posted 02-05-2003 14:03         

You are having the argument with the wrong person as to whether believing something makes it a fact.

The last time I checked on the use of dictionaries they are “or” documents, not “and” documents. That is, if there are three meanings listed against a word, then the word means any of those three. It does not mean it has to mean all three of those definitions.

Dorian “disbelief makes it NOT a fact”, by the dictionary definition you are correct. Such is the limitation of the English language. But more particularly such is the limitation of dealing with facts which are finite and governed by the laws of matter and human perception. If you took a group of blind scientists, how would you demonstrate the color of a flower to be a fact. You could not, as the group being referenced does not have that perception. To the blind people, colored flowers would not be a fact as it could not be demonstrated and therefore they would not believe. This does not alter the fact, only demonstrates that groups inability to perceive.

Blind people are a good example of people to whom beliefs are based on facts provided by others with additional perceptions.

Peter,

You cannot be selective in your quoting from the dictionary, for your analysis to be complete it needs to address all meanings stated against the word.

Further, you have failed to address the fundamental question. You state “a FACT is something that can be demonstrated to exist.”, I have asked you on numerous occasions, in both this thread and others, as to how something is to be demonstrated, and to who’s satisfaction. Your position is that something can be demonstrated to one groups satisfaction and thereby becomes a fact, but if is not to a criteria that you or another group applies, then it is not a fact to anyone. Whereas you really mean that it is not a fact to yourself. Ask any child under 7 years only if they can see aura’s, it would appear on the evidence that to this group of people, aura’s, and elementals for that matter, are facts. You inability to perceive, does not alter its existence or the facts.

This is a subject that you have failed to address adequately. Calling people names and casting dispersions on their abilities does not substitute for your inadequacies to correctly present your case, it only highlights them.

Now Peter, with respect to facts and proof, I note yet again that when required to produce some definitive proof, you deftly dodge the issue and hope nobody picks you up on the detail. In my posting to you I challenged you to prove something. I refresh your memory;

quote:

---

You've said, several times in fact, that I don't understand the spiritual side of things

---

posted 02-06-2003 08:35         

Yea i thought it was a good article too. My main thing on bigfoot etc. is that we havent searched our world well enough. There are places things could exist, at least new species of small mammals. We find 100s of new species of insects per day.

------------------
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." ~Chinese Proverb~

posted 02-09-2003 18:34         

------------------
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." ~Chinese Proverb~

posted 02-09-2003 22:55         

No. Many people do believe it. But believing is not the same as knowing.

posted 02-10-2003 21:04         

Peace.
Love.
Light.

posted 02-10-2003 21:33         

Heh. Can I be a priest? I'll open up the first church of Dorian.

But my Lord, may this worm humbly suggest that we ask the faithful to tithe 15% instead of the measley 10% the Catholics ask?

As your priest I feel it would greater serve your glory if I were to drive a Lamborghini. I bet I could really burn the popemobile....

posted 02-10-2003 22:17         

Make it a 2-year experimental wildlife management program.

Tally number of actual 'Bigfoot' harvested in year one.

Tally number of kill tags sold in year two...

------------------
Nothing cool ever happens on this god-forsaken rock.

posted 02-10-2003 22:21         

I'll have the #3, cut the tomatoes.

Peace.
Love.
Light.

posted 02-10-2003 23:18         

Belief and fact are interconnected. Without belief, a fact cannot exist.

So if you believe something to be true then to you it is a fact. But what we are really dealing with is the wider perception of reality, what we are really saying is that for something to be a fact it has to be believed by all in the group. So then we arrive at two problems, how do we demonstrate something to the satisfaction of the group? and how big is the group?

posted 02-11-2003 10:28         

You're digging a hole. A fact is something which can be demonstrated to exist. There is a reason why "fact" and "belief" are two different words.

posted 02-11-2003 15:00         

quote:

---

Without belief, a fact cannot exist.

---

Uhhhmmmm......no.

The earth exists. That is a fact. Did people have to believe the earth existed before it became a fact? Uhhhmmmmm......no.

And I would be one of those people who bought a license to kill bigfeet but would never bring one in.

For if bigfeet did exist I would never shoot one because for them to go so long without being detected means there are very few left.

posted 02-11-2003 18:36         

quote:

---

Dorian, “Prove I am not”. No you see the burden of proof rests with you, as you have stated your belief, which makes it a fact to yourself, but you now need to demonstrate it to the satisfaction of the group, and therein lays the problem.

---

That brings up the point I continuously try to make, which is, if you make a claim, you have to prove it. Other people don't have to disprove it.

Having said that, Oneferu, you have given me the proof by saying that believing something makes it a fact. If I believe that I am a god, that makes it a fact, according to you. Are you now refuting what you said?

posted 02-11-2003 21:04         

Peace.
Tough Love.
Light.

posted 02-12-2003 12:09         

I’ve had this discussion before with you and you fail to grasp the point. No doubt because it doesn’t suit you.

A word means any of the meanings listed in the dictionary. I pointed this out to you once before, and you conveniently overlooked responding.

A quote from the dictionary;

quote:

---

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.

---

posted 02-12-2003 12:13         

I’m note refuting anything. What I am saying is that for a fact to exist there must be belief. You believe you a re a god and that makes it a fact, but only to you until, as Peter correctly states, it is demonstrated on a wide scale. Then we arrive back at the old problem to demonstrated to whom and how. How do you demonstrate to those who don’t have the perception. As god you may choose to demonstrate by creating a new galaxy, not much good if I cannot see it.

