Fact: people cannot see the future

[flyboy217]

I'm starting this thread because of a discussion that seems to be spanning multiple threads. I am of the impression that claims like "reading the future is impossible" and "crops just don't form natural circles" are not facts, and should not be regarded as such. I would think the strongest assertions one can make are "there is no evidence for X," "there is no logical reason to believe X," and the like. This arose from my objection to the use of a statement of the form "X is impossible" in a thread about the evidence for X.

Several members here seem to disagree, however (names have been changed to preserve anonymity):

e.g.,
Flyboy217:
This is no different from claims like "people just can't see the future," "astrology just can't work," and "reindeer just can't fly." Do you believe those are valid claims, too?

Someone:
They are not only valid claims, but facts.

Flyboy217:
Do you not see the difference between those and valid claims like "we don't have any reason to believe that people can see the future," "astrology has never been shown to work," etc.?


Someone:
These claims are valid as well, and facts also.
Your logic would have people believing in psychics and mediums...........but you do, don't you?

What is the general consensus here (if there is indeed one)? Is it valid and factual to claim such things? If one does not treat claims like "crop circles cannot form naturally" as a fact, does that make one a woo? I'd answer "no" to both.

[thaiboxerken]

Seeing the future is impossible, that is a fact. The future does not exist, it never does, it is simply a concept humans have developed to deal with the dynamically changing universe.

It is also a fact that crop circles do not form naturally. Every crop circle ever discovered was made by humans.

[Ceinwyn]

I'm unclear here. What exactly are you asking?

[Pixel42]

If you said something that implied that the earth was round, and someone said "well I believe the earth is flat", you wouldn't say "well of course you're entitled to your opinion on that, your opinion is as good as mine ...". There is overwhelming evidence that the earth is round, and the position that the earth is flat is completely unsupportable. No-one is ever going to produce any evidence to suggest that the earth has really been flat all along. So "the earth is not flat" is an incontrovertable fact.

"People cannot see the future" is more difficult because, although no-one has yet produced a scrap of evidence that anyone can see the future, the possibility exists that some day someone will do so. The sceptic's position is that if, after all this time, no-one has yet managed to provide evidence that seeing the future is possible, then it's sensible to assume that "People cannot see the future" is fact until and unless someone produces some evidence that proves otherwise.

[Carn]

Originally posted by flyboy217
I am of the impression that claims like "reading the future is impossible" are not facts, and should not be regarded as such.

Depends on what you mean by reading and what is predicted.

If i would have to get into the ring with Vladimir Klitschko for a fight and some astrologer tells me beforehand, that he is certain i will lose, the stars told him, i certainly would not say, its impossible for you to know the future, i would at most ask him why he needs the stars (either those in the sky or in hollywood), to make that prediction.

If someone would predict via astrology, that one of my great-grandchildren will achieve a new world record in running 100m, i would say that this is according to current scientific knowledge(QM, there is no non-material thing attached to or communicating with humans) impossible.

If someone predicted, that next racing season Michael Schumacher will not win again, i would not say impossible(after all maybe its possible to see some pattern in his form and from that one could conclude, that his chances are bad next year), though i would remain sceptical about the methods used, even if it would come true, and would think it more likely, that the astrologers subconcious is just good at evaluating the different drivers racing skills.

Carn

[Mojo]

Originally posted by flyboy217
If one does not treat claims like "crop circles cannot form naturally" as a fact, does that make one a woo?
If someone repeatedly makes assertions which are completely unsupported by evidence then, yes, they are probably a woo.

The skeptical position on, for example, the statement quoted above is not "crop circles cannot form naturally" but "there is no evidence that crop circles form naturally." The fact that every crop circle investigated has been found to be the work of humans is supporting evidence that they do not form naturally, but of course doesn't prove it. It tends to be kind of tricky to prove a negative, remember (have you got an invisible dragon in your bathroom? Are you sure?).

When the supporting evidence is good enough, it is sensible to make the assumption that something is not possible, even if this cannot be proven.

[Dr Adequate]

Actually, it depends where I am. If I'm down the pub, then I'll say: "People don't have precognition" without qualification. Round here, I say, "The evidence which I have seen for precognition is not sufficient to convince me, but please do present me with some more, if you know of any". Because:

(a) That's what I'm here for
(b) If I didn't, a woo would start explaining to me that I'm No True Sceptic... oh, they do that anyway... darn...

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Actually, it depends where I am. If I'm down the pub, then I'll say: "People don't have precognition" without qualification.
I tend not to make unqualified statements of that sort down the pub these days. I have almost come to blows with a (usually reasonable) friend because he insists that men have never walked on the moon, and has now started making up evidence to support this. Contradicting him does not tend to go down well, so I now restrict myself to singing Sympathy for the Devil (under my breath, of course, apart from the backing vocals) whenever he raises the subject.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Mojo
If someone repeatedly makes assertions which are completely unsupported by evidence then, yes, they are probably a woo.

