GameBanshee Forums

SupaCat wrote:I actually think the word 'fact' is often taking too lightly. I don't think, when thinking of it as a scientifique theory, you can call it a fact. People who think that the Mount Everest isn't the highest point on Earth are part of a very, very small portion of the society. There are however alot of people who think that the evolution theory isn't true. Fact is society made and the majority in a society often decides what is fact. During the medieval ages God was a fact, simply because the entire society was based on the idea of the bible (this is only for Europe ofcourse).
<snip>

So in the medieval days, Mount Everest weren't factually the highest point on earth, just because people didn't believe in/know it?
The world was factually flat until the day somebody actually sailed around it?
Sorry, but what is fact is not society based.

What can be considered society based is understanding of concepts and knowledge, and also what the people in said society call "facts".
However facts based on opinions are never actually facts, they're just opinions and beliefs. So even if everybody in a society says it is a fact that <insert random thing here> exists or doesn't exists , it isn't actually a fact until it adheres to the definitions Vicsun listed.
Some people just like to call their opinions and beliefs facts because they think it lends more value to their opinions or beliefs.

Vicsun wrote:Any being that would lie, unknowingly or not, would not fit my definition of God, therefore any thing that God tells me I will believe. If I did not believe it, I would not be talking to God, which violates the assumption explicit in the question that I am talking to God. So, yes.

...I voted yes for the same reason, although I don't think I could state it as well as Vicsun did.


As far as the most important part of evolutionary theory...I believe someone earlier mentioned that it suggests that all things have a common ancestry and I would also throw my support behind that. Also you could take it one step further and say that at the end of the day, everything is just stardust and everything will eventually be stardust once more.

Vicsun wrote:Conversely, facts are quite independent of our belief in them, or our existence, for that matter.

True. It is a fact that excist outside the human society. However, human society can change that by what is believed as a majority. In parts of Africa it is a fact that withdocters will heal you with the limbs from albinos, in parts of America it is a fact that black people are underdevelloped,... My point is that there is society presure to fact. How do we know that black people aren't developped? Science, teachings... The same reason people in rascist area's of America will take parts of the bible, listen to their rascist teachers, listen to so called scientist and conclude that it is a fact, since all authorities on the subject there will say so, that black people are underdevelloped. 'something known to be true' => therefor, it is a fact there. => it doesn't matter if the mount everest is still the highest mountain in the world when humanity is gone, since fact has no meaning without a society to hold it.

I get the point about collours and subjectivity. But if you grow up with the teachings that blue is most beautiful collour in the world, you will take it as a fact.

'So in the medieval days, Mount Everest weren't factually the highest point on earth, just because people didn't believe in/know it?
The world was factually flat until the day somebody actually sailed around it?
Sorry, but what is fact is not society based.'

Mount Everest was the highest point on earth. I say that because I take it as a fact, as the people in those days took it that the earth was flat. There aren't certain truths in a society.
Mars was a planet with no water on it. Fact, until they discovered water on it.

'So even if everybody in a society says it is a fact that <insert random thing here> exists or doesn't exists , it isn't actually a fact until it adheres to the definitions Vicsun listed.'

If everybody in a society says that it's so, why wouldn't you call it a fact.
'something that actually exists; reality; truth'
It is presented as a truth, no? So why wouldn't you call it a fact.

'Evolution, questioned or not, is also true, which makes it a fact.'

Only scientist don't call it a fact, they call it a theory, simply because of different opinions on evolution. Intelligent design is also a theory (as told on tv, so I might be wrong that they see it as theory), yet if it would be seen as a fact, then evolution should be seen as a fact, but then you have a contradiction. I believe it to be a fact (evolution theory), but I personally cannot say that it is a fact.

