Absolute Fact / Universal Truth

[Yar-El]

And your rebuttal is based on a lack of understanding the difference between a fact and a model.

 

All of your examples are models of understanding. None of them are facts.

 

"That bird is black" is a fact. "All birds are black" is a model which can be altered by the introduction of new facts, such as the observation of a bird which is not black.

 

So again, can someone please provide an example of a time where a fact was not a fact.

Well Achilles. I don't know what to say. People are proving you wrong, and your creating a string of exceptions. Civilizations believed those listed above to be factually true. They were not models of understanding at the time. I sense we have hit a wall. Its been a good conversation, and thank you for keeping it civil. I don't see how we can continue when exceptions are being made. Facts are not absolute from where I sit; thus, they always change when new tools for taking measurements are developed. Nothing modern man has developed is absolute. Thanks Achilles.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Well Achilles. I don't know what to say. People are proving you wrong, and your creating a string of exceptions. Civilizations believed those listed above to be factually true. They were not models of understanding at the time. I sense we have hit a wall. Its been a good conversation, and thank you for keeping it civil. I don't see how we can continue when exceptions are being made. Facts are not absolute from where I sit; thus, they always change when new tools for taking measurements are developed. Nothing modern man has developed is absolute. Thanks Achilles.

only none of the things you mentioned were proven via empirical evidence or were never considered facts~

[Achilles]

Well Achilles. I don't know what to say. People are proving you wrong, and your creating a string of exceptions.

I'm simply pointing out that what you think a fact is and what a fact actually is are not the same thing.

 

I've invited you to provide a single example to support the claim that facts are not always facts, and you've yet to do so.

 

Civilizations believed those listed above to be factually true.

No doubt, but I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China. Building bad models based on facts is an argument against the unreliability of bad models, not of facts themselves.

 

The sun still appears to go around the earth even though our understanding of the cosmos allows us to know that the opposite it true. The fact it appears this way didn't change because we got a better model. The model got better because we made better observations.

 

They were not models of understanding at the time.

Of course they were. The people that believed that the sun went around the earth absolutely accepted that this was understood to be true. Doesn't mean that it was.

 

I sense we have hit a wall. Its been a good conversation, and thank you for keeping it civil. I don't see how we can continue when exceptions are being made.

No exception was asked for. I only set the requirement that we keep apples in the apple cart and oranges in the orange cart. Your argument that apples and oranges are indistinguishable from one another is the impasse.

 

Facts are not absolute from where I sit;

Your LF alias is "Yar-El". True or false? Fact or not-fact?

 

Please let me know where you see the grey matter in this example. Because I don't see any.

 

...thus, they always change when new tools for taking measurements are developed.

No, the models do. Usually when new facts are discovered.

 

Nothing modern man has developed is absolute.

Moving the goalpost. This isn't a discussion the "absolute nature of man's creations". It's a discussion as to whether or not facts exist. Please try to keep it on-topic.

 

Thanks Achilles.

My pleasure.

[Darth InSidious]

(5) Earth is hollow.

Care to source that?

(6) King Tut is an actual god.

Please don't talk about things you clearly know nothing about. Unless you would like to regale us with your vast knowledge of the netjeru and their relationship with the netjer nefer?

(10) Gods control the weather.

Actually, approx. 2bn people still believe that. cf: The Fifth Way.

Modern day human facts are not absolute.

Define 'absolute', 'fact', 'modern', and non-human facts, kthx.

 

So again, can someone please provide an example of a time where a fact was not a fact.

That sounds like a challenge.

 

How about the 'fact' that burning releases the phlogiston in a substance?

[Yar-El]

My curiosity couldn't resist this -

 

Moving the goalpost. This isn't a discussion the "absolute nature of man's creations". It's a discussion as to whether or not facts exist. Please try to keep it on-topic.

This subject was spawned from my original statement. I wasn't the one who moved the goalpost. All of my replys focused on man created facts not being absolute. I mentioned that line several times; therfore, I wasn't talking about is there a absolute truth to the universe? You can check back even to the previous thread.

[Achilles]

That sounds like a challenge.

 

How about the 'fact' that burning releases the phlogiston in a substance?

This one?

 

The phlogiston theory <snip>, first stated in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher, is an obsolete scientific theory that posited the existence of, in addition to the classical four elements of the Greeks, an additional fire-like element called “phlogiston” that was contained within combustible bodies, and released during combustion. The theory was an attempt to explain oxidation processes such as combustion and the rusting of metals.

Emphasis added.

 

Sounds more like a hypothesis (proposed model of understanding) to me.

 

All of my replys focused on man created facts not being absolute.

What is a "man-created fact"? I strongly suspect that whatever your response is, it will look strikingly similar to a model and bare almost no resemblance to a fact.

[Q]

How about the 'fact' that burning releases the phlogiston in a substance?

Yeah, luminiferous aether and phlogiston are two of my favorites.

[Yar-El]

What is a "man-created fact"? I strongly suspect that whatever your response is, it will look strikingly similar to a model...

I process information on both the left and right side of my brain; thus, you are correct in saying my answer is one of philosophy and science. It would be excessively complex; however, my resolution couldn't be tested by any current system. My answer contains literature, history, sciences, and religion.

 

I will stop at this point. Thanks again Achilles.

