great pains with your definitions. The story of the man who is blind is a discussion of perceptions, not facts.
Whether there is water in the pool is not per se a fact.
Wrong! There either IS or IS NOT water in the pool. Either way, it is a fact ...at least in this universe.
tzor wrote:Given the general evidence he could be confident in an assumption that there is water in the pool but that is hardly a "fact."
Correct, because now you are not discussing whether there actually IS water in the pool, but whether he KNOWS there is water in the pool. That is the difference. His perception does not change the reality.
tzor wrote:There either is water in the pool or not, there is a fact we just don't know what that fact is.
True, but this does not change the nature of a fact. All you are saying is that a blind man on the diving board cannot know the fact, cannot relay the fact without assistance. (say, asking someone who is not blind)
tzor wrote:In the absence of solid proof some degree of faith must take over.
Not quite. If someone jumps off a diving board without KNOWING what is below .. they are an idiot, not a person of faith.
Faith comes in when we have no choice. Faith comes in when there is no way to find the true answers elsewhere, OR when other circumstances mean we have no choice. If a man were behind him with a gun, he would probably take his chances that there was water in the pool, rather than face a sure bullet.
For someone who likes to nitpick, you should well know that these subtleties are EXTREMELY important.
A Fact is a fact is a fact is a fact and it is true.
The exception, which is not actually and excetion, is a definition. It is true because we define it so. As long as we define things the same way, then we have no issue. BUT, things change and definitions change through time. Then we lose language and understanding. Then we enter the tower of Babel, for real.
If you want to "play around" with definitions, then understand fully what is at stake. Nothing less than our ability to communicate and understand each other.
Just read through these forums and see how easy it is to misunderstand, to get a different idea from the same words. Some, such as Jay use this tool quite deliberately. If I call myself a Christian, for example, and use a different definition that his, I am wrong. The whole Creationist "debate" hinges largely upon false understandings and changes of definitions. This is why I say he represents lies and untruths. It is why I actually DO see great harm in his language and words and do not just sit by and "listen" to him blather on.
We have a choice. IN matters of faith, free individuals will, can and
should come to different ideas. As was noted in several other threads, different people have different experiences and just plain WILL come to different conclusions (you can argue about whether this is right, fair, etc. ...but it IS). (that is a fact, by-the-way, it WILL happen, does happen)
HOWEVER, when it comes to facts ... there IS little debate. The debate can only be on whether something actually IS a fact or not. Here is where things do get a bit tricky. Because, as much as those here like to postulate on everything in the world, the REAL truth is that you cannot be an expert, cannot know how to prove everything. At some point, you DO have to "trust" the experts. BUT, you do so cautiously.
The "system" is set up to have many, many checks. Journals, in general, are the "gold" standard for most fields. This
might be slightly more true in science, because the conepts in science get far removed from what everyday individuals learn in ways that history and studies of human psycology, etc. do not. Most of us, psycologist or not, for example, can
understand the basics of mental illness, of historical events, etc., but how many can really and truly understand why one complex polimer is better than another structurally? How many of us can really and truly understand how complex engines are made. And those are actually pretty "basic" ideas in their respective fields.
This is, by-the-way no denegration of the social sciences, history, etc. The expert in these fields has a greater knowledge of the various events, is able to put things together, to see the "big picture". In fact, much of it is as "blind" as "harder" science. Technology to date, for example. The difference, though, is that in many cases the person actually using the techniques, the machinary do not
necessarily have to understand how it works, they just have to konw it presents accurate data, understand its limits and so forth. Then, once someone puts together a history of Japan or Rome, average people can read and understand it much more readily than they could the workings of a nuclear power plant.
...things get confusing when you start theorizing about stuff that WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE OF).
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
