I've Come To Realize That "Facts" Don't Mean Much If A Person Refuses To Accept Them

by minimus 160 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Apognophos

  First of all, you can lay off the pejoratives anytime. Second, you are making random claims out of ignorance with zero evidence or knowledge to back it up.

  Huh?! Pejoratives? Random claims? You mean my assertion about not having proved scientific facts for yourselves? Well, I'm sorry if that was a false accusation... perhaps you can tell me what theories you have personally verified?

  Third, the example you used to show that personal experience can trump science.....yeah, knowing about electricity and how it can conduct through air is something you know thanks to science. IOW, you used science to attempt to prove that a personal experience you would only be able to understand THANKS to science can somehow trump science. You might want to try that one again.

  You missed my point, so let me state it more clearly. I wasn't using science to prove anything. My point was that what I felt (which I haven't described yet, but it was eerie), and how I felt it, was to my knowledge a unique experience. That is, regardless of how many people have actually experienced it, I've only heard of it happening to me. And yet I believe fervently that it happened; that it wasn't a dream or hallucination. I then mentioned that I was able to obtain a plausible scientific explanation about it, years later. In the meantime, I still believed it happened.

  My story was intended as a general reflection on how we all accept personal experience over science on a daily basis. Some people claim to follow science over personal experience, and perhaps that's because they've never had an experience that clearly conflicts with what they know from science, so I'm not calling anyone a liar (insensitive to others' experiences, yes, but liars, no).

  Rather, I'm simply encouraging all to consider the fact that science can't provide all the facts. I've seen nothing but agreement with this assertion from the other contributors here, because we all acknowledge that science isn't "complete" yet, that there's more to learn. Really, my statements shouldn't be considered controversial; I'm making a very basic argument here about the uncertainty of knowledge.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Well, I'm sorry if that was a false accusation... perhaps you can tell me what theories you have personally verified?

  Perhaps I could. In any event, the point is that were using pejoratives and speaking from ignorance. If you want to know something rather than make claims about things you can't possibly know, you can try asking nicely.

  You missed my point, so let me state it more clearly. I wasn't using science to prove anything. My point was that what I felt (which I haven't described yet, but it was eerie), and how I felt it, was to my knowledge a unique experience.

  I didn't miss your point in the least. I was pointing out the irony of you trying to prop up personal experience in a backhanded insult against science-minded people on the forum by pointing that, if it weren't for the very science you were backhanded, you wouldn't understand the personal experience which, btw, isn't unique. Linemen everywhere experience the buzz of electromagnetism. That phenonmena has been well understood for well over 100 years.
• 

  Gopher

  Apognophos:

  I'm simply encouraging all to consider the fact that science can't provide all the facts. I've seen nothing but agreement with this assertion from the other contributors here, because we all acknowledge that science isn't "complete" yet, that there's more to learn.

  In all likelihood, there are still unknown facts that science will uncover in the future. Certainly there is still more to learn. As Shelby/Aguest pointed out earlier, it was always a FACT that the earth is spherical. This wasn't confirmed by science until the 3rd century BC at the earliest and confirmed by actual circumnavigation of the globe much later. So the sure knowledge of that fact was yet future before it was confirmed as demonstrably true.

  Where we get into murky waters is when trying to frame things like assertions, personal experiences and strong beliefs as "facts". I don't know that we can call things "facts" if they cannot be scientifically verified. If they cannot be, then they must fall into some other category. (I'm speaking about universal facts, not facts of law or facts where you have to tell the truth about what did or didn't happen.)
• 

  mrsjones5

  "If what you believe is actually true,-- you don't need to believe it."

  -- Ron Smothermon --

  Beliefs are not facts. They're just beliefs. Nothing more, nothing less.
• 

  Apognophos

  Well, I'm sorry if that was a false accusation... perhaps you can tell me what theories you have personally verified?

  Perhaps I could. In any event, the point is that were using pejoratives and speaking from ignorance. If you want to know something rather than make claims about things you can't possibly know, you can try asking nicely.

  So, let me get this straight, you're so put out by my original assertion that now I have to apologize in order to hear your side of the argument? Sorry, man, it doesn't work that way. Just prove me wrong already and stop stalling. How long does it take one to get off a high horse, anyway?

  You missed my point, so let me state it more clearly. I wasn't using science to prove anything. My point was that what I felt (which I haven't described yet, but it was eerie), and how I felt it, was to my knowledge a unique experience.

