What is a fact?

No! I need you to prove that the numbers on the thermometer scales were not arbitrary in their original placement on the first scale.

That is what the whole discussion is about... and so far, you have kept the thread off of that subject with your BS about water. None of what you have been spouting about has anything to do with explaining what is a 'fact'. All you have done is presented a tremendous distraction to keep people from realizing the meanings/definitions of the term 'fact'.

So, either get back on topic or I will file a report for creating a disruption of the thread topic.

 

Is there anyone on this forum who can refute (by the strictest meaning of the term refute) the 2.c. definition of "fact" without introducing topics that are not directly related to the issue of refutation of that definition?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact

"2.c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts."

 

The linked paper addresses the development of the Fahrenheit scale but does not dispute that today one degree of Fahrenheit equals 1/180th of the difference between the freezing point and boiling point of water (uncontaminated H2O) at standard atmospheric pressure. There is nothing arbitrary related to the scale and all calibrated thermometers produce the identical results when measuring.

The development of "scales" is always arbitrary but once adopted the measurements they make are not arbitrary. A kilogram is a kilogram and there is a "master kilogram" that scales are calibrated to so that when we measure weight that all measurements are on the same scale and are virtually identical to each other.

There is a minor error factor in the mechanics of any scale but there is an acceptable limit to the possible error and that is understood. The error factor of the measurement device is directly proportional to how accurate the measurement needs to be and is a small fraction of it (usually 1/10th to 2/10ths tenths of the smallest increment being measured). For example, I use micrometers to measure "distance' and they are accurate to +/- .00002" which is accurate enough for measuring to .0001" of an inch for machining purposes. If I needed to measure 1/1,000,000th of an inch I would require a more accurate measurement tool. In science the smallest measurement is typically considered to be one angstrom which is 1/10,000,000th of a milimeter but it is very expensive to maintain accuracy at this level.

In all cases the "scale" is established and the scale is always accurate and not arbitrary. Only our ability to measure on the scale is limited and that is generally based upon the cost of the tools used to make the measurement.

 

Yes, scales are established by people. Which scale (F or C, etc.) I use to specify the boiling or freezing temperature of a liquid, such as mercury, is arbitrary.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

 

A house built on sand will always suffer the effect of any shifting of that sand. You admit that the foundation is arbitrary, and that has been my point through this whole spectacle. Acceptance of those scales with an arbitrary foundation does not make the foundation any less arbitrary. If the acceptance of an arbitrary condition is all that is required to remove the arbitrary condition, then non-theists have no valid complaint against any religion regardless of how arbitrary the beliefs may be or how varied the beliefs may be. If the people accept it, then it has to be valid,,,, (according to your statement on arbitrariness highlighted above).

 

That is not what the whole discussion is about and I already granted that the numbers on temperature scales are arbitrary.

Please do report me so the mods can see what a huge troll you are.

 

Then prove your claims.

 

I already did .. numerous times. That you are too blind to see it is not my problem.

 

You have not proven anything other than the FACT that you reject the definition of 'fact' found at 2.c located here:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact
Keep in mind however, that your rejection of that definition is merely your rejection and does not obligate anyone to adhere to your personal and private rejection.

 

Of course I do not reject that definition. More hallucinations on your part.

 

While addressing "truth" as opposed to "fact" the following paper is relevant because much of what we believe to be fact is based upon what we believe to be the truth. While the entire paper should be read below is a quick summary.

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyepistemology/a/CriteriaPragmat.htm

 

Unfortunately, when dealing with 'pragmatism', it is also understood that there is only one 'pragmatic absolute' in this life. That absolute is "everyone that is living, will live until they die: Outside of that absolute, all else is a subject of subjectivity and are merely accepted conditions"

Here is another article that somewhat supports your interest in pragmatism, but also will show the futility of 'pragmatism' in this modern society and rapid advancements in technology. What was thought to be "true" by the scientific community for many decades is being found in error.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/royce/

 

The other pragmatic absolute could be "when your dead your dead" but in searching for truth and facts rarely do they ever come down to an "absolute" anyway. For example pi (π) has never been defined in an "absolute" manner (it was been calculated to over 5 trillion places in 2011) but 3.14 works for most applications. It is called an "irrational number" because it cannot be expressed as an "absolute" in math.

Rarely to my knowledge does science ever refer to "truths" but instead refers to something that can be "assumed to be true" if it cannot be proven or disproven. It is an "assumption" and science accepts it as an assumption and not as either the truth or a fact. The assumption can be built upon but the assumption is subject to revision or discarded if and when facts contradict the assumption.

Wasn't quite sure of what was being pointed out unless it was the reference to the universe being infinate which science never accepted as the truth but did, at one time assume to be true.

Science is constantly evolving and certainly theories of the past are changed, modified or discarded as evidence dictates. That is the nature of science.

It isn't that theories are in error so much as the fact that new knowledge changes them. For centuries science used the mathmatical theories of Newton related to gravity but then Einstein came along and provided a more accurate mathmatical theory of gravity. It didn't completely discard the work that went before but did change how we address gravity today as it provides a much more accurate understanding of gravity. Newton wasn't "wrong" but was instead was incomplete in his theories of gravity. He didn't include everything and perhaps Einstein hasn't either.

 

"could be"? That don't sound very certain on your part.

Then you admit that mathematics is not based on 'absolutes'?

And please do provide the definition of the term "assumption" or "assume" (the root word of assumption). Does that complete definition of 'assumption' point in the direction of accepting something as though it were a fact, when there is no proof that the assumption is a 'fact'? Does the term "assumption" perhaps point in the direction of fanciful imaginations?