To know facts, you have to have 1 truth you cannot doubt. Descartes tried to find this by questioning everything. At one point during this proces he thought of the world as only mathematic objects and only there was truth (even though he later even questioned science). Since 2+2=4 is an absolute fact, I believe it to be outside of the world of society and majority. 2+2=4, however you call it. That is a fact, you can proof it by just taking 2 stones and then by adding 2 stones. You can proof it immediatly. Why don't I say that evolution is a fact? Simply because you can't proof it to me immediatly, as much as you can't proof to me that God did all this. I wasn't there.'actual experience or observation'. I choose to believe evolution.

About the society thing, if I say leaves are green and everyone says they are blue, then I'm collourblind.

And yes, I know I'm ignoring a bunch of scientifique arguments.

'If you truly hold to your view that facts are decided by the majority (I think Steven Colbert ridiculed that idea a while ago), everything in wikipedia is fact, therefore the fact that evolution is a fact is also a fact. Ha!'

Touché. However, when saying majority, I mean 95%, of even more. Wikipedia isn't believe by that many people. You can't really call wikipedia the spokesman for a majority, yes they are spreading their idea's, but you can't say that everyone believes wikipedia. Small children who don't know that site is full of rubish will be corrected by people who know better, and if they aren't corrected, they are just a small number of people who will believe rubbish, that might be seen as a fact in an other society.

I think I'm contradicting myself sometimes
Wish I never made that comment on theory and fact.

True. It is a fact that excist outside the human society. However, human society can change that by what is believed as a majority.

Absolutely false, a fact is not changeable by popular belief, end of story. I can't help but think that there must be something being missed in translation for you to be so insistent that facts can be changed by some sort of wishful thinking.

SupaCat wrote:True. It is a fact that excist outside the human society. However, human society can change that by what is believed as a majority.<snip>

But what is believed is not a fact. It is just a belief.

SupaCat wrote:<snip>
In parts of Africa it is a fact that withdocters will heal you with the limbs from albinos, in parts of America it is a fact that black people are underdevelloped,...
<snip>

Those things aren't facts, they're beliefs.
The fact does not stem from anything factual, but from the belief that it will happen. It is faith. It is opinion. Until proven/shown factual.

SupaCat wrote:<snip>
I get the point about collours and subjectivity. But if you grow up with the teachings that blue is most beautiful collour in the world, you will take it as a fact.<snip>

And taking it as a fact does not make it a fact.

SupaCat wrote:<snip>
Mount Everest was the highest point on earth. I say that because I take it as a fact, as the people in those days took it that the earth was flat. There aren't certain truths in a society.
Mars was a planet with no water on it. Fact, until they discovered water on it.
<snip>

You take Mount Everest as a fact because somebody has meassured it, because no other measurements or evidence speak to the contrary.
Not because you were told by society to believe it.
Mars was a planet without water because there was no evidence to it, although the last decade or so it's been widely assumed it would exists, however those assumptions weren't factual.
Now evidence to show water in some form have been found, making it a fact.

Facts can change given the evidence, but that does not mean lack of evidence can make things facts.

SupaCat wrote:<snip>
If everybody in a society says that it's so, why wouldn't you call it a fact.
'something that actually exists; reality; truth'
It is presented as a truth, no? So why wouldn't you call it a fact.
<snip>

I wouldn't call it a fact, because it isn't a fact.
Truth in the context of universal truth is not the same as what a society believes is true. For something to be "true" it must be true for everybody, otherwise it is relativism. A society beliveving Witch Doctors can cure people with Albion limbs might see that as true, but it isn't a universal truth, and therefor it can't be a fact.

SupaCat wrote:<snip>
'Evolution, questioned or not, is also true, which makes it a fact.'

Only scientist don't call it a fact, they call it a theory, simply because of different opinions on evolution. Intelligent design is also a theory (as told on tv, so I might be wrong that they see it as theory), yet if it would be seen as a fact, then evolution should be seen as a fact, but then you have a contradiction. I believe it to be a fact (evolution theory), but I personally cannot say that it is a fact.
<snip>

There's objective evidence towards the process of Evolution, which is why people call it fact.
There's only belief and faith to back up Intelligent Design which is why it is just a theory along the line anything else some random person can make up and claim is a theory. For example similar to the various dooms day cults or beliefs.

