What is a fact?

Above, you admit to the random nature involved in the primary selection of numbers. Cool. On the other side of that coin is the fact that such a random selection makes the numbers and their application arbitrary. The random selection could have been any other set of numbers to be used. Therefore, the numbers and their application on the thermometer are arbitrary and any result obtained from the use of such arbitrary conditions are also arbitrary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurement
"While the above systems of units are based on arbitrary unit values, formalized as standards, some unit values occur naturally in science." It is only through 'acceptance' by people that these values have any real meaning. Without that 'acceptance', they have no connection to reality whatsoever.

Perhaps you are unclear on what the capabilities of an Environmental Test Chamber is. You name the environmental condition (capable of being found here on earth), and such a piece of scientific equipment can duplicate those conditions within the operable range of the equipment: see here:
http://www.zetatekindia.com/testchambers.htm I spent three years working with a similar piece of equipment, and do realize those capabilities.

No kidding. Just because you have to use the same measurement scale, does not alter the fact that the scale being used was established using arbitrary numbering.

See my entry immediately above your statement.

Nor does the ability of the independent observers change the arbitrary numbers that were placed on those scales.

It is quite arbitrary when you have already admitted to the 'random' nature of the selection of numbers to be used on those scales.

Now let me hear from you in a manner that will refute with ironclad, irrefutable proof, the 2.c. definition of the term 'fact' as already presented in this thread.

 

I have admitted this 5 or 6 times already.

The fact that the numbes on a thermometer are arbitrary does not make the results from the application of the thermometer arbitrary.

I have given you several proofs for this.

What you have not done is supported your claim that the chosing of arbitrary numbers on a thermometer has any effect on the subjectivity of the freezing point of water.

In order to prove this you would have to show that the freezing point of water varies ( is arbitrary) using the same thermometer and you have not done this.

This is just not the case. The thermometer always reads the exact same number given the same experimental conditions.

 

You have given nothing but a showing of your dependence upon an admitted arbitrary set of standards. You definitely have NOT provided any PROOF.

There is no need for me to provide any support when you admit above that you are speaking about "the subjectivity of the freezing point of water."

On the other side of that same coin, you have not proven that the stated freezing point of water is 0C or 32F. Why? Because those numbers are arbitrary and only become real to you, because you 'believe' them to be real. Hence you admit to the 2.c. definition of 'fact'.

What is "not the case"? I also notice that you have completely avoided the task of refuting the 2.c. definition of 'fact'. Why do you avoid that task?

 

The freezing point of water is independent of the standard used.

The proof is this is that the freezing point is always the same, regardless of the standard used.

If the freezing point of water is measured by a one standard at 5. It will always remain at 5 given the same experimental conditions.

This is proved by repeating the experiment by independent scientists.

The proof is when you repeat the experiment and get the same number.

If you used a different standard it does not change the fact that when you repeat the experiment you get the same number using the same standard.

The fact that independent observers are able to repeat the experiment and get the same number "proves" by definition that the freezing point of water is not subjective.

 

With that I can agree. I agree because there is not a man-made arbitrary standard being applied.

Now you have just contradicted your opening statement by suggesting the use of a standard [man-made arbitrary standard]. So in essence, you are saying that 'without the use of an man-made arbitrary standard, no-one knows the freezing point of water'. You see, if "the freezing point is independent of the standard used.", then you don't need a standard to know that the water is frozen.

"in·de·pen·dent (nd-pndnt)
adj.
1. Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing.
2. Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.
3. Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.
4. often Independent Affiliated with or loyal to no one political party or organization.
5. Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity: an independent food store; an independent film."

If you are using a standard, then the freezing point is not 'independent of the standard used."

When I was living in Wisconsin, I could look out the window during the winter months and see the water was frozen, and did not need a standard to tell me that the weather was cold enough to freeze the water. I knew at that point, I needed to put on warm clothing before venturing outside. So what point are you trying to make?

But those same numbers are based on an arbitrary source. A source which you have already admitted was randomly selected thus making the source arbitrary. Therefore, your results are arbitrary.