Which is, of course, nothing at all like what I asked.


The skeptical position on, for example, the statement quoted above is not "crop circles cannot form naturally" but "there is no evidence that crop circles form naturally."

Which was precisely my stance.


The fact that every crop circle investigated has been found to be the work of humans is supporting evidence that they do not form naturally, but of course doesn't prove it.

Which is my point :)


It tends to be kind of tricky to prove a negative, remember (have you got an invisible dragon in your bathroom? Are you sure?).

Perhaps I am just strange like that. If someone were to ask me if I had an invisible dragon in my bathroom, I'd say something like "erm... uh... I don't think so..." And if they pressed with "are you sure," I'd probably respond "No... how the hell should I know? Who cares?"


When the supporting evidence is good enough, it is sensible to make the assumption that something is not possible, even if this cannot be proven.

I personally find it dangerous to declare something as fact just because there is insufficient evidence to show otherwise. I've brought this up in another thread, but consider the case of Lavoisier in 1790, reported to have declared that rocks do not fall from the sky because there are no rocks in the sky. And so, not wanting to look foolish, (purportedly) many museums threw out their meteorite collections.

Perhaps the story is apocryphal, but that's the point I'm getting at. Why make foolhardy statements like "X is simply impossible" when it does essentially no good to make them? It's almost as though people feel that they're somehow not taking a staunch enough position against "the woos" were they only to declare that "there is no evidence for such-and-such, so a belief in it is absurd." And the people who don't agree with the dogmatic assertions that certain things simply can't ever be possible are also labeled as woos. :confused:

It seems that once someone takes up the position that "X is factually impossible," they will be at least less likely to consider good evidence for X. Sometimes this serves as a good filter for the thousands of wacky claims rolling in, but it also might end up blocking some good stuff.

[CFLarsen]

flyboy217,

What will it take for you to say that a paranormal phenomenon does not exist?

Don't we at some point have to move on?

[thaiboxerken]

I think he just wants to be semantically correct about the paranormal. I care not for politics of language, I will state that paranormal phenomena does not exist.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I think he just wants to be semantically correct about the paranormal. I care not for politics of language, I will state that paranormal phenomena does not exist.

I think it can be compared to when we say "It has been scientifically proven." It is understood to be true "until contrary evidence arrives".

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by ThaiBoxerKen
I think he just wants to be semantically correct about the paranormal.

Or maybe you could actually listen to what I have to say.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
flyboy217,

What will it take for you to say that a paranormal phenomenon does not exist?

Don't we at some point have to move on?

Like the invisible dragon, I would be more comfortable just saying "until you give me good evidence for this, it's silly, so let's move on." I'm fine with the moving on part. I just don't think something has to be declared impossible before one moves on. I can go on ignoring that invisible dragon in my bathroom as long as it's not pestering me.

One problem, I think, is that deciding for good that something is impossible probably does make one less likely to consider good evidence for it in the future. This can be countered by the simple argument that "staunch" skepticism in this sense is practical--if 1 in a million claims are real, then it saves a lot of time to give each claim just a bit less time than it might otherwise warrant.

Being reasonably new to this whole thing, it's quite possible that I, too, will eventually decide I've had enough of paranormal silliness and become more staunch to save myself time and energy. But I've got all the time in the world for that.

(edited to remove a paragraph)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by flyboy217
Like the invisible dragon, I would be more comfortable just saying "until you give me good evidence for this, it's silly, so let's move on." I'm fine with the moving on part. I just don't think something has to be declared impossible before one moves on. I can go on ignoring that invisible dragon in my bathroom as long as it's not pestering me.

But nobody is saying that it is impossible. E.g., what Ken says is that it doesn't exist (because we haven't seen any evidence of it, and there doesn't seem to be any forthcoming). That's a very different thing.

Originally posted by flyboy217
Being reasonably new to this whole thing, it's quite possible that I, too, will eventually decide I've had enough of paranormal silliness and become more staunch to save myself time and energy. But I've got all the time in the world for that.

Well, one thing you need to do is to realize that there is a difference between "impossible" and "doesn't exist". And who is saying it.

[Darat]

Originally posted by flyboy217
I'm starting this thread because of a discussion that seems to be spanning multiple threads. I am of the impression that claims like "reading the future is impossible" and "crops just don't form natural circles" are not facts, and should not be regarded as such. I would think the strongest assertions one can make are "there is no evidence for X," "there is no logical reason to believe X," and the like. This arose from my objection to the use of a statement of the form "X is impossible" in a thread about the evidence for X.

