Woo woo quote of the day

[belinda]

"There is something wrong with the idea that there is a mystery and we'll study it and it won't be a mystery any more."

This is from an article (http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,10078755%255E3102,00.html) about the investigation into a weeping statue right here in Brisvegas. Sad thing is the quote didn't come from the catholic priest "investigating" the phenomenon - oh no - sadly it came from a professor at a local university.

Even more embarrasing - I got my bachelor degree from there. :p

[SquishyDave]

There's your problem, he's a professor of history and philosophy. If he was a professor of real subjects he might think differently. ;)

[Stitch]

"There is something wrong with the idea that there is a mystery and we'll study it and it won't be a mystery any more."


Oh boy

[TheBoyPaj]

Isn't philosophy all about mysteries? What does this guy do all day?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Isn't philosophy all about mysteries? What does this guy do all day?

Dunno, it's a mystery.

[Stitch]

I got it, sussed it!!!

If we think about all the mysteries, and so they are no longer mysteries, then those who's job it is to ponder mysteries will be out of a job as there will be no mysteries left to ponder.

It's a bit like if you fix all the potholes in the road then the road repairers will be out of a job.

Damn, damn and double damn, that doesn't work either, new pot holes will come along and sure as eggs is eggs, new mysteries will as well :D

[Rascal]

Reminds me of an author I saw on the Today Show (or similar) several years ago. His book was about how all the world's problems were due to the fact that people were no longer enchanted by things. Once we allowed enchantment to become a part of our daily lives, all would be well.

My wife and I had fun with that one for a while. "My, what an enchanting piece of toast that this!"

[TheBoyPaj]

At least philosophers will always find work. (Until Deep Thought is invented, of course.)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rascal
My wife and I had fun with that one for a while. "My, what an enchanting piece of toast that this!"
What were you trying to do there, butter up the Cosmic Muffin?




I'm here all week. Two shows Friday...

[RabbiSatan]

This one's my favourite:

"Yes I do. I do have evidence but won't provide it. I'll only provide it to non-skeptics." - Interesting Ian, here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39965&highlight=hindu+NDEs).

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan
This one's my favourite:

"Yes I do. I do have evidence but won't provide it. I'll only provide it to non-skeptics." - Interesting Ian, here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39965&highlight=hindu+NDEs).
I was almost tempted. But then I thought, nah, not even that is sufficient enticement to remove him from Ignore List hello. Not even for the second it would take to view this woo art exhibit. I'll just rest satisfied with the coffee table book.

[chrisberez]

Originally posted by belinda
"There is something wrong with the idea that there is a mystery and we'll study it and it won't be a mystery any more."

This is from an article (http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,10078755%255E3102,00.html) about the investigation into a weeping statue right here in Brisvegas. Sad thing is the quote didn't come from the catholic priest "investigating" the phenomenon - oh no - sadly it came from a professor at a local university.

Even more embarrasing - I got my bachelor degree from there. :p

Ow, my brain hurts.

I love it when people complain about science taking the "mystery" put of things. If you put forth a claim, it's open to investigation and debate. If you want your opinion unquestioned, then keep it to yourself.

And mostly, if the effects of something "supernatural" are observed empirically, then they should be able to be tested and investigated empirically.

Sorry this guy belongs to your university. Don't concentrate on that though. It's your university and obviously you and a great many others got good thinking skills there. Just because this idiot is a jack@ss doesn't mean it's a bad school.

But seriously guy's, c'mon! What this guy says is SOOOOO true. I mean, we skeptics are just so friggin close minded and terrified that our world view will be shattered that we reject anything that doesn't fit our world view immediately without giving it a chance!!!!!

Right Luci? Wherever you are?


:dl:

[shemp]

If anyone would care to spend some time discussing this with the dear prof, his email is W.Hudson@griffith.edu.au

[Maelstrom]

Griffith University... well that says it all. Now if he was from UQ... :P

[RabbiSatan]

Here's (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42777&pagenumber=4) another gem

"Exactly! I really don't know anything which, is what I've been trying to tell everyone all along." - Iacchus

[princhester]

Maelstrom, I was going to post something smartarse about the Griffith/UQ differential, but then I thought, nah, there's as many kooks at UQ as anywhere and my words will only come back and bite me sooner or later. So I won't.