You keep on falling back on the use of this standard or that standard, when your opening statement said that the 'freezing point of water was independent of the standard used." 'Independent' was also shown to mean that the thing that is independent (freezing point of water) is not determined by something else (an arbitrary standard).

 

If the freezing point of water is independent of the standard, then the fact that the standard is arbitrary does not matter. 3. Not determined or influenced by someone or something else

I did not make the claim in Bold. I claim that use of a standard does not make the freezing point of water arbitrary. (because the freezing point is independent of the standard)

You were the one claiming that use of a standard makes the freezing point arbitrary. This is not true because the freezing point is independent of the standard used.

 

Though you have highlighted the words "not determined by something else" (just as I did), you seem to be overlooking the importance of the word 'determined'. Without the use of a standard, the freezing point of water is the freezing point of water. An attempt to assign a number (arbitrarily) to that freezing point is the arbitrary condition being assigned to the freezing point. You claimed that the freezing point IS 0 C or 32 F. Arbitrary numbers placed on arbitrary scales.

Now... back to the topic.... What is a fact and how will you next attempt to refute the 2c definition of 'fact' or how will you attempt to obfuscate the thread with more BS?

 

If by own subjective pot you mean following the rules of logic, sure.

Then what qualifies as a fact, in your definition? How old the answer is?

You're missing the point of the definition: irrefutable facts are not facts at all, they're irrational beliefs.

Fact: There is an invisible yipiyuk sitting in my living room. I can see him, you cannot. In fact, he has decided to make himself completely undetectable to you.

Prove me wrong.

You're still caught up in the religious definition of "fact" and "Truth," both of which are re-titled strongly held beliefs.

Beliefs only become facts when they are supported by other facts which have been shown to be true through empirical testing. All facts are subject to disproval, or being shown to be mistaken, or they are the logical equivalent of the invisible Yipiyuk example given above.

In fact, I seem to remember giving the same example over a year ago on this board, and it's either been forgotten, ignored, or rejected as the dictionary definition of "fact."

The idea of the "big bang" is part of Hinduism, which predates Christianity by at least 4,000 years. I've always found this interesting myself, and do not believe by any means that science is never mistaken. That's the point of not establishing beliefs that can't be disproven.

Case in point:

“It is [God] who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in.” — Isa. 40:22

“God has [created the Earth as] a circle on the face of the [chaos] waters [between the Earth and outer space], at the boundary between light and darkness.” — Job 26:10

“I [Lady Wisdom] was brought forth when [God] had not yet made earth and fields, or the world's first bits of soil. When [God] established the heavens, I was there, when [God] drew a circle on the face of the deep.” — Prov. 8:26-27

http://www.extremelysmart.com/insight/mistaken/Bible_errors.php

Literally interpreted, the above passages describe a flat earth.

Einstein was wrong about a number of things. So were Freud and Hippocrates. That doesn't mean we throw out everything else we have to say: It means we proved them to be mistaken.

 

This is why I don't believe in the death penalty save for extreme cases. Burden of proof isn't high enough.

But what you're expressing is a subjective opinion and belief. I don't believe the bible is inerrant Truth because it has been shown to be wrong about simple things, because it was recorded by people who didn't know any better. From medicinal practices to social truisms, the bible is not a source of infallible truth. This doesn't mean we have to throw out everything the bible has to say: it just means the belief that the bible doesn't contain false information has shown to be incorrect.

 

So, if a 'fact' cannot be refuted (irrefutable), then that 'fact' is nothing more than an 'irrational belief'?

Wow! Based on your declaration above, then anytime something is declared to be a 'fact' it is immediately reduced to 'an irrational belief'. So much for all of the so-called scientific 'facts'.

 

That's not even close to what I wrote.

ir·ref·u·ta·ble/ˌirəˈfyo͞otəbəl/
Adjective:
Impossible to deny or disprove.
Synonyms:
irrefragable - incontrovertible - incontestable

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrefutable

That doesn't mean you've already disproved it, it means there could possibly be evidence to show the fact is wrong.

Or, to put it another way:

Facts require empirical testing to show that they're true. If it's not possible to test a statement to see whether or not it qualifies as true, it's not a fact. It's an idea, or an un-tested hypothesis.