...snip...

What is the general consensus here (if there is indeed one)? Is it valid and factual to claim such things? If one does not treat claims like "crop circles cannot form naturally" as a fact, does that make one a woo? I'd answer "no" to both.

It's shorthand for saying "According to everything we know, or can verify at the moment there is no reason or evidence that requires the ability of people to see the future, furthermore many of the proposed hypothesis that include the possibility of people being able to see the future would require major re-working or throwing out of existing theories that have proven immensely and incredibly predictive and there is no reason or evidence to consider these hypothesis until such time that incontrovertible evidence is produced that would require people to be able to see the future to explain."

Or something along those lines, I hope you get my drift.

It is much easier to say "People cannot see the future." and leave the long windedness for pedants or people who are trying to get you to believe they can see the future.

[Darat]

Originally posted by flyboy217
...snip...

Like the invisible dragon, I would be more comfortable just saying "until you give me good evidence for this, it's silly, so let's move on." I'm fine with the moving on part. I just don't think something has to be declared impossible before one moves on. I can go on ignoring that invisible dragon in my bathroom as long as it's not pestering me.

One problem, I think, is that deciding for good that something is impossible probably does make one less likely to consider good evidence for it in the future. This can be countered by the simple argument that "staunch" skepticism in this sense is practical--if 1 in a million claims are real, then it saves a lot of time to give each claim just a bit less time than it might otherwise warrant.

Being reasonably new to this whole thing, it's quite possible that I, too, will eventually decide I've had enough of paranormal silliness and become more staunch to save myself time and energy. But I've got all the time in the world for that.

(edited to remove a paragraph)

Let me use your above paragraphs to explain why the level of accuracy you are suggesting people use is just not practical if you want to communicate with people.

"Like the invisible dragon, I would be more comfortable just saying "until you give me good evidence for this, it's silly, so let's move on."

Surely that should be more like:

"Like the invisible dragon, I would (in most cases but probably not in all cases) be more (more being a relative comparative term between how I would feel (feel being an internalised subjective state that I cannot provide objective evidence that I do actually feel (however that does not preclude the fact that at some future time (future time being not infinite but bounded by the life of the universe (the life span of the universe is currently unknown (there are several conflicting theories what it even means to say the "end of the universe" (universe referring to the expanse of the universe that we know about (know about is referring to a mental state of having an awareness of a fact (awareness of a fact is a subjective state that can only be deduced by the observation of third parties .... ))))))))))))))....."

Do you begin to see the problem if you don’t want people to use shorthand? :) It’s all about a balance and trying to use the right amount of detail depending on what you are trying to communicate.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Darat
Do you begin to see the problem if you don’t want people to use shorthand? :) It’s all about a balance and trying to use the right amount of detail depending on what you are trying to communicate.

Thanks for the reply. Your point is well taken. That's why I probed deeper, asking if he meant only that there was insufficient evidence, or if he claimed that it was established as a fact. The response that it was "not only a valid claim, but a fact" is what threw me. Seems like odd shorthand (especially for a forum such as this), but I suppose it's something I'll get used to.

[Darat]

Originally posted by flyboy217
Thanks for the reply. Your point is well taken. That's why I probed deeper, asking if he meant only that there was insufficient evidence, or if he claimed that it was established as a fact. The response that it was "not only a valid claim, but a fact" is what threw me. Seems like odd shorthand (especially for a forum such as this), but I suppose it's something I'll get used to.

I think it is just about "picking your battles" wisely and challenging people appropriately, whilst appreciating that people do tend to not include the "... as far as we know", or "…to the best of our current knowledge…" in every statement.

There is also something I think of as "accurate enough". For example if we were having a general conversation and I said "The earth is a sphere" that is accurate enough although technically it isn't accurate. However if the discussion was about planetary formation then we probably need to use a more accurate statement of the shape of the earth.

[Eleatic Stranger]

I'm not sure why anyone would expect certainty regarding anything other than logically obvious statements - and why anyone would feel the need to qualify statements particularly far when they fall only a little short of that certainty.

I wouldn't say it's logically impossible that my bottom isn't going to turn into subwoofer within the next five minutes, but I think that I'm perfectly well justified in saying that it won't without any qualifications. In fact, when it comes to things knowable with absolute certainty I generally note them as special cases of knowledge - not only do I know that it's impossible for two contradictory statements to both be true, I know it to be necessary.

Arguing that I, on some level, need to admit the possibility that my bottom might turn into a subwoofer within the next five minutes strikes me as nothing more than a refusal to admit that along with logical impossibility there is also physical impossibility - it's not as strong, or as certain, but it's good enough for knowledge.