But it is pretty typical that some wally from Griffith would say something distinctly lightweight, , huh? :)

[belinda]

Hey there are woo-woo's everywhere - no matter what uni they are at - witness John Mack and Harvard or Harold Puthoff and Stanford :p

Then again there are brilliant people from GU as well - like ME! :D

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Stitch

If we think about all the mysteries, and so they are no longer mysteries, then those who's job it is to ponder mysteries will be out of a job as there will be no mysteries left to ponder.


Very good.

Roger Penrose said the same thing when asked whether he thought he would see a TOE in his lifetime. "I hope not", he replied,"because what would we do then?".

Perhaps some mysteries are destined to remain mysterious forever, no matter how much we investigate them. As a professor of philosophy and history, perhaps he could be forgiven for having such an attitude.


new mysteries will as well


Yes, new mysteries. Like how Greece managed to win Euro 2004 (sorry, still trying to get my head around that one), or why Americans vote for George W Bush (please don't explain, I don't want to know). :p

[belinda]

Originally posted by JustGeoff

As a professor of philosophy and history, perhaps he could be forgiven for having such an attitude.

Actually I disagree - as a professor of philosophy maybe the attitude is OK, but as a professor of history......history should be the factual study of what happened in the past - otherwise you end up with psudeo-history and the only way of knowing what really happened is with a read only time machine (my dream - to go back in history with a RO time machine tm that way you don't end up with paradox stuff ups ;)

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by belinda


Actually I disagree - as a professor of philosophy maybe the attitude is OK, but as a professor of history......history should be the factual study of what happened in the past - otherwise you end up with psudeo-history and the only way of knowing what really happened is with a read only time machine (my dream - to go back in history with a RO time machine tm that way you don't end up with paradox stuff ups ;)

History is rarely 'factual'. It is mainly based on interpretations of recollections. History is constantly changing.

[Jesus]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


History is rarely 'factual'. It is mainly based on interpretations of recollections. History is constantly changing. Actually, no, it's not. I saw this argument in another thread you posted in, but then the topic trailed off so I didn't bother to reply.

While I would say that there are certain subjective spins that can be placed on historical events (some of the things I've heard come out of the South about our own American Civil War, for example), there are certain facts that are fairly concrete because they are sufficiently backed up.

If you don't believe me, I'll give you an example, albeit a rather trivial one. Take sports. The outcomes of sporting events/games are recorded rather nicely, and no matter how much some fans would like to posthumously change the results, that simply will not happen.

I would definitely not assume history is in constant change just because we have shoddy records in some areas.

[belinda]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


History is constantly changing.

No it's not....history CAN'T change that's the whole point. However you can have varying spins on the interpretations...eg so and so did such and such BECAUSE of blah blah blah. History is WHAT happened - what can be debated is WHY it happened.

[SquishyDave]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Perhaps some mysteries are destined to remain mysterious forever, no matter how much we investigate them. As a professor of philosophy and history, perhaps he could be forgiven for having such an attitude.Destined to remain mysterious? Who decided that? god, buddah, zues, allah, vishnu, aliens, the mole men? Perhaps some things may be beyond our brains ability to figure out, that's a different boat of fish altogether, but destiny? That's out there man. :D

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by belinda

No it's not....history CAN'T change that's the whole point.


How do you know that?
Do you know something about time that I don't?
What if the only thing which actually exists is the present, and the past and future are both indeterminate, and more so the further you go in both directions?

And yes I am talking about what actually happened, not what was written down about it.

I am not saying this is definately the case, but how do you know it isn't?

The truth is, nobody knows for sure whether the past is fixed, it is just one of those things that seems obvious to us. Like the world being flat and the sun going round the earth. ;)

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Jesus


If you don't believe me, I'll give you an example, albeit a rather trivial one. Take sports. The outcomes of sporting events/games are recorded rather nicely, and no matter how much some fans would like to posthumously change the results, that simply will not happen.