...Have you ever taken a Computer Science or an intro to Logic course? The machine you're using to post on this forum depends on basic rules of logic like this to operate!

 

That is exactly what you wrote. If something is declared to be a fact, then you said "irrefutable facts are not facts at all, they're irrational beliefs." Even according to the definition you so graciously provided, it would mean that the declared 'fact' cannot be "denied or disproved" ("Impossible to deny or disprove"), then that 'fact' is "not a fact at all, they're irrational beliefs." You cannot argue against your own words.

As would be expected, you now resort to rationalizations (the making of excuses) to cover up your behavior (error).

Actually I have a degree in Computer Electronics, dealing specifically with microcomputers and microprocessors. Why would you ask? BTW: The final grading was noted "with High Honors".

But guess what.... God does not operate according to the man-made 'logic'. He has no need to entertain such foolishness, such simpleton imaginations as what is produced by the intellect of man. Get used to being on the bottom of the totem pole with regard to God, man, and logic.

 

Still screwing around with the quote function I see. Either learn how to use that function or quit trying to use html commands. All you are succeeding at is messing up the threads.

 

What a joke .. there is no problem with my post and all the relevent material is properly quoted.

Your argument is in shreds .. so much so that you have had to resort to adopting my position and trying to make it look as if I was arguing the other side.

You should learn to admit when you are wrong.

 

That is why your post at http://www.politicalforum.com/1060799294-post264.html
starts off with "

 

First off it was you that did not use the quote function properly in quoting the above I had to fix it.

You are the one that claimed that the use of a standard makes the freezing point of water arbitrary.

I am the one who claims, as can be seen from above, that it is not.

Further evidence of you claiming the freezing point of water is arbitrary is given below.

To which you respond:

and further .... you say:

More nonsense and contradiction.

In the post directly above you claim that the freezing point of water is arbitrary because the numbers on the standard are arbitrary.

In the first quote you claim that use of a standard does not make the freezing point of water arbitrary. (because the freezing point is independent of the standard).

Make up your mind .. either the use of a standard makes the freezing point of water arbitrary or it does not.

You have claimed both.

 

Don't even go there. At every occurrence of this same problem, it has been the result of you and your infamous manipulation of the html code at the beginning of your posting. Not only in this thread but other threads as well. The record plainly speaks for itself. In fact, I still have a copy of the PM that I sent to you as an aid that should have benefited you in learning html programming. Did you use that information? Seemingly not.

Wrong. I have claimed that the numbers on those standards are arbitrary. Another misrepresentation on your part. In fact, in each of the claims you list below, I have tracked back the quotes and in each case, there are subsequent misquotes because of that same technique you have been using to manipulate the quotes. As I said in my last posting. . . when the use of your wrongfully applied html coding is used, the thread gets to the point that it is impossible to tell who is saying what.

At this point I would suggest that the moderators once again, take a careful look back at those quotes you have just made and track them back and it will become quite clear that you have absolutely destroyed this thread. If I were a moderator, I would have banned you a long time ago, based on your manipulation of the quote function. Luckily for you, I am not a moderator, and you seemingly have the entire board of moderators fooled. Apparently, the moderators are not proficient in the use of html coding.

I had removed you from my ignore list, in the hopes that you would have changed from that nefarious technique, but apparently you have not changed, and are only continuing to disrupt a thread with your needless BS. So back to the ignore list you go.

 

Really .. LOL I love it that when you see your own error you go into denial mode.

Then you lie your face off by claiming that it was me that claimed the use of the standard makes the freezing point arbitrary. Yet give no quotes to prove it.

My claim has always been that the freezing point of water is not arbitrary and it is you that has claimed that the use of a standard makes it arbitrary.

In the previous post and this one the quotes from you prove your lies and disingenuous behaviour.

 

Is there anyone on this forum that can successfully refute the 2.c definition of 'fact' in such a manner as to make that definition be removed from the dictionary by the publisher?

 

So, it appears as a matter of record, that no one on this forum can refute the 2.c. definition of 'fact', which reads: "c. Something believed to be true or real:"

Therefore, it can be concluded, for the purposes of this thread, that a 'fact' can be construed to include 'something believed to be true or real'.

I just love the law of acquiescence.