[The Don]

Originally posted by flyboy217
Thanks for the reply. Your point is well taken. That's why I probed deeper, asking if he meant only that there was insufficient evidence, or if he claimed that it was established as a fact.
It's not just a lack of evidence, it's also the lack of a rational theory as to how such a thing is possible. There is no evidence that Middlesbrough Football Club have ever won the Premiership (because they have not), but there are a set of circumstances in which they could in the future. There has not yet been adequate evidence for precognition, neither is there an acceptable theorem for a mechanism for it to happen.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by flyboy217
I'm starting this thread because of a discussion that seems to be spanning multiple threads. I am of the impression that claims like "reading the future is impossible" and "crops just don't form natural circles" are not facts, and should not be regarded as such. I would think the strongest assertions one can make are "there is no evidence for X," "there is no logical reason to believe X," and the like. This arose from my objection to the use of a statement of the form "X is impossible" in a thread about the evidence for X.

I agree with you. People who "know" are usually the woos, and "knowledge" is usually accompanied by arrogance. Personally I consider all things possible, except of course the simpler stuff like square circles and 2+2=5.

If a person claim that God exists, I will ask for evidence. Likewise, if a person claim that God doesn't exist, I will ask for evidence. To claim that God/pixies/Santa doesn't exist is argument from ignorance. Of course it's entirely justified to use words such as improbable, illogical, irrational and silly to describe such beliefs, since those doesn't make claims, but to use the words impossible and nonexistant doesn't really fit in with skepticism.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Darat
I think it is just about "picking your battles" wisely and challenging people appropriately, whilst appreciating that people do tend to not include the "... as far as we know", or "…to the best of our current knowledge…" in every statement.

There is also something I think of as "accurate enough". For example if we were having a general conversation and I said "The earth is a sphere" that is accurate enough although technically it isn't accurate. However if the discussion was about planetary formation then we probably need to use a more accurate statement of the shape of the earth.

I think you're right--in the end, it's about choosing one's battles. I am perfectly willing to accept "accurate enough" statements, when they are meant only to be "accurate enough."

So then let me ask you this: do you think Lavoisier was justified in proclaiming to the Royal Society that "rocks cannot fall from the sky?" Surely it sounds silly in retrospect, but perhaps that's unavoidable.

[Darat]

Originally posted by flyboy217
I think you're right--in the end, it's about choosing one's battles. I am perfectly willing to accept "accurate enough" statements, when they are meant only to be "accurate enough."

So then let me ask you this: do you think Lavoisier was justified in proclaiming to the Royal Society that "rocks cannot fall from the sky?" Surely it sounds silly in retrospect, but perhaps that's unavoidable.

Not something I've ever researched or looked into, I know it as a story but I don't even know ( ;) ) without doing some research if that is exactly what he said. Without more background I information I’m "agnostic" on whether it was a reasonable statement given the knowledge available at the time or not. Or he spoke out of his hat so to speak.

[Batman Jr.]

As far as flying reindeer, there exist known mechanisms in physics that would prevent a creature of a typical reindeer's biology from flying. However, to say that there couldn't possibly exist a creature which has modifications, inborn or otherwise, to its person not so much that it could no longer be considered a reindeer, but enough and in such a way that it could overcome whatever the physiological barriers that keep the more common variety grounded is to state an unfounded claim. With clairvoyance, we're probably dealing with a much stronger example of an "appeal to ignorance" just by the virtue of the fact that many of the particulars of the human mind are still as of yet scientifically uncharted. In the case of astrology, I think that's not so much an appeal to ignorance because the system to its full extents can be easily tested and refuted.

[SquishyDave]

Flyboy, what do you mean by fact? You keep saying that you can't say "no one can see into the future" is a fact, but in order to establish this, we need to know what you think a fact is.

From your posts, I'm pretty sure by your requirements (and mine by the way) there is no such thing as a 100% sureity. But you seem to think the word fact means 100% sure. So there are no facts by your standards.

I take fact to mean that the scientific community has enough evidence to reach a temporary agreement on something.

So by my meaning of the word fact, the earth going around the sun is a fact, that we use our brains for thinking is a fact, and that evolution occurs is a fact.

By your meaning of the word fact, the earth going around the sun is almost certainly true, but not a fact, etc....... and the result is we can never ever use this word, because it never applies in real life, and may never even apply in the most wildly fantastic story, that makes the word seem pointless. My way, I get to use it.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by SquishyDave
Flyboy, what do you mean by fact? You keep saying that you can't say "no one can see into the future" is a fact, but in order to establish this, we need to know what you think a fact is.

