Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There have been a few studies done on some of the magical claims - Dowsing, Astrology, spirit-jewellery, Homeopathy, Prayer and the like, and the results do nothing to persuade scientists that there is anything there to study, other than the areas of the brain that are activated when people believe these claims.
No doubt the same lobes that lit up when the Martian pareidolia (1) - face had the believers in Martian Atlanteans demanding that NASA spend time and money investigating this supposed Martian-Aztec sculpture and disinclination to do so produced howls of 'What are they refusing to admit? What are they hiding?" When they did, the results were dismissed as Fakes as stridently as our Pal Littlewitness dismissed any photos or films of the plainly curved earth.
(1) (My Mars-face) Another word i can't spell. ...nope - another word that spellcheck has never heard of.
In 1976 the Viking spacecraft took pictures of the surface of Mars that included a picture of a feature on the surface that resembled a face.
Twenty years later the Mars Global Surveyor took a picture of the same feature on Mars from a different angle, and at a different time of day.
There appears to be a face on the moon as well.
The people that claim that these things are evidence of extraterrestrials tend to be the same people that believe in bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and that magic is real.
Mostly true, but be careful: For #3, the fact that he claimed to have an event is verifiable. We can simply ask him: "Did you make that claim?" We can also look back through posts and find various places where he made the claim.
regarding my wording on #3 you are correct. good to point that out, thank you. I agree.
it is more accurate to change the wording from this:
(3) it is a fact that his claim to have had an event is not verifiable, and is not repeatable using the scientific method.
to this:
(3) it is a fact that there is no way to verify whether "the event" actually occurred, and it is not repeatable using the scientific method.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I suspect you meant to say that his interpretation of the experience cannot be verified as being a correct interpretation. The claim "it was Jesus" cannot currently be verified although if it was, in fact, Jesus then, potentially, someday Jesus himself could verify M's claim for us. As for "not repeatable..." I assume you mean that the event is not repeatable. This is a bit complicated. Technically, no particular event is ever repeatable, since each and every particular event is a unique instance. But, as a type of event, it presumably might be repeatable. M might have the exact same type of event again. He might have the event while hooked up to brain-scanning technology so that we can study the neural properties of his experience. But, unless something inexplicably magical happens, we can't verify that his interpretation of the event is correct. We can't verify that it is, in fact, Jesus he is encountering (unless it is, in fact, Jesus, and the Savior is in a mood to step up and verify M's interpretation for us).
nope, I did not mean to say that all. I am not addressing or commenting on his interpretation at all, just using his "event" as an example to illustrate and clarify word usage. In this instance I am only talking about having the "event." which is separate and distinct from whatever interpretation is assigned to it later. Interpretation (which comes after the "event") is views opinions beliefs and that varies widely and wildly from person to person. it's like "my interpretation of my dream is this" and no, wait, "your dream really means this." how valid is anyone else's dream to anyone else? seriously. how interested is anyone in someone else's dream? seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
The basic idea is that we have to keep in mind a distinction between the ontological aspects of experience (what is, what exists, what properties it has, what is the nature of it) on the one hand, and the epistemological aspects (what we can know, how we can know it) on the other hand.
we can't know that MPD had an event.
"anybody can claim anything"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Perhaps your are right about this, but it would be helpful if you could give us a couple of specific examples of different people (preferable other than yourself) who are using the word 'fact' in incompatible ways. Thus we could assess whether or not people really are using the word 'fact' in incompatible ways, or whether you are simply misinterpreting them. (Again, keeping in mind that people often very obviously disagree about what is or is not a fact. But, in the process of disagreeing, they can still be using the word 'fact' consistently.)
go over and ask on the atheist forum, ask them what is a fact, what is their criteria for calling something a fact and draw your own conclusions.
while you are at it you can ask them to tell you about their atheist spirituality.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 10-29-2018 at 10:08 AM..
go over and ask on the atheist forum, ask them what is a fact, what is their criteria for calling something a fact and draw your own conclusions.
while you are at it you can ask them to tell you about their atheist spirituality.
I have no interest in spending time on that. As far as I can tell, we are all using the word 'fact' in a linguistically consistent way, even tho, of course, we radically disagree on what the facts are, and there will, of course, be disagreement on how we determine facts, what facts can be known, or not known, etc. If you, or anyone, wants to give specific examples of people using the word 'fact' inconsistently, then I will be happy to review the examples. As I said, you could be right. But, at the moment, I'm not aware of any examples of that, so I don't see it as a playing a critical role in the discussions.