[Achilles]

Okay see you bye bye

[Adavardes]

Let me pose a question to you, Achilles. Have you ever considered that, throughout this entire debate, your styles and etiquettes of debating might not be correct? That you may be wrong in how you are approaching this entire discussion, and that, as a human being, you've made a mistake, and that your reasoning, logic, and concepts of what is real, and what isn't real, could be incorrect? They could be correct, but don't they have the possibility of being incorrect? And that the labels, concepts, and absolutes your laying down might not be true, because they might not be real, and your mind is convincing you that a figment of your imagination is, in fact, real? That just because someone else confirms what you believe is real doesn't mean that it couldn't be due to a form of mass-suggestion, or something to that effect?

 

"That bird is black."

 

Are you absolutely sure that the bird exists, and is black? Are you positively sure? Can you tell me that you have never been wrong about anything, and cannot be wrong about anything, so, by logical conclusion, absolutely cannot be wrong about this?

 

I highly, HIGHLY doubt it. And that's what this is really about. Nobody can know absolutes, and even my saying that, my saying everything I have said in this thread, just as everything you have said in this thread, is possibly wrong. And possibly right. But we can't really know. So we speculate, and that's as much as we can do.

 

[/thread]

[EnderWiggin]

Well Achilles. I don't know what to say. People are proving you wrong, and your creating a string of exceptions.

 

False.

 

Please don't talk about things you clearly know nothing about. Unless you would like to regale us with your vast knowledge of the netjeru and their relationship with the netjer nefer?

 

Leave it to the egyptologist

 

This subject was spawned from my original statement. I wasn't the one who moved the goalpost. All of my replys focused on man created facts not being absolute. I mentioned that line several times; therfore, I wasn't talking about is there a absolute truth to the universe? You can check back even to the previous thread.

1. Yes, you did 'move the goalpost.'

2. Even if your replies focused on 'man created facts not being absolute' that's not the topic in the slightest. As I'm the OP here, I'd kindly ask you to keep to my original statement, or step off and create your own thread.

3. The previous thread has no bearing on this thread.

 

I process information on both the left and right side of my brain; thus, you are correct in saying my answer is one of philosophy and science. It would be excessively complex; however, my resolution couldn't be tested by any current system. My answer contains literature, history, sciences, and religion.

 

What the ****?

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

Let me pose a question to you, Achilles. Have you ever considered that, throughout this entire debate, your styles and etiquettes of debating might not be correct?

"Correct" compared to what?

 

That you may be wrong in how you are approaching this entire discussion, and that, as a human being, you've made a mistake, and that your reasoning, logic, and concepts of what is real, and what isn't real, could be incorrect?

Of course it is possible. The question is: why would I think so?

 

Logically inconsistent argument that eat themselves upon arrival aren't going to give me pause, let alone cause me to second guess my position.

 

They could be correct, but don't they have the possibility of being incorrect?

And how would we determine "correctness" vs. "incorrectness"? Via reason? And if I found my arguments to be reasonable and you failed to produce any arguments that would make me think otherwise, which of us would be closer to "correct"?

 

And that the labels, concepts, and absolutes your laying down might not be true, because they might not be real, and your mind is convincing you that a figment of your imagination is, in fact, real?

Sophism

 

That just because someone else confirms what you believe is real doesn't mean that it couldn't be due to a form of mass-suggestion, or something to that effect?

And then what? Since gravity could be my mind playing tricks on me, I might as well just walk off the side of a building? How far are you willing to take your own example. I believe Avery offered another earlier involving a plastic bag.

 

Are you absolutely sure that the bird exists, and is black?

No. It's the Matrix telling me that the steak is thick and juicy. You win.

 

Are you positively sure? Can you tell me that you have never been wrong about anything, and cannot be wrong about anything, so, by logical conclusion, absolutely cannot be wrong about this?

I hate answering questions with questions, but...

 

Have you ever confused a bird for a doorknob? Ever accidentally mistaken the color pink for the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard?

 

What kind of special qualification do you believe are necessary to be able to look at an organism and be able to determine it's species and color?

 

I highly, HIGHLY doubt it. And that's what this is really about. Nobody can know absolutes,

Your statement is an absolute and your are claiming to know it. *poof* your argument eats itself again. You fail. Sorry.

 

and even my saying that, my saying everything I have said in this thread, just as everything you have said in this thread, is possibly wrong. And possibly right.

Yes, that's very deep. I'm very impressed with how enlightened you are. Good job.

 

But we can't really know. So we speculate, and that's as much as we can do.

I'll be more than happy to PM you some things you can try at home to test this world-view of yours. Just let me know if you're interested.

[Adavardes]

It's like trying to talk to a brick wall.

[Achilles]

You have no idea.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

It's like trying to talk to a brick wall.

how can you be sure the brick wall exists?

[Q]

It's like trying to talk to a brick wall.

I can assure you that if Achilles is wrong and knows it, he admits it. He's just very rarely wrong, and he is not wrong in this case.

how can you be sure the brick wall exists?

I think I just wet myself.

[Achilles]

It's not possible since you can't prove "wet" really exists. PROVE ME WRONG!

[Adavardes]

I can assure you that if Achilles is wrong and knows it, he admits it. He's just very rarely wrong, and he is not wrong in this case.

 

Sure.

[Jae Onasi]

We have received no less than 8 reports on this thread in the last 48 hours. Time for a break while jonathan7 and I deal with all this crap.