From your posts, I'm pretty sure by your requirements (and mine by the way) there is no such thing as a 100% sureity. But you seem to think the word fact means 100% sure. So there are no facts by your standards.

I take fact to mean that the scientific community has enough evidence to reach a temporary agreement on something.

So by my meaning of the word fact, the earth going around the sun is a fact, that we use our brains for thinking is a fact, and that evolution occurs is a fact.

By your meaning of the word fact, the earth going around the sun is almost certainly true, but not a fact, etc....... and the result is we can never ever use this word, because it never applies in real life, and may never even apply in the most wildly fantastic story, that makes the word seem pointless. My way, I get to use it.

Perhaps I should have emphasized the context more carefully in my orignal post.

In general, I have no qualms about "fact" being used in a broader sense, as you describe (child:"do reindeer fly?" mom: "no, in fact they do not.")

But in a discussion specifically regarding whether or not there exists good evidence for a particular phenomenon (e.g. a thread titled "Report of reindeer flight"), a comment such as "Nope. It is a fact that reindeer cannot fly" seems awkward and out of place, in my opinion. When are specifically searching for evidence to disprove an assertion, how sensible is it to claim the assertion as fact?

(p.s.: I think the earth and sun analogy is not relevant, as it describes a falsifiable hypothesis: we can look and get an immediate yes or no answer, given some allowed precision. Compare it to the non-falsifiable claim "the Earth will never revolve around another star," which is predicated on an unbounded time interval. Similarly, we can say that all crop circles we know of were created by humans; however, "crop circles cannot form naturally" falls into the non-falsifiable category. But that's not really what I'm driving at.)

[Question]

Fact: I can see the future. I will answer any questions you may have about it, for a small fee.

[CFLarsen]

flyboy217,

So, what, precisely, is a "fact" to you?

[Dr Adequate]

What's a "fact"? I think flyboy and I are of one mind (though really, flyboy, about your sig... I don't want a permanent feud with Larsen. He has too many already. So do I.)

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Actually, it depends where I am. If I'm down the pub, then I'll say: "People don't have precognition" without qualification. Round here, I say, "The evidence which I have seen for precognition is not sufficient to convince me, but please do present me with some more, if you know of any". Because:

(a) That's what I'm here for
(b) If I didn't, a woo would start explaining to me that I'm No True Sceptic... oh, they do that anyway... darn...

Originally posted by flyboy217
In general, I have no qualms about "fact" being used in a broader sense, as you describe (child:"do reindeer fly?" mom: "no, in fact they do not.")

But in a discussion specifically regarding whether or not there exists good evidence for a particular phenomenon (e.g. a thread titled "Report of reindeer flight"), a comment such as "Nope. It is a fact that reindeer cannot fly" seems awkward and out of place, in my opinion.

[steenkh]

The strict sense of the word "fact", as used by Flyboy217, seems to me to make word void. No such fact exists. It is a fact that no fact can ever be 100.00000% certain. There may always come an Einstain or new insight that overturns established facts.

When we speak of facts, we are of course only speaking of what is known to us now. I think we should continue to use the word because it adds an unnecessary complication to our lives if we have to take precautions about future knowledge whenever we speak about what we know.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by steenkh
When we speak of facts, we are of course only speaking of what is known to us now. I think we should continue to use the word because it adds an unnecessary complication to our lives if we have to take precautions about future knowledge whenever we speak about what we know.
Yes, yes... in real life. The point is, telling a child "It's a fact that reindeer can't fly" is information. BUT IF YOU WERE ARGUING WITH A WOO WHO BELIEVES IN FLYING REINDEER, then "It's a fact that reindeer can't fly" is petitio principii.

[SquishyDave]

Originally posted by flyboy217 But in a discussion specifically regarding whether or not there exists good evidence for a particular phenomenon (e.g. a thread titled "Report of reindeer flight"), a comment such as "Nope. It is a fact that reindeer cannot fly" seems awkward and out of place, in my opinion. When are specifically searching for evidence to disprove an assertion, how sensible is it to claim the assertion as fact?[/B] In that situation, fair enough. I'd still use pretty strong language, implying it's all but fact, however, especially if you were talking to a believer, saying flat out it's a fact reindeer can't fly will just put their back up and they won't listen to you.

And yeah, it might be hard to say it's a fact, in any sense of the word, that something doesn't exist, but it's easier to say it's a fact something does exist.

I would say a whole bunch of facts all point to it not existing, but personally I wouldn't say it's a fact it doesn't exist when trying to convince someone. What's the point of trying to change someones mind if your choice of language immediately precludes them even considering your words?

[apollo13]

Isn't this a long standing philosophical problem? ie. the problem of what we do or don't know with certainty.

Thinking particularly of the problem of induction (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/David_Hume) put forward by David Hume.