Are you sure? How about when somoen has 'won' a gold medal at the Olympics, only months later to have history re-written because it is discovered that they cheated?

How about when Maradona pushed the ball in the net in the world cup finals. Everyone knows that was cheating, but one guy alone allowed that to determine Argentine were the 'champions', when in reality, in the eyes of the world, they were evidently not.

History is constantly changing. It depends on the unique view of the observer, at specific points in time and space to percieve how it appears to the individual.

We are all unique observerers of history. There are no authorities on history. It only exists in the imagination.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
How about when Maradona pushed the ball in the net in the world cup finals. Everyone knows that was cheating, but one guy alone allowed that to determine Argentine were the 'champions', when in reality, in the eyes of the world, they were evidently not.

Errrrr.... That would be Argentina and Maradonna

They still were the champions, after all they got the trophy and anyway, even without the "hand of god" goal the result would have been 1-1. Considering England's performance in penalty shootouts, i think we can assume that Argentina would have gone through

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
We are all unique observerers of history. There are no authorities on history. It only exists in the imagination.
Some things are less open to interpretation than others. There is far more evidence that Middlesbrough Football club won the Carling Cup 2004 than there is that, for example, the pyramids were built by aliens. After all for the former we have:

- Records from a number of print and broadcast media (both partial and impartial)
- Eyewitness accounts (both partial and impartial)
- Records of the fact that the match took place (ticket sales and so forth)

Of course nothing is certain but the lack of evidence to the contrary, the strength of evidence in favour and effort required to fabricate all the evidence (vs. the reward in doing so) indicates strongly that Middlesbrough Football club won the Carling Cup in 2004.

Where there is more scope for debate is for specific incidents and the implications of them:

- Very few (No ?) people can produce evidence that the second World War didn't take place
- There may be a greate deal of doubt as to whether soldier A shot soldier B on date C
- One can debate until the cows come home whether the outcome of the war would have been different had soldier A not done so

To argue that all of history (including the events) is somewhat disingenuous. After all the next step is to say that "as it's all up for grabs my version is as good as your version". This is only the case if you version is backed up by (relatively) unabiguous evidence ideally drawn from independent sources.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by The Don



To argue that all of history (including the events) is somewhat disingenuous. After all the next step is to say that "as it's all up for grabs my version is as good as your version". This is only the case if you version is backed up by (relatively) unabiguous evidence ideally drawn from independent sources.

Sorry about the previous spellings ( and future ones!). With respect, my version of history is as good as yours. "unabiguous evidence" and "independant sources" are purely subjective terms. History can only be defined by the predominant belief system of any number of unique points of observation in time / space.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
History is rarely 'factual'. It is mainly based on interpretations of recollections. History is constantly changing.

History is built on facts. Artifacts. We can interpret why Claudius invaded Britain, but there is no doubt that he did.

History is first and foremost factual.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
How do you know that?
Do you know something about time that I don't?
What if the only thing which actually exists is the present, and the past and future are both indeterminate, and more so the further you go in both directions?

And yes I am talking about what actually happened, not what was written down about it.

One word: Artifacts.

Do you deny that Claudius invaded Britain?

[The Don]

The "predominant belief system" needs also to be backed up by whatever kind of evidence is available at the time. Evidence includes:

- Artifacts
- Accounts

If for example I claim that a huge pile of rubble has been caused by a building being demolished and the counter claim is that no such thing happened and that the rubble has always been there just as rubble:

If I can produce:

- A series of eyewitnesses to the demolition
- A trail of paperwork relating to the demolition
- Trace amounts of the explosives used in the demolition
- Archeological evidence of the building
- Contemporary pictures of the building in-situ
- A series of films of the buidling in-situ and being demolished

Then my account would have better evidential backing. Naturally, if the person with the alternative claim can produce a similar body of evidence, of a similar quality, then their claim deserves due consideration.