In 1976 the Viking spacecraft took pictures of the surface of Mars that included a picture of a feature on the surface that resembled a face.
Twenty years later the Mars Global Surveyor took a picture of the same feature on Mars from a different angle, and at a different time of day.
There appears to be a face on the moon as well.
The people that claim that these things are evidence of extraterrestrials tend to be the same people that believe in bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and that magic is real.
Thanks for that. After the Cydonia face (I recall the Net was running adverts of people offering bronze replicas of the Face for $50), people were finding all sorts of stuff on Mars. It was the same with the NAMI Ark where some photos of something slipping down a snowy slope (looked like a large chunk of snow) was sworn to be the Ark. Though it didn't look anything like it. Eye of Faith and No Mistake.
regarding my wording on #3 you are correct. good to point that out, thank you. I agree.
it is more accurate to change the wording from this:
(3) it is a fact that his claim to have had an event is not verifiable, and is not repeatable using the scientific method.
to this:
(3) it is a fact that there is no way to verify whether "the event" actually occurred, and it is not repeatable using the scientific method.
nope, I did not mean to say that all. I am not addressing or commenting on his interpretation at all, just using his "event" as an example to illustrate and clarify word usage. In this instance I am only talking about having the "event." which is separate and distinct from whatever interpretation is assigned to it later. Interpretation (which comes after the "event") is views opinions beliefs and that varies widely and wildly from person to person. it's like "my interpretation of my dream is this" and no, wait, "your dream really means this." how valid is anyone else's dream to anyone else? seriously. how interested is anyone in someone else's dream? seriously.
we can't know that MPD had an event.
"anybody can claim anything"
go over and ask on the atheist forum, ask them what is a fact, what is their criteria for calling something a fact and draw your own conclusions.
while you are at it you can ask them to tell you about their atheist spirituality.
Dear lady, I (Currently paid up and card - carrying spokebod for the Atheist Religion) have explained what 'fact' means and what it doesn't. I believe that i also explained about the Atheist "Take" on "*'Spirituality'*". If not, I will, again.
I have no interest in spending time on that. As far as I can tell, we are all using the word 'fact' in a linguistically consistent way, even tho, of course, we radically disagree on what the facts are, and there will, of course, be disagreement on how we determine facts, what facts can be known, or not known, etc. If you, or anyone, wants to give specific examples of people using the word 'fact' inconsistently, then I will be happy to review the examples. As I said, you could be right. But, at the moment, I'm not aware of any examples of that, so I don't see it as a playing a critical role in the discussions.
that's exactly what I said.
people have different criteria how they use the word fact. and demonstrate they are not able to distinguish between a fact and an opinion/ view/ belief. They call things facts that are not facts.
example
"men are pigs. that's a fact."
"well no, that is an opinion. that is a belief. it is your opinion that men are pigs. But it is not a fact. you don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion/view/belief."
"you are wrong and intellectually dishonest. men are pigs is a fact. here are statistics on violent crimes men commit and statistics of men prison population. It is a fact because I have proof and evidence."
all men are not pigs. that is a fact
there are wonderful men. that is a fact.
"men are pigs" conveys a different message than "some men are pigs." That is a fact.
"men are pigs" conveys the message that her own boyfriend is a pig. also that her father and brother and male co workers are pigs. That any male mentors or heroes she has are pigs. If she has sons at some point then her sons are pigs.
"stop twisting my words I never said that"
another example. same conversation. same flawed logic.
instead of "men are pigs" substitute "religion is oppressive and stunts a person's spiritual growth and that is a fact"
Not all religions are oppressive. That is a fact.
Many people have immense spiritual growth in religion. That is a fact.
same flawed logic. same can't tell the difference between fact and view/opinion/belief. same not being able to clarify "some" or "all." Those kind of crude simplistic stereotypes made routinely on these forums including this thread tend to be blatantly inaccurate, display a lack of clarity in use of language to convey a message, show a lack of intellectual aptitude, and demonstrate a very superficial (without depth) thought process. Because it is superficial if someone thinks all men are xyz, or all religion is xyz.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 10-29-2018 at 02:58 PM..
that's exactly what I said.
people have different criteria how they use the word fact in this forum.
example this thread currently in use:
MPD states it is a "fact" he had event
no one else except him states it is a "fact" he had an event.
some "believe" he had an event, but do not call it a fact
some "believe" he did NOT have an event, and of course they do not call it a fact
his "event" is being used as an example in the main point I am making that people need to
(a) recognize that there is a difference between a "fact" and a "belief view opinion."
and (b) be able to distinguish between "fact" and "belief view opinion."
another example of someone not knowing the difference between a fact and an opinion view belief
"men are pigs. that's a fact."