Basically, Hume said (check out the paragraph beginning "First we may observe" (http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/h/h92t/chapter25.html)) that we can't rely on the uniformity of nature to support a theory since our presumption of the uniformity of nature is itself based on limited experience.

Putting words into his mouth (or at least, trying to), I think this means that we can't be 100% certain that Mojo has no invisible dragon in his bathroom. Maybe homeopathy will work tomorrow - even though all reliable experimental evidence to date shows that it does not.

Edited to add: and I'm quite happy to accept that Middlesborough have never one the premiership.

My "philosophy for dummies" book assures me that even Hume thought this was an unreasonable way to get through life, and he recommended relying on reason (experience might well be limited, but can still be extensive).

Which doesn't actually help us a great deal I suppose ... but I thought you'd like to know that it's not a new debate. Probably not a great surprise to most of you.

check out this if you have a few spare weeks. (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Epistemology)

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by apollo13
Isn't this a long standing philosophical problem?

Yes, apollo13, it is. As I mentioned, I didn't intend for this to become a philosophical debate. I should have been more clear about the context--specifically, is it reasonable to answer "it is a fact that X is not real" in a thread (or to a question) specifically about whether there could be any good evidence for X.

I think the general consensus is that it's not necessarily the best response, but that it doesn't really hurt either. In any case, I've been labeled an irrational woo by the poster, so I don't think my discussion is helping anyone in that thread.

[CFLarsen]

flyboy217,

So, let's take it away from being a philosophical debate to something concrete:

Do you think it is a fact that you will, someday, die?

[Anders W. Bonde]

...and that untill then you'll have to pay taxes?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
...and that untill then you'll have to pay taxes?

Death and taxes. :)

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
flyboy217,

So, let's take it away from being a philosophical debate to something concrete:

Do you think it is a fact that you will, someday, die?

Yes.

But remember what I said about falsifiability--if it's true that I will never die, I have no way of demonstrating it. On the other hand, if you're right and I will die, you will be able to prove it in some finite but unbounded time interval. In fact, you could even test it now, by shooting me.

This is precisely the opposite of the crop case, where the question was "is it possible that crop circles could form naturally?" In this case, anyone refuting it will never be able to provide proof, while the person asking it could possibly demonstrate that it does happen.

So ask me a question that could be answered "yes" with one (or finitely many) example(s), but answering "no" means just that the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. E.g.:

- Is it possible that reindeer could fly?
- Could a crop circle form naturally?
- Might Luci be able to predict the next ten US presidents?
- Is there any chance that you can turn spoons to putty with sheer willpower?

These are the kinds of questions to which "No, it is a fact that is not possible" is an answer I find awkward.

[Ashles]

These are the kinds of questions to which "No, it is a fact that is not possible" is an answer I find awkward.
That's why I use the shorter and more convenient "No".

If I were writing a paper on the subject then I would write that "it does not seem possible with the current known laws of the physical universe".

But outside of that situation a "No" will suffice for things as clear cut as those questions. I do not think any of them are possible so I feel entirely justified in saying so.
Evidence is not only overwhelmingly against these things, there is no evidence for them.
(Except for something like wind causing a crop circle which strikes me as possible if unlikely)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by flyboy217
Yes.

But remember what I said about falsifiability--if it's true that I will never die, I have no way of demonstrating it. On the other hand, if you're right and I will die, you will be able to prove it in some finite but unbounded time interval. In fact, you could even test it now, by shooting me.

This is precisely the opposite of the crop case, where the question was "is it possible that crop circles could form naturally?" In this case, anyone refuting it will never be able to provide proof, while the person asking it could possibly demonstrate that it does happen.

It is exactly the same thing: All you need to do, is not die. All you need to do, is find a crop circle that was not made by humans.

It doesn't matter whether you are here to witness it: All you got to do is not die.

So, both examples are falsifiable. Same thing.

Originally posted by flyboy217
So ask me a question that could be answered "yes" with one (or finitely many) example(s), but answering "no" means just that the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. E.g.:

- Is it possible that reindeer could fly?
- Could a crop circle form naturally?
- Might Luci be able to predict the next ten US presidents?
- Is there any chance that you can turn spoons to putty with sheer willpower?

These are the kinds of questions to which "No, it is a fact that is not possible" is an answer I find awkward.

But it is not possible, given the known facts. It is a fact that reindeer can not fly. We can list all sorts of very convincing arguments, e.g. they don't have wings. But that fact is only valid, until one reindeer takes off, flapping his...tail? Legs? Antlers?

Same thing.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It is exactly the same thing: All you need to do, is not die. All you need to do, is find a crop circle that was not made by humans.