The issue comes when trying to infer or extrapolate additional information from the accounts and artifacts and/or taking accounts at face value. Finding a Roman coin "in context" with Victorian household waste may have a number of possible explanations including, but not liimited to:

- Romans and Victorians were contemporaries
- There has been a mixing of the matrix and the context isn't as good as first thought
- The coin was part of some Victorian's collection

Going of half-cocked and writing a popular book about how Romans were around until the 19th century may seem a good idea but the lack of supporting evidence (contemporary accounts of chariots on The Strand, the presence of the 14th legion at the Great Exhibition) may enable others to point out the flaws with this hypothesis.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


One word: Artifacts.



Good example. Artifacts in existence are used by historians as a means to make post-dictions based on the predominant belief system. Dragon skulls have transformed into 'dinosaur' skulls and the 'facts' about those artifacts are still constantly changing.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Good example. Artifacts in existence are used by historians as a means to make post-dictions based on the predominant belief system. Dragon skulls have transformed into 'dinosaur' skulls and the 'facts' about those artifacts are still constantly changing.
That would be the interpretation that you're talking about there. The facts relating to the skull would include:

- Its existence
- The context in which it was found (together with supporting evidence)
- Its internal consistency (is some of it made out of plastic ?)

Things to take into account when comparing the interpretation of the facts regarding the skull:

- The reputation of the finder
- The known biases (if any of the finder/interpreter)
- Any other supporting information (like the rest of the skeleton)

[Jesus]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Are you sure? How about when somoen has 'won' a gold medal at the Olympics, only months later to have history re-written because it is discovered that they cheated?

How about when Maradona pushed the ball in the net in the world cup finals. Everyone knows that was cheating, but one guy alone allowed that to determine Argentine were the 'champions', when in reality, in the eyes of the world, they were evidently not.

History is constantly changing. It depends on the unique view of the observer, at specific points in time and space to percieve how it appears to the individual.

We are all unique observerers of history. There are no authorities on history. It only exists in the imagination. What you're saying definitely has merit, but it still relates mainly to interpretation. As far as controversial decisions goes, I'll reference my favorite sport of boxing to demonstrate my point.

The most recent Oscar de la Hoya fight ended in considerable controversy, as most felt (including me) that his opponent, German Felix Sturm, deserved the win. However, the judges scored for Oscar. So, therefore, Oscar won the fight. It is in the record books, on tape, in the memories of fans and journalists, and reflects in his loss column. That's a fact.

Whether it was a fair and deserved win is open to much debate.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Jesus
What you're saying definitely has merit, but it still relates mainly to interpretation. As far as controversial decisions goes, I'll reference my favorite sport of boxing to demonstrate my point.

The most recent Oscar de la Hoya fight ended in considerable controversy, as most felt (including me) that his opponent, German Felix Sturm, deserved the win. However, the judges scored for Oscar. So, therefore, Oscar won the fight. It is in the record books, on tape, in the memories of fans and journalists, and reflects in his loss column. That's a fact.



No, with respect, it is only a record. A judge is not an arbiter of fact, they are as fallible as any other human.

If a judge says "All gays are pedophiles", does that make all gay people pedophiles? No.

History is subjective, open to the the unique interpretation of human perception under the conditions of unique points in time / space. As a result, history is constantly changing.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Good example. Artifacts in existence are used by historians as a means to make post-dictions based on the predominant belief system. Dragon skulls have transformed into 'dinosaur' skulls and the 'facts' about those artifacts are still constantly changing.

They are?? Could you please explain to an astonished world how dinosaur skulls have changed into something else?

How are dinosaur skulls interpreted these days? What are they now?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
History is subjective, open to the the unique interpretation of human perception under the conditions of unique points in time / space. As a result, history is constantly changing.

Historical facts are not changing. The reasons why Claudius invaded Britain may be discussed, but nothing changes the fact that he did invade Britain.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Historical facts are not changing. The reasons why Claudius invaded Britain may be discussed, but nothing changes the fact that he did invade Britain.

It may have been a holiday gone wrong. I do sympathise, the weather here sometimes is dire.

Did America invade Iraq?

[Jesus]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


No, with respect, it is only a record. A judge is not an arbiter of fact, they are as fallible as any other human.