SupaCat wrote:<snip>
To know facts, you have to have 1 truth you cannot doubt. Descartes tried to find this by questioning everything. At one point during this proces he thought of the world as only mathematic objects and only there was truth (even though he later even questioned science). Since 2+2=4 is an absolute fact, I believe it to be outside of the world of society and majority. 2+2=4, however you call it. That is a fact, you can proof it by just taking 2 stones and then by adding 2 stones. You can proof it immediatly. Why don't I say that evolution is a fact? Simply because you can't proof it to me immediatly, as much as you can't proof to me that God did all this. I wasn't there.'actual experience or observation'. I choose to believe evolution.
<snip>

A 2+2 argument is very poor, because it is a matter of definition. If I have "4 rocks", we have defined that the number I have is the number 4 and that half that amount is the number 2. Therefore 2+2 can be "proven" to be 4 only as long as those definitions holds true. Therefore you can't use mathematical arguments in that manner.
You can only as fact state that the "amount" of rocks you have halved and then doubled gives you the same amount of rocks. Number definitions aside.
However regarding evolution we have evidence of the process whereas with various God(s) we only have belief. Thus the two differ.

SupaCat wrote:<snip>
About the society thing, if I say leaves are green and everyone says they are blue, then I'm collourblind.
<snip>

Again - like mathematics - that's a bad argument, because we've as humans defined that the light waves in that length is called blue. It is a definition.
However - if you argue that everybody "else" sees the blue wavelength of the leaves and you claim it is the green wavelength, then in fact you are wrong unless you provide measurement of said wavelengths. Aka evidence to back up your theory, making it factual.

SupaCat wrote:<snip>
And yes, I know I'm ignoring a bunch of scientifique arguments.
<snip>

Well, yes

SupaCat wrote:<snip>
I think I'm contradicting myself sometimes
Wish I never made that comment on theory and fact.

You don't contradict yourself, but you're mixing up the concepts.
Something is fact because it's, well - factual. It's backed up with evidence and not disputed by other factual evidence.
That's why Evolution Theroy is currently considered fact and Intelligent Design is considered theory. That's why facts aren't society specific, which would make them beliefs and opinions.

The beauty of scientific approach and facts are that as our understanding, measurements and ability to experiment grows/changes, the "facts" can change.
However they all change based on factual situations and not because somebody claims it or dont' want to believe in them.

So a society believing something to be true, still only holds to a belief. Facts aren't a subjective opinion. Despite how much people like to claim their beliefs as facts.

SupaCat wrote:Only scientist don't call it a fact, they call it a theory, simply because of different opinions on evolution. Intelligent design is also a theory (as told on tv, so I might be wrong that they see it as theory), yet if it would be seen as a fact, then evolution should be seen as a fact, but then you have a contradiction. I believe it to be a fact (evolution theory), but I personally cannot say that it is a fact.

I think I'm contradicting myself sometimes
Wish I never made that comment on theory and fact.

Philosophy-man steps in.
What you seem to be talking about is less 'facts' than the consensus theory of truth, i.e. truth is decided by popular belief. What most of the rest of us are talking about is the correspondance theory of truth, i.e. truth is decided by the correspondance of observations/statements to observable, independent reality.
If you really want to get your head around all this it might help you if you consider what you think are the distinctions between facts, truth, and theory, and would definitely help if you look into the difference between 'theory' as it's generally used and 'theory' in the scientific sense.

As a scientist,

SupaCat wrote: Only scientist don't call it a fact, they call it a theory, simply because of different opinions on evolution.