Don’t forget that this started when I stated that Big Foot, Yeti, Yowie etc. are manifestations of earth sprits. Peter complained I was stating things as fact. To me it is a fact, I have had it demonstrated to my satisfaction. I simply pass on the information for others to investigate. If others don’t what to take it as a fact that is fine, but there will be those who take up the thread of information and undertake their own investigation, and perhaps eventually determining a means of demonstrating it as a fact to a broader audience. I thought that was what this forum was about.

Go and ask an American Indian, one close to nature, what Big Foot is.

Crazy Legs

posted 02-12-2003 06:18         

Christ - waaaake up, you're intellectually lagging. This is grade 5 stuff!

When one is speaking in a scientific enviornment where the presentation of evidence is paramount, a fact is something which can be demonstrated to be true. The same holds true in a court of law.

Evidence can be subjective. Facts cannot.

posted 02-12-2003 11:40         

1. C-14 results date the pyramid to the Old Kingdom.

2. Quarry marks attribute the pyramid to Khufu, which include a Horus Name that was not understood at the time of discovery.

3. Khufu's family and nobles are buried in areas surrounding his pyramid.

4. Classical historians all attribute the pyramid to Khufu.

5. A piece of the pyramid's causeway was found with Khufu's cartouche.

posted 02-12-2003 11:41         

What is the earliest date for Homo Sapien Sapien in North America? Funny, we just had a debate about this in class last week.

posted 02-12-2003 12:45         

I am quite sure that on THIS word, scientists and laypeople don't have two different meanings.

My own definition would say that a fact is something that is absolutely true. Not true to some, not true upon verification, not true upon discovery, but absolutely true.
2+2=4 is an example. You can change the symbols, change the language, you can be cavemen who don't know anything about math, but this is absolutely true. And it didn't need to be verified to be so.

Having said that, it is obvious from reading this forum and from being an earthling that facts are completely subjective. And that sucks. There is no way to know if something you believe is absolutely true. even if it has been true for thousands of years, it may not be true tomorrow. Conspiracy theorists have one thing right - instilling doubt makes people unsure of the truth. Establishment and/or conventional wisdom says THIS, outsiders, conspiracists and paranoids say THAT, and the rest must either believe one side or the other, or spend their lives looking for the truth on any given subject. The vast majority of people are not going to be willing to do that, because, you know, gotta eat and pay bills. So we are forced to look at sites, shows, books, magazines, etc., which are completely biased and slanted towards one side or another. This means that if we don't see the opposing view, we will go around all one-sided, unknowingly. Furthermore, we all must go around with the knowledge that no matter what we believe in most non-scientific areas, the majority of people on Earth hold a belief that is very different from our own, sometimes in opposition.

That's why I think that most things are very subjective. Even facts are largely subjective. History is written by winners. Everyone is coerced into believing what the most powerful believe, because of the consequences or perceived consequences. Which brings up a point: If you believe that Saddam kills his own people, what is stopping him or his minions from holding a gun on people and forcing them do demonstrate against America for the camera? Anyway, that is why Christianity is big in the west - the Pope was powerful. And why protestantism is big in America - America is powerful. And why Islam is big in the middle east and southeast Asia - those regimes and clerics are powerful.

posted 02-12-2003 14:13         

quote:

---

My own definition would say that a fact is something that is absolutely true. Not true to some, not true upon verification, not true upon discovery, but absolutely true.
2+2=4 is an example. You can change the symbols, change the language, you can be cavemen who don't know anything about math, but this is absolutely true. And it didn't need to be verified to be so.

---

While I understand what you said, and agree with the intent, your last sentence is false:
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51551.html

And that, I 'believe,' is only the 'short' version (I thought that the mathematical proof that "1 + 1 = 2" was the lengthiest proof, as it is the very foundation of mathematics - and I think that because 1) my high school? geometry teacher said so, and 2) that link uses the assumption that various postulates and definitions are a priori facts).

So, "1 + 1 = 2" must always be constantly verified. "IF" anyone can demonstrate (within the [human-defined] 'rules,' postulates, theorems, definitions, etc. of mathematics) that in some instance "1 + 1 not= 2," then "1 + 1 = 2" would not be absolutely true, and further, would mean that maybe it never was.

posted 02-12-2003 21:57         

quote:

---

When one is speaking in a scientific enviornment where the presentation of evidence is paramount, a fact is something which can be demonstrated to be true. The same holds true in a court of law. [QUOTE]
What is a scientific enviornment, or did you mean scientific environment? Come on Peter, looking up a dictionary to check your spelling is the most simple concept that even a child can understand. Anyway, what scientific environment are you referring to?
Still despite asking Christ to wake up and casting dispersions, I note you still don’t put forward an adequate argument.
There is nothing in the dictionary that states that facts have to be demonstrated scientifically, just demonstrated. That is a spin you have put on the subject.
[QUOTE]Evidence can be subjective. Facts cannot.

---

posted 02-12-2003 22:12         

We have been here before, note sure what it has to do with Big Foot.

I think the key statement is “evidence suggests”.

posted 02-12-2003 22:20         

That’s a pretty cool experiment isn’t it, you can also do it with fresh juice from a blender.

posted 02-13-2003 19:03         

Check out my posting dated posted 10-28-2002 04:51 on this page. http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000235-4.html