If a judge says "All gays are pedophiles", does that make all gay people pedophiles? No.

History is subjective, open to the the unique interpretation of human perception under the conditions of unique points in time / space. As a result, history is constantly changing. But that's the point, it's a record, which is good evidence (as long as the record is reliable) that it actually happened.

Oscar has a win in his last fight, that is fact. The Yankees beat the Red Sox in last year's ALCS. The Patriots are the most recent Super Bowl Champions.

You can argue all day long about how deserving or legitimate the above victories are, but they happened, as best as anyone can tell. I can give you evidence of these things, if you'd like.

[Jesus]

Sorry, duplicate post. Darn Computer

[The Don]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
No, with respect, it is only a record. A judge is not an arbiter of fact, they are as fallible as any other human.

If a judge says "All gays are pedophiles", does that make all gay people pedophiles? No.

History is subjective, open to the the unique interpretation of human perception under the conditions of unique points in time / space. As a result, history is constantly changing.
You're combining "Facts" such as person 'x' was awarded the win in a boxing match with interpretations such as person 'y' actually deserved to win the boxing match.

Fact based assertion: a particular gay person was found to be a paedophile following a court case (in which, I presume each party had to back up its claims with evidence)

Sweepng generalisation: All gay people are paedophiles (unless of course every gay person has been subjected to the same degree of investigation and has likewise been found guilty)

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Jesus
But that's the point, it's a record, which is good evidence (as long as the record is reliable) that it actually happened.

Oscar has a win in his last fight, that is fact. The Yankees beat the Red Sox in last year's ALCS. The Patriots are the most recent Super Bowl Champions.

You can argue all day long about how deserving or legitimate the above victories are, but they happened, as best as anyone can tell. I can give you evidence of these things, if you'd like.

Sweet Jesus, I think you are missing the point. You used the word "reliable", who says what is or isn't "reliable"? There is no divine arbiter, on anything. Your boxing match, clealrly, is down to unique individual subjectivity as to whether anyone 'won' or not. If course, I understand that people invest 'authority' in others to make those judgements for them, but in actual fact, the only person who knows what happened are the individuals who observed the event. And that result will depend entirely on the circumstances and conditions of that unique perception of the individual 'self'.

[princhester]

No Luci you are missing the point or being obtuse. There will be good records as to who was recorded as officially winning the boxing match. Who was awarded the trophy. And that sort of history is pretty reliable.

Whether one or other boxer should have won, or won according to the views of any given spectator, is another issue.

Think about it this way: if you asked a stadium full of people who should have won the fight, or which punch was thrown when, you'd probably get a variety of answers. And to the extent history is a discussion of those sorts of things, there is no doubt it is very subjective.

But if you asked the stadium full of people who was officially announced as the winning boxer, which boxer's arms were held up in victory, which boxer was given the prize, 99% would give you one single objective answer.

To the extent that history consists of those sorts of facts, it's pretty objective.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by princhester
No Luci you are missing the point or being obtuse. There will be good records as to who was recorded as officially winning the boxing match. Who was awarded the trophy. And that sort of history is pretty reliable.

Whether one or other boxer should have won, or won according to the views of any given spectator, is another issue.

Think about it this way: if you asked a stadium full of people who should have won the fight, or which punch was thrown when, you'd probably get a variety of answers. And to the extent history is a discussion of those sorts of things, there is no doubt it is very subjective.

But if you asked the stadium full of people who was officially announced as the winning boxer, which boxer's arms were held up in victory, which boxer was given the prize, 99% would give you one single objective answer.



Thanks for making for my point. People bow to the decisions and records of authority. Unfortunately, this gives a skewed version of what actually happened. Two people fought. One guy clearly beat the other guy, most people saw that, but the authority deemed the beaten guy won. Genereations later, people see those records and take that as fact. All that record was, was the record and deciding choice of one authority. Appeal to authority is not something a sceptic should, imo, rely upon.

Did America invade Iraq?

[Lucianarchy]

Take PSI. The records show that it is an effect which exists. It can be measured, recorded and replicated under controlled scientific conditions.