Yes, they do. I'm a scientist in training and I call it a fact. Scientists I've talked to on the subject call it a fact. Biology textbooks call it a fact (see: citations). The theory of evolution is different than the fact of evolution, but one does not preclude the other.


citations:
1. Moran, Laurence (1993-01-22). "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory". Talk.origins. Retrieved 2007-10-18.
2. Gould, Stephen Jay (1981-05-01). "Evolution as Fact and Theory". Discover 2 (5): 34–37. Reprinted in:
Vetter, Herbert F. (ed.) (1982). Speak Out Against The New Right. Beacon Press. ISBN 0807004863.
3. Gould, Stephen Jay (1994-04-01). Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes. New York: Norton. ISBN 0393017168.
4. Muller, H. J. (1959). "One hundred years without Darwin are enough". School Science and Mathematics 59: 304–305. Reprinted in:
Zetterberg, Peter (ed.) (1983-05-01). Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy. Phoenix AZ: ORYX Press. ISBN 0897740610.
5. Campbell, Neil A.; Reece, Jane B. (2002-02-05). Biology 6th ed.. Benjamin Cummings. p. 1175. ISBN 0805366245.
6. Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1973-03-01). "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". American Biology Teacher 35. Reprinted in:
Zetterberg, Peter (ed.) (1983-05-01). Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy. Phoenix AZ: ORYX Press. ISBN 0897740610.
7. Lenski, Richard E. (2000). "Evolution: Fact and Theory". American Institute of Biological Sciences. Retrieved 2007-10-18.
8. Mayr, Ernst (1988). Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-89666-1.


edit: I feel bad seeing everyone pile on supacat it's okay supacat

Been thinking about what to reply, but my ideas are running out.
First of all
'citations:
1. Moran, Laurence (1993-01-22). "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory". Talk.origins. Retrieved 2007-10-18.
2. Gould, Stephen Jay (1981-05-01). "Evolution as Fact and Theory". Discover 2 (5): 34–37. Reprinted in:
Vetter, Herbert F. (ed.) (1982). Speak Out Against The New Right. Beacon Press. ISBN 0807004863.
3. Gould, Stephen Jay (1994-04-01). Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes. New York: Norton. ISBN 0393017168.
4. Muller, H. J. (1959). "One hundred years without Darwin are enough". School Science and Mathematics 59: 304–305. Reprinted in:
Zetterberg, Peter (ed.) (1983-05-01). Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy. Phoenix AZ: ORYX Press. ISBN 0897740610.
5. Campbell, Neil A.; Reece, Jane B. (2002-02-05). Biology 6th ed.. Benjamin Cummings. p. 1175. ISBN 0805366245.
6. Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1973-03-01). "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". American Biology Teacher 35. Reprinted in:
Zetterberg, Peter (ed.) (1983-05-01). Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy. Phoenix AZ: ORYX Press. ISBN 0897740610.
7. Lenski, Richard E. (2000). "Evolution: Fact and Theory". American Institute of Biological Sciences. Retrieved 2007-10-18.
8. Mayr, Ernst (1988). Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-89666-1.'

My mistake. Even though I heard it from other scientist (even though they're still in training), it's my mistake to blindly believe it. (it was when I called something just a theory, they replied that is the highest form something can get in science. Probably just misunderstood it, but hey.)

Second of all
I believe my defenition of fact is different than the definition widely accepted (and with widely I mean, praticly everybody, except for some philosophers).
Because of this there is ofcourse a misunderstanding.
The definition changes by how you believe in the world, I guess. For example, one who believes that in the world nothing is certain can't believe in fact. He can only believe in something that might represent a fact, but 'might' means uncertain, while a fact is certain.
I see the meaning of fact different than as it is traditionally seen, sure. I do believe there are things certain in life, if only I had something to hold on to. But things like information, how high is the Mount Everest ... While I do believe it is the highest mountain in the world, I also believe that it is because I learned this from people around me : scientist, teachers ... From my society. I just think that there are a lot of things that are society based (sin for starters [murder], what is wrong and what not) and why not fact. Yes ofcourse outside of the human society there is fact, and here I use fact as certain. But in a human society I cannot believe in absolute fact, simply because when do you really know you know a fact? Does it require total information about the subject? Is it a fact because scientist tell you it is a fact?