It doesn't matter whether you are here to witness it: All you got to do is not die.

So, both examples are falsifiable. Same thing.


No. This is completely wrong. If all I had to do was "not die," then I've already done it. For example: at 1200 GMT today, I did "not die."

The question is whether I will never die -- that is, perform the act of "not dying" forever. This is something that cannot be verified in a finite time interval, and can thus never be proven. For if, at some time T, I declare "I have not died now, so I will not die," you will always be able to say "wait til T+1."

With the crops, once someone points out one natural one, it's game over.

If you do not believe me, please take some courses in mathematical logic. This point is quite clear.


But it is not possible, given the known facts. It is a fact that reindeer can not fly. We can list all sorts of very convincing arguments, e.g. they don't have wings. But that fact is only valid, until one reindeer takes off, flapping his...tail? Legs? Antlers?

Same thing.

Once a reindeer does fly by flapping his antlers, what happens to the "fact" that reindeer cannot fly? It becomes a "false fact?" Or an "ex-fact"?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by flyboy217
No. This is completely wrong. If all I had to do was "not die," then I've already done it. For example: at 1200 GMT today, I did "not die."

The question is whether I will never die -- that is, perform the act of "not dying" forever. This is something that cannot be verified in a finite time interval, and can thus never be proven. For if, at some time T, I declare "I have not died now, so I will not die," you will always be able to say "wait til T+1."

With the crops, once someone points out one natural one, it's game over.

If you do not believe me, please take some courses in mathematical logic. This point is quite clear.

Please. You can try that one with newbies, but not with me.

You need to explain why I can't - in a similar fashion - just say "Wait until a crop circle forms that could not have been made by humans".

Whether you are here when you die, is irrelevant. Whether you have already died, is irrelevant. There is absolutely no difference between the arguments:

1) You will never die.

and

2) Crop circles are always made by humans.

Both are falsifiable.

Originally posted by flyboy217
Once a reindeer does fly by flapping his antlers, what happens to the "fact" that reindeer cannot fly? It becomes a "false fact?" Or an "ex-fact"?

I think this is key to where you misunderstand things. Yes, you can call it an "ex-fact", if you like. Does that invalidate the statement "Reindeers cannot fly" at the time when reindeers could not fly?

Of course it doesn't.

You haven't been at this for very long, and I understand perfectly why you find it confusing. But if you want to argue from a skeptical POV, you need to understand how this works.

Skepticism is a provisional position: It is based on what we know now, with the caveat that things could (and, given the history of science, probably will!) change completely.

Reindeer could fly tomorrow. They don't do now, they never have. Ergo, it is perfectly correct to state that reindeers do not fly.

A true skeptic will say: "Hey, prove me wrong!"

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Please. You can try that one with newbies, but not with me.


Oh, not with you, huh? I'll explain it to you again, this time more slowly. If you do not understand it this time, perhaps some other member of the forum will be kind enough to guide you through it at your own pace, because I don't have unlimited time.

Let us compare the two arguments.

Argument 1:

A: Could it be possible that I will never die?
B: No. It is a fact that you will, someday, die.
A: I'll prove you wrong.

(100,000 years later)
A: See, I'm not dead. I win.
B: Oh, just wait til tomorrow.

(1,000,000,000,000,000 years later)
A: Still going. I win!
B: Give it a few more days... remember, the argument is that you will never die.

(1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, years later)
A: There, I've won. I never died!
B: Waiiiit for it... someday isn't here yet!

(A googolplex years later)
A: Whew! I'm growing tired of this staying alive business!
B: As you should be. You're almost dead!
...


At what point in time can person A be said to have disproven the fact that he will die? At no point in time. This is the crucial point. Thus, it is senseless to argue against the claim that he will die.

Thus, when you ask:
"Flyboy217, do you think it is a fact that you will, someday, die?",
I will not argue that this is an invalid fact. Just like person A, I could never hope to disprove this fact.

Capice? Now let's examine argument 2.

Argument 2:

A: Could it be possible that some crop circles are created naturally?
B: No. It is a fact that crop circles cannot form naturally.
A: I'll prove you wrong.

(10 years later)
A: We've isolated the gene that causes crop circles to form naturally. Look at these 10 fields. They're forming crop circles as we speak.
B: D'oh. You are correct.


Person A has just shown person B's fact to be wrong, whereas this was not possible in argument 1. No biggie, really.

Do you now see why the two arguments are not the same?


You need to explain why I can't - in a similar fashion - just say "Wait until a crop circle forms that could not have been made by humans".

The whole point is that you can argue this, and you would be arguing for the assertion that crop circles can form naturally, instead of the assertion that they cannot.

In argument 1, person B has the option of saying "wait some more," while in argument 2, it is person A who has that leisure.