How many people here think that PSI exists?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by princhester
No Luci you are missing the point or being obtuse.

Classic. :D

[Jesus]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Thanks for making for my point. People bow to the decisions and records of authority. Unfortunately, this gives a skewed version of what actually happened. Two people fought. One guy clearly beat the other guy, most people saw that, but the authority deemed the beaten guy won. Genereations later, people see those records and take that as fact. All that record was, was the record and deciding choice of one authority. Appeal to authority is not something a sceptic should, imo, rely upon.

Did America invade Iraq? First of all, it is my opinion that one guy beat the other guy soundly. There has been much debate as to who deserved to win on other forums I visit.

It is fact that de la Hoya won. Period. And you can't complain about the authorities being unreliable, because without them, you can't have a sport. It would just be chaos.

Let me give another example, because I heard a debate about this on the radio the other day.

Muhammed Ali did not serve in Vietnam. Are you going to debate that with me or anyone else? It is fact, verifiable in many ways that he did not go(and almost went to prison because of it).

Now, there are two polarized camps in the debate over his decision. He was either an unpatriotic coward, or he was honorable in standing up for what he believed in.

We can debate and spin that all you want, but the fact is Ali did not serve in Vietnam.

I have a feeling, though, that this debate is over for me after reading your PSI comment.

[princhester]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Thanks for making for my point. People bow to the decisions and records of authority. Unfortunately, this gives a skewed version of what actually happened. Two people fought. One guy clearly beat the other guy, most people saw that, but the authority deemed the beaten guy won. Genereations later, people see those records and take that as fact. All that record was, was the record and deciding choice of one authority. Appeal to authority is not something a sceptic should, imo, rely upon.


You are refusing to acknowledge that the fact that authority recorded one boxer as the winner, is of itself a fact and a reliable one. Whether they should have awarded that win is another question. If history records that the boxing authority announced one boxer as the winner, that history is accurate.

Your comment about appealing to authority and bowing to authority is a straw man. You have been told time and again in this thread that no one is denying that the authority's decision could well be questionable and that this leads to a subjective element in history. You must know that by now. I can only conclude you are being deliberately obtuse.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Jesus


I have a feeling, though, that this debate is over for me after reading your PSI comment.

I assume from that you mean that you believe that PSI has not met the terms I wrote about. My point, again, exactly. History is a recollection of memories and an interpretation of records, as a result it is always changing. Just because you may disagree with me, does not mean that I am obtuse, any more than you are.

[Lucianarchy]

In fact, PSI is a classic example of history changing in action. In the future, many skeptics will be saying that they knew PSI existed all along, they just didn't trust the evidence at the time..

[princhester]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
In fact, PSI is a classic example of history changing in action. In the future, many skeptics will be saying that they knew PSI existed all along, they just didn't trust the evidence at the time..

Luci, "is" denotes something that already exists.

The rock "is" over there.

"In the future" denotes something that isn't yet.

The rock "in the future" will be over there.

The latter formulation implies something that "is not" at present.

Now go back and have a look at your last post. Compare your first to your second sentence.

Notice something?

Luci is an idiot. My justification: in the future Luci will do something idiotic.

Does my present description of you based on something you haven't done seem a little unfair, perchance?

[juninho]

Originally posted by The Don

Some things are less open to interpretation than others. There is far more evidence that Middlesbrough Football club won the Carling Cup 2004 than there is that, for example, the pyramids were built by aliens. After all for the former we have:


Good to see another Boro fan on the list. I was worried that Interesting Ian was distorting the image of the area.

[juninho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Thanks for making for my point. People bow to the decisions and records of authority. Unfortunately, this gives a skewed version of what actually happened. Two people fought. One guy clearly beat the other guy, most people saw that, but the authority deemed the beaten guy won. Genereations later, people see those records and take that as fact. All that record was, was the record and deciding choice of one authority. Appeal to authority is not something a sceptic should, imo, rely upon.

Did America invade Iraq?

Why can't you grab the (very) simple notion that history does not change?