When saying evolution is a fact, you know the principle of the theory. Can't we judge ourselfs if something is a fact? That would require every little piece of information made around evolution and if everything fits, then I guess you can call it a fact. What if something is wrong in the thought behind evolution? That would mean every single piece of information ever published around Darwins theory is wrong, even if it is just a little mistake. Since the theory discribes something in nature. Theory of gravity describes gravity, I might call gravity a fact, but can I call that theory a fact? The theory is something writen about a subject, while the subject is a fact (something certain), can we trully say that our discription of this subject is also a fact? Therefor I call the theory of evolution a theory, not a fact, even though I also lost the scientists support on that one. (meaning my comments have lost every scientifique relevance. )

I wonder why I keep writing when I know I'll get owned when the next post comes
I'm starting to think this thread has gone off-topic.

SupaCat wrote:<snip>
I believe my defenition of fact is different than the definition widely accepted (and with widely I mean, praticly everybody, except for some philosophers).
Because of this there is ofcourse a misunderstanding.
The definition changes by how you believe in the world, I guess. For example, one who believes that in the world nothing is certain can't believe in fact. He can only believe in something that might represent a fact, but 'might' means uncertain, while a fact is certain.
<snip>

There exists absolutes in the universe which means that some things are "certain".
What might chance is our understand and definitions of said certain elements, but the certain aspect is still there. We might not know now, but they're still there. Even if we don't believe in them, they're still there.

For example if we take the understanding of the solar system and the Earths location in it, then the Earth have within human existance always been located pretty much as it is (sure, from a cosmos and universal sense our position within the universe moves and the Sun moves etc, but - let's limit the debate a bit ) - however back in the medieval days it was believed the Sun rotated around the Earth and we were the center, because it was how our observational abilities and understanding could explain the behavior of days and sunrise/sunset
However that does not change the fact that it was only our understand of defined rules - of certain things - which was interpreted wrong.

Similar as the Mount Everest being the highest point and all those other things.

Things which are actual facts, are always facts, even if we do not believe them to be factual or even if we don't understand them ourselves. Then we might understand them wrong (Sun rotate around the Earth), but that does not change the fact (huhu) that they are still deterministic (The Sun did not rotate around the Earth even though we thought it did).

That's where science and scientific methods comes into play which makes for example Intelligent Design a theory whereas Evolution Theory is considered factual.

SupaCat wrote: My mistake. Even though I heard it from other scientist (even though they're still in training), it's my mistake to blindly believe it. (it was when I called something just a theory, they replied that is the highest form something can get in science. Probably just misunderstood it, but hey.)

No, your friend was right. However, and I'm repeating myself here so I'll bold the next part of the sentence, the existence of a theory behind evolution does not preclude evolution from also being a fact.

Second of all
I believe my defenition of fact is different than the definition widely accepted (and with widely I mean, praticly everybody, except for some philosophers).

Nu-uh. You can't just change the meaning of a word half-way through an argument just to suit your own needs. It's unfair, and it hurts me.

Yes ofcourse outside of the human society there is fact, and here I use fact as certain. But in a human society I cannot believe in absolute fact, simply because when do you really know you know a fact? Does it require total information about the subject? Is it a fact because scientist tell you it is a fact?

Luckily, evolution, unlike sin and like Mount Everest, is a fact that exists outside of human society. Critters were evolving way before humans existed. A fact does not require total information, but it requires overwhelming evidence, which we have. (I bolded the last part because I'm repeating myself again).

When saying evolution is a fact, you know the principle of the theory. Can't we judge ourselfs if something is a fact?

"I judge that my penis is five meters long and that is a fact", said the sophist to the logician, and then the logician hit him with a rock.
~Vicsun's fables, volume 1

Theory of gravity describes gravity, I might call gravity a fact, but can I call that theory a fact? The theory is something writen about a subject, while the subject is a fact (something certain), can we trully say that our discription of this subject is also a fact? Therefor I call the theory of evolution a theory, not a fact, even though I also lost the scientists support on that one.