Aren't the 'assumptions' made by scientists wonderful? Isn't their guesswork so much more relevant to 'life' than the 'assumptions' of non-scientists? Wow. Scientific assumptions. Almost like an oxymoron.

Then you are admitting that science is not the 'PERFECT' creature of the mind that some would like to think that it is?

I would certainly have to agree with your closing statement immediately above. What, precisely and specifically, without any room for error is 'gravity'?

Thanks for the admission above.

 

Proof is that you believe that freezing point of water is arbitrary/subjective, despite being shown repeatedly that it is not.

 

Please stick to the discussion of the topic as opposed to discussing each other. Other members are never the subject of a topic.

Note: I've deleted six posts and some of them had some content related to the topic but also addressed members and/or quotes about members. Sorry if one of yours was included but they were beginning to derail the thread.

Thank you,
Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

Then you might as well close the thread, when you are deleting posts that are just as relevant to the thread as those that you leave on the thread which are obviously flame baits from people who share the same mindset as you... ie ... those being non-theists... you show a distinct pattern of allowing the expressions of non-theists to remain on the thread while any comment defending self or another Theist, that in your "discretion" (afforded by arbitrary TOS rules) is not desirable can be deleted. While you are so busy attacking the Theists, then you might as well take it to the next level and announce the new name of this forum.... "Atheist Political Action Committee (APAC)[My common law Copyright is declared on that Acronym and its meaning]"

 

Facts are statements of understanding about the world around us. They're only facts if they are testable (falsifiable). I cannot, by definition, empirically test god's existence.

Therefore, god's existence is a belief, not a fact.

 

Well well, my fellow member, that is a common answer, however I think you may be measuring from your own subjective pot? As I have said and indicated many times in this thread testing does nothing to secure anything as fact. How many facts of science that were tested my empirical means have turned out to be inaccurate or completely wrong? Many! Ha ha. Science is no better at defining truth or fact than religion is, in fact religion has trumped science at least once IMO. I am speaking of the claim of science that reigned up to the early 20th and late 20th century. Even Einstein the greatest mind of the 20th century claimed that the universe was eternal infinite and unchanging (he used the word static). Religious belief ie Christianity stated that the Universe began (was created and began at a point in time) was finite and that it was ever changing and would end.
Christianity was belittled for such a belief*. If not for Hubble and the two IBM scientists that accidentally found the CBR if the Big Bang we would still be making fun of those dumb Christians that claimed the universe began and changed throughout its evolution.

*... Scientists React to the EvidenceThe evidence for a finite, expanding universe was not greeted with universal acceptance by the world’s astronomers and cosmologists Einstein reacted angrily at first, but finally conceded to his mathematical error and the evidence for a finite, expanding universe. NASA scientist Robert Jastrow records Einstein’s reaction:
READ MORE @ ;
http://www.emjc3.com/OriginOfTheUniverseEastman.htm

The Cosmic Background Radiation: Discovery Supporting Big Bang ...
paul-a-heckert.suite101.com › ... › Astronomy & Space › Astrophysics
Jul 27, 2007 – Penzias and Wilson accidentally discovered the 3K cosmic microwave background radiation, which ... The Cosmic Background Radiation ..

Reva

 

Brother Incorporeal, did you participate in the thread where we debated the subjectivity of moderators when it came to the subject of flame baiting? The debate was inconclusive as most are. Personally, I remain convinced that its impossible for a moderator (any moderator) to be neutral and injects his or her bias into the decisions by design, accident or even by a subconscious desire to influence the debate to an outcome favorable to their position. I feel that flame baiting should be entirely eliminated as a reason to delete a post warn a member or worse. Maybe if all of us worked together mods included we could reach a compromise on this serious issue?

reva

 

I forgot to add in my reply that in this country the legal system can murder you just by circumstantial evidence alone. Circumstantial evidence that leads the court to decide factual events happens even though no tangible evidence exists. I believe that there is enough circumstantial evidence for the existence of God that no reasonable rational person could in good faith deny God exists! There are all kinds of evidence NONE are infallible NONE are better than the other for proving truth or facts. If they are we better change the way we fry people for capital crimes eliminating and disallowing ALL circumstantial evidence.

eh?

reva

 

Then your contention is not with me, but with the people who authored and published the dictionary.

At the underlined text above: thus the reason that 'logic' itself is fallible or your use of 'logic' is fallible; as either 'logic' itself or your use of that 'logic' does not accept the very definition of the word 'fact' and the definitions of the word 'belief':
"be·lief (b-lf)
n.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons."

FACT:
"fact (fkt)
n.
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."

 

I certainly have no contention with the dictionary definition of "fact".

It is a fact due to information based on real occurrences that the freezing point of water is not arbitrary or subjective.

Water, when subjected to freezing under equivalent experimental conditions, by independent observers yeilds a non arbitrary result.

 

Then PROVE that the numbers on the thermometer (in their original use) were not chosen as random numbers, or based on no facts pertaining to the freezing point of water.

Until you can prove that those numbers were not subjectively chosen, then your argument amounts to nothing to but harassment and if you continue that argument without providing any substantial PROOF, then you will be reported for further harassment and obfuscation of this thread.

 

Indeed the numbers were chosen completely at random so why would I try to prove otherwise ?

Perhaps you are unclear on what the meaning of " under equivalent experimental conditions" means.

This means that you must use the same measurement scale when repeating the experiment.

Regardless of the measurment scale chosen, as long as you conduct the experiment using the same measurment scale as in the previous experiment you will achieve the same result for the freezing point of water.

The fact that the numbers on the scale were chosen randomly does not affect the ability to produce repeatable results by independent observers.

Using the same scale, and the same experimental conditions, the freezing point of water will always be the same.

It is not arbitrary.