Taking the boxing match thing a bit further, this is how it boils down:

1) A fight took place
2) A boxer was adjudged to have won at that time
3) That decision was logged
4) In the future that decision may be over-turned
5) In the event of the above, the "result" will be amended

Do you disagree with any of the above statements?

Just because the "result" of the fight may be amended in the future does not mean that history has changed. It will still be a matter of fact that on the day of the fight the winner was de la Hoya. If, for example, in September 2005, a decision is taken to strip de la Hoya of the win, it doesn't change the fact that he was awarded the fight on the night. It would then enter history that de la Hoya was awarded the fight on the night BUT in September 2005 it was decided to strip him of the win. History will not have changed it would merely be augmented.

What's with the "Did America invade Iraq?" question?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by princhester
Luci, "is" denotes something that already exists.



No, it appears to exist. You can not ever prove to the satisafaction of another observer that it does. "is" is just a word. Words are a construct of human logic to describe percieved events. I appreciate you are having trouble understanding this, but it does not mean that you are an "idiot". It just means you don't understand.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by juninho
Why can't you grab the (very) simple notion that history does not change?

Taking the boxing match thing a bit further, this is how it boils down:

1) A fight took place
2) A boxer was adjudged to have won at that time
3) That decision was logged
4) In the future that decision may be over-turned
5) In the event of the above, the "result" will be amended



Indeed, and so history, once again, changes.

Did America invade Iraq?

[The Don]

Depends on your defintion of the following terms:

- America
- Invade
- Iraq

The general consensus of opinion appears to be that a UN sanctioned coalition led by, and predominantly staffed by U.S. personnel entered the portion of the Middle East termed Iraq without the permission of it's current leader, Saddam Hussein. The coalition went on to assume power over that patch of land before handing power to an interrim authority of Iraqis (or at least people who claimed to be so)

It is a matter of interpretation to then say
"America Invaded Iraq"

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by The Don
Depends on your defintion of the following terms:

- America
- Invade
- Iraq

The general consensus of opinion appears to be that a UN sanctioned coalition led by, and predominantly staffed by U.S. personnel entered the portion of the Middle East termed Iraq without the permission of it's current leader, Saddam Hussein. The coalition went on to assume power over that patch of land before handing power to an interrim authority of Iraqis (or at least people who claimed to be so)

It is a matter of interpretation to then say
"America Invaded Iraq"

Just a minor quibble, but as I don't believe we went in either as a coalition or with UN support.

However, it is pretty clear that America did invade Iraq, I don't think many would argue that. The question open to interpretation is whether or not America was justified in this invasion.

[belinda]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Just a minor quibble, but as I don't believe we went in either as a coalition or with UN support.

Uumm, so the British and Australian troops just stood around and clapped and cheered?

[Hellbound]

I didn't intend to imply we did it alone; however, there wasn't any consensus from the international community.

Yes, Britain and Austrailia sent troops. So did a few others. And (IIRC) Britain was the other major force in the initial attack.

IN any case, we were not under any kind of UN authority. I was thinking of UN coalitions when I made my earlier statement; my apologies if you're offended as that was not the intent.

[Gr8wight]

It appears to me that you are all missing the point. You keep talking about the outcomes of sporting events.

In examining the DeLaHoya fight, you keep getting caught up in whether or not he deserved to win the fight. That is not history.

History is how we know he won the fight. We know he won the fight because people who were there recorded the decision. It was subsequently reported widely in the media, so many people knew he won the fight.

What if our conspiracy theorist's secret, behind the scenes, controlling agency decided they didn't like that decision. They exert their almost omnipotent powers to make changes to the official records, and all databases where the result had been recorded. They kidnap or kill those who are too outspoken in their repeated claims that DeLaHoya did not, in fact, lose the match. They make all proof of his victory evaporate. How then do we know he won? Only in the memories of those who were there do the original results still exist, but they are too scared to talk. Eventually, it becomes accepted knowledge that DeLaHoya lost that bout. When all who were there are eventually dead, the result becomes incontrovertible.

Oscar DeLaHoya lost that fight.

That's History!