You have it exactly right! The theory of evolution is a theory, while evolution itself is a fact, just like the theory of gravity is a theory but gravity itself is a fact. Our description of evolution might not be a fact, but evolution itself is.

Vicsun wrote: Nu-uh. You can't just change the meaning of a word half-way through an argument just to suit your own needs. It's unfair, and it hurts me.

Can't blame me for trying. Well, you can, but ... You know.

Vicsun wrote: "I judge that my penis is five meters long and that is a fact", said the sophist to the logician, and then the logician hit him with a rock.
~Vicsun's fables, volume 1

Fables? Like in, stories where animals talk? Uh... Nevermind.
Btw: sophist own logicians.

Vicsun wrote: You have it exactly right! The theory of evolution is a theory, while evolution itself is a fact, just like the theory of gravity is a theory but gravity itself is a fact. Our description of evolution might not be a fact, but evolution itself is.
[/i]

Yay!

I re-read some post and I sometimes didn't read correctly. I sometimes thought 'evolution' was a reference to 'theory of evolution'. So there was a part miscommunication (like Galrean already said), but certainly not everything. I still believe what I wrote about a difference between society facts and universal facts.

You'll probably notice the short length of this post. This simply because of the mistake presented above, which actually started this argument (I think, it seems so long ago) and also because I'm out of arguments (there was one thing I thought of commenting on, but I think we've already been going in circles).

It's a fable because modern day sophists are nothing short of animals and lack human characteristics. Ba-zing!

Vicsun wrote:
You have it exactly right! The theory of evolution is a theory, while evolution itself is a fact, just like the theory of gravity is a theory but gravity itself is a fact. Our description of evolution might not be a fact, but evolution itself is.

Yup.

The theory of evolution may change with further evidence, but the facts dug from the ground remain the same.

(Saying 'god did it' isn't an explanation of how evolution works. It's simply that religions are being obliged to allow that 'god used evolution in creation' because there is now too much evidence for them to be able to continue denying it).

The theory of evolution is a realistic explanation of how it works, and it doesn't require a sentient creator.

As with gravity. We know it exists, it's a fact of nature and we wouldn't exist without it; but the theory used to explain it may alter as more information is added into the equation.

Dottie wrote:If I experienced an unknown being appearing to reveal something to me I would seek out psychiatric care.

this is exactly what i would've said. i can't believe and will never.

I wouldn't believe a single word a deity would've told me (but i would surely be stunned that my disbelief was a mistake) mainly because.. If above all this suffering, treachery and hate, that we have on our world, was an almighty deity which (cause of beign almighty) could stop it all.. Why would i want to believe such an irresponsible sadist who allowed it all to happen, but for some reason decided to waste my time with his "Truth's"?

By revealing some information to me, it would've proved that it MAY interfere any time and any place, and that every unpleasant event in the history was too insignificant to him. (or he found it funny) Which would crumble the "God loves us all" slogans

This is some theorycrafting, but as you can see - if any god exists anywhere, he BETTER not show itself, because it would mean that he is just a 5 year old kid with an ant farm who does not give a **** if the ants suffer. Even tho there wouldn't be any disbelievers left on the world, love and hope would turn into fear and grudge. Therefore, for the sake of the world, if there is a deity above everything, let us hope that it stays where it is, hidden from all the living. As a watcher, an unsolved mystery, a beacon of hope.

Forever.

Regards

Edit :

A final question is what is the most important aspect, that you feel, of the evolutionary theories?

I don't give it much thought, but the fact, that there were animals in the past that live no longer because the world changed, and that now there are animals that haven't been here few bilion years ago is enough to trust the scientists that we evolved from some type of apes. There are far too many evidence to give it too many doubts.

I for one live like a monkey till this day.