"well no, that is an opinion. that is a belief. it is your opinion that men are pigs. But it is not a fact. you don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion/view/belief."
"you are wrong and intellectually dishonest. men are pigs is a fact. here are statistics on violent crimes men commit and statistics of men prison population. It is a fact because I have proof and evidence."
all men are not pigs. that is a fact
there are wonderful men. that is a fact.
"men are pigs" conveys a different meaning than "some men are pigs." That is a fact.
"men are pigs" conveys the message that her own boyfriend is a pig. also that her father and brother and co workers are pigs. If she has sons at some point then her sons are pigs.
"stop twisting my words I never said that"
another example. same conversation.
instead of "men are pigs" substitute "religion is oppressive and stunts a person's spiritual growth and that is a fact"
Not all religions are oppressive. That is a fact.
Many people have immense spiritual growth in religion. That is a fact.
same flawed logic. same can't tell the difference between fact and view/opinion/belief. same not being able to clarify "some" or "all." Those kind of blanket statements made routinely on these forums including this thread tend to be blatantly inaccurate, display a lack of clarity in use of language to convey a message, and demonstrate a very superficial (without depth) thought process. Because it is superficial if someone thinks all men are xyz, or all religion is xyz.
it is a fact that religion stunts personal growth.
anybody that teaches that its a need to believe a person dying, waking up, and flying away to be saved is stunting some people's growth.
You don't like it. anymore than atheists don't like their silly beliefs based on a fear of religion being called out. To me, your both cut from the same cloth and a danger to the rest of us. stunting everybody you can to save them from "other beliefs" while forcing a personal emotional need on the rest of us.
Lucky for us, formal religion and 'deny anything because we believe religion is so bad we will change how the universe works to stop it" will always be outnumbered. well, until they put us to the sword that is. and both of them will.
"humanity is horrible. humans are vile and disgusting. it's terrible living on this planet. that is a fact."
"well no that is your opinion. that is your belief. Many people find living on this planet to be wonderful, and humanity is filled with kind generous wonderful people."
"you are deluded. you are a liar. you are intellectually dishonest."
questions for anyone:
In what way is the statement (see bold below) NOT a fact?
How can this statement be edited or changed so that it is a fact?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
it is a fact that religion stunts personal growth.
anybody that teaches that its a need to believe a person dying, waking up, and flying away to be saved is stunting some people's growth.
You don't like it. anymore than atheists don't like their silly beliefs based on a fear of religion being called out. To me, your both cut from the same cloth and a danger to the rest of us. stunting everybody you can to save them from "other beliefs" while forcing a personal emotional need on the rest of us.
Lucky for us, formal religion and 'deny anything because we believe religion is so bad we will change how the universe works to stop it" will always be outnumbered. well, until they put us tothe sword that is. and both of them will.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 10-29-2018 at 03:21 PM..
"humanity is horrible. humans are vile and disgusting. it's terrible living on this planet. that is a fact."
I see. I think I misunderstood what you were saying (which is why I wanted a few examples). People are asserting things as facts when they are obviously not facts - which, I suspect, has been a rampant problem throughout human history ever since the invention of language. So I think we are actually in agreement here. I think these people basically understand what the word 'fact' is supposed to mean (which is exactly why they are using it - they want to emphasize the supposed universal truth of their belief/opinion and, by implication, the ignorance of anyone who disagrees with them), but by using the word 'fact' they are overstating their case to laughably absurd degrees. This sort of thing irritates me as well.
I see this as all the more reason why I think we need to advocate for the value of the scientific method, and the value of peer-reviewed evidence in science. Unfortunately, a lot of people have lost sight of these values. Nowadays people who obviously have little or no education in science (or, in some cases, not much education of any sort) feel emboldened to denounce well-supported scientific evidence as "fake news" or "conspiracy" etc., without having any understanding of the evidence, or how it was gathered, or how it was evaluated. They just know that they don't like it, and they can find a self-proclaimed "expert" who doesn't like it either, and suddenly actual science becomes irrelevant and we end up with "alternative facts"...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(My Mars-face) Another word i can't spell. ...nope - another word that spellcheck has never heard of. 