  I didn't miss your point in the least. I was pointing out the irony of you trying to prop up personal experience in a backhanded insult against science-minded people on the forum by pointing that, if it weren't for the very science you were backhanded, you wouldn't understand the personal experience which, btw, isn't unique. Linemen everywhere experience the buzz of electromagnetism. That phenonmena has been well understood for well over 100 years.

  It wasn't anything like a "buzz" by any definition of that word. It was, as I indicated before, a sort of paralysis. I could only walk, not run, during the time I was underneath the lines. I was screaming at my body to move faster, and it wouldn't. This has never happened to me before or since. Now, whether science can explain that is so tangential to my point that I could have omitted mentioning the explanation at all and just said, "I have felt things that I would believe in regardless of science's ability to explain them." There's no irony there (if you think so, then I promise you that you missed my point).

  Where we get into murky waters is when trying to frame things like assertions, personal experiences and strong beliefs as "facts". I don't know that we can call things "facts" if they cannot be scientifically verified. If they cannot be, then they must fall into some other category. (I'm speaking about universal facts, not facts of law or facts where you have to tell the truth about what did or didn't happen.)

  Sure, I agree, although I wasn't trying to frame anything as a fact. My point was simply that people define "fact" differently (regardless of how hard we stab the dictionary definition with our forefinger), and that personal experience tends to trump abstract imparted knowledge in most peoples' minds. So, pretending to follow the only true definition of "fact", while excluding other peoples' "facts", can never lead to a fruitful debate or even a happy coexistence. I should know better than to think I can convince anyone to be less confident of their position, though; it's a fool's errand.
• 

  GromitSK

  Interesting comment Apognophos. My understanding is that science is based on observation, or a least repeated observation. So your experience isn't any less of a fact because only you experienced it, it isn't a fact necessarily for others though, would you agree?
• 

  Gopher

  people define "fact" differently (regardless of how hard we stab the dictionary definition with our forefinger), and that personal experience tends to trump abstract imparted knowledge in most peoples' minds.

  In line with the title of this thread, "facts" don't mean much if a person refuses to accept them. If people define the meaning of the word "fact" according to personal outlooks rather than according to some standard, then the meaning of the word gets lost.

  I would hope (maybe vainly in this era where everyone can publish their opinions to a worldwide audience and proclaim them "fact") that people can separate what is a standard fact from their personal experiences, thoughts, and beliefs.

  So, pretending to follow the only true definition of "fact", while excluding other peoples' "facts", can never lead to a fruitful debate or even a happy coexistence.

  I either don't understand or do not accept the concept of "other people's facts". If there is a standard provable fact, then two people, while they may describe it in different words, would not disagree on the substance of the fact. If the topic being discussed is controversial or is subject to a person's outlook, then in my humble opinion it really isn't a fact but a belief, viewpoint, outlook, etc. - which others may or may not choose to accept as valid.

  I should know better than to think I can convince anyone to be less confident of their position, though; it's a fool's errand.

  Admittedly I have come to this thread with a defined viewpoint of what a "fact" is. I do think it's important to distinguish facts from beliefs and interpretations. However I do not come here with an arrogance that only I can be right and there is never room for growth in my knowledge and outlook.

  I think we sharpen each other's viewpoints by proclaiming our ideas, putting them out here for discussion, and really listening to what each participant brings. It should be a rewarding experience.
• 

  Apognophos

  Sure, I agree with both of you. But imagine if someone insisted that my experience wasn't scientifically possible, therefore I was wrong. I would rightly be indignant, wouldn't I? It would be hard to get along with someone like that, because I would feel like they were calling me an idiot for saying I experienced something that was impossible. Just speaking hypothetically here.
• 

  GromitSK

  Isn't another person's fact simply something you dont know? :)
• 

  AGuest

  No one is trying to sell anything.

  I think the facts here, if looked at objectively, would indicate otherwise...

  Stop with the insults.

  If you consider truth insulting, I'm sorry, but I can't make you that promise. I CAN promise you that I won't address you... or anything you state... if you live up to your "promise." So far, that doesn't seem to be possible for you.

  If you want your postion to be taken seriously, come up with something useful.

  Apparently, I have... and so. Or do you always find yourself unable to resist responsing to the "unuseful"? Personally, I consider such to be irrational and unintelligent. So I don't respond to such. So to be clear, I believe YOUR comments to be MOST useful: they show you for the kind of person you truly are... as well as allow me repeated opportunities to share what I have received from my Lord with others. Sort of like free publicity; both as to your true self... and the truth as to my Lord... both of which are priceless, IMHO.

  Simply making up stuff about the soul living in baby teeth and then insulting those dubious of those claims doesn't help anything or anyone.

  Nothing was made up; however, how is it that you can say how such does or does not help anything or anyone? It helped ME... and MY understanding as to the matter of what occurs with those whose bodies have been completely burned... so right there your assertion is totally false. As most of them are.

  It could be proven thousands of year ago the earth was round using simple math and observational evidence.

  Sigh. See, there you go again - trying to baffle with your BS. First, it WAS proven thousands of years ago... when the tools/means became available TO prove it. But even I know that before that it could only be THEORIZED... which is NOT proof... before such means existed. EVEN the means of (simple) math.

  Math and science were uncovering useful knowledge, religion and dogma were trying to kill people.

  I don't disagree with you. But here and now it isn't ME trying to kill you and what YOU believe. To the contrary, I've made no public declaration to "stamp" you and/or what YOU believe "out." Or anyone or what they believe. So, what I see is merely a turning of the table: a proponent of science on a vendetta to "end" [at least one specific one]... who professes faith, even WITHOUT religion.

  You do so because of your chagrin as to what religion falsely taught you... and ultimately cost you. Not me, I've done nothing to you and cost you nothing. Religion. And so for ME you present nothing more than another depiction of a reformed whore (I mean no offense by that term - that's what it's called): now that YOU no longer prostitute yourself... you want to run around and judge, condemn, and put to death all currently practicing prostitutes... or those you THINK are such simply because they wear short skirts, high heels, red lipstick... and sing what YOU believe is a "come hither" song that says "follow me home" to every guy that passes by.

  Instead of simply being GRATEFUL that YOU are no longer walking the streets... you have chosen to "clean" them up. But here's where you err: you have chosen to do so NOT by prosecuting the pimps, but by going after what YOU think are walkers. Meaning, ANYONE in a short skirt, high heels, red lipstick... and singing a son... as they walk down the street.

  Problem is... I'm not a walker. Sure, I might be out on the street, but it's not because I am out to work the street; I'm there because it's the way home for me. And I might be wearing a short skirt, high heels, even red lipstick. But I am dressed as I am because I CAN be... I am not under ANY law that says I can't be. I am not dressed as I am because I have to be so... because I no longer have a
  "pimp" that tells me how I must dress (which once was little makeup, low heels, and my skirt below my knees because then I wouldn't look "like" a walker... even if I wasn't). And I don't dress as I do because I'm trying to attract "Johns." Indeed, there are a WHOLE lot of walkers out there who have on absolutely NO makeup, wear flats, and their skirts down to their ankles. Unfortunately, some like YOU... cannot tell the difference. So you make your target ANYONE who you deem to be a walker. I have learned that for some, what a woman is wearing makes no difference - women with long skirts, flats, and no makeup are just as subject to be accosted... and perhaps even molested... as someone wearing more revealing clothing.

  The difference is our songs: they (walker) sing to attract "johns." I sing... for MYSELF. While I walk through. Now, if someone HEARS my song and says, "Hey, what's that song you're singing?" sure I'm going to tell them what it is (the song of Moses, the new song, the pure language, whatever...). But if they want to learn to sing it, too, following ME home won't help them do so. Not one bit. Which is why I tell them... with my stained red lips... that they need to go to the COMPOSER of it... and get to know HIM... because only HE can teach it to them. And I do that while I'm still walking... HOME... ALONE... in my short skirt, high heels, and red lipstick. And since I know how to walk in high heels, I'm not "switching." Just walking... but in high heels.

  Thanks for pointing that out! Yay Science!

  I have nothing against science, EP. Nothing at all. And I've stated that ad nauseum. If I DID have something against it, though, it would only be its hypocritical proponents, particularly of the "reformed" ilk. Again, I see absolutely nothing in the position of such... and how they go about trying to force others to accept it, else be styled charlatanous, imbecile-ish, puerile... or worse... mentally ill... that differs from the other pole. NO difference. Just a different "justification" for it.

  A doulos of Christ,

  SA