That is why the analogy for "It is a fact that crop circles can't form naturally" is "It is a fact that I will never die," not "It is a fact that I will die."


You haven't been at this for very long, and I understand perfectly why you find it confusing.

Your constant arrogance and condescension are ridiculous in light of the fact that you are rarely able to follow logically reasoned arguments.

If anyone else feels comfortable with logical arguments, feel free to chip in.

*Edited to remove the extraneous word "never"*

[thaiboxerken]

If anyone else feels comfortable with logical arguments, feel free to chip in.

Your arguments left the realm of logic a few days ago.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by flyboy217
Oh, not with you, huh? I'll explain it to you again, this time more slowly. If you do not understand it this time, perhaps some other member of the forum will be kind enough to guide you through it at your own pace, because I don't have unlimited time.

In other words: You do not have any arguments against my point, so you ask for help.

Originally posted by flyboy217
At what point in time can person A be said to have disproven the fact that he will die? At no point in time. This is the crucial point. Thus, it is senseless to argue against the claim that he will never die.

No, it is not "senseless", it is crucial, if you want to address this in a skeptical way.

Originally posted by flyboy217
Thus, when you ask:
"Flyboy217, do you think it is a fact that you will, someday, die?",
I will not argue that this is an invalid fact. Just like person A, I could never hope to disprove this fact.

It isn't about "hope", it's about reality: Can you - or can you not - disprove this fact? Yes or no?

Originally posted by flyboy217
Person A has just shown person B's fact to be wrong, whereas this was not possible in argument 1. No biggie, really.

Do you now see why the two arguments are not the same?

The two arguments are the same, because the time frame doesn't matter (either). It doesn't matter whether it takes 10 years or a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. All that matters is: Has it been shown to be false, yes or no?

You keep making up these excuses, but they just don't cut it.

Originally posted by flyboy217
The whole point is that you can argue this, and you would be arguing for the assertion that crop circles can form naturally, instead of the assertion that they cannot.

In argument 1, person B has the option of saying "wait some more," while in argument 2, it is person A who has that leisure.

That is why the analogy for "It is a fact that crop circles can't form naturally" is "It is a fact that I will never die," not "It is a fact that I will die."

It doesn't matter how long it takes! Get that through your skull.

Originally posted by flyboy217
Your constant arrogance and condescension are ridiculous in light of the fact that you are rarely able to follow logically reasoned arguments.

You can choose to address the points in a logical, skeptical way, or you can choose to attack me personally.

Originally posted by flyboy217
If anyone else feels comfortable with logical arguments, feel free to chip in.

Ask for help all you like.

[Anders W. Bonde]

To me, it appears that the discussion between FB217 and pretty much everyone else in this thread is about the extent to which one needs to qualify, elaborate and contextualize (is there such a word?) one's statements - a sort of discussion that can't really be categorized as to whether it's about semanthics, language in general, retoric, philosophy or logic. I venture to guess this sort of argueing could go on forever [how long is 'forever'? I hear FB217 ask] - but I also venture to guess that, for instance, what CFLarsen meant with 'if you never die' was in an everyday context, as in 'if you live orders of magnitude longer than the length of the longest human life ever recorded thus far'.

So, while FB217 is logically correct when applying logic to strict semantics, I am of the opinion that this debate is useless for practical purposes, as practical language - i.e. communication - is highly dependent on implicit knowledge and truncated qualification of statements. To me, it looks like FB217 is arguing for the sake of argument, rather than for what I would find to be a more noble cause, such as to help shed light on how language is being used or should be used. IMHO, it is simply impractical to qualify one's statements to the extent FB217 is trying to argue for - if we all spoke an elaborate version of legaleese we'd really never get anything communicated - we'd be constantly focusing on how things are said rather than on what things are said...verbal masturbation, in my book.

Just my one cent worth.

(Edited because my English remains nowhere near perfect)

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
In other words: You do not have any arguments against my point, so you ask for help.


No. In other words, you seem unwilling to actually listen to my argument, so it would be best if I stopped responding.

Let's cut to the chase. This is the core of your argument:


The two arguments are the same, because the time frame doesn't matter (either). It doesn't matter whether it takes 10 years or a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. All that matters is: Has it been shown to be false, yes or no?


By "these two arguments," which two--precisely--do you mean? If I understand you correctly, the two arguments you are claiming to be equal are:

1) "It is a fact that crop circles cannot form naturally," which is what I started this thread with, and

2) "It is a fact that you will eventually die, flyboy217," which you asked if I agreed with.

I claim the arguments are opposite, and you claim they are "the same." I'll explain once more why they are opposite:

Argument (1) is refuted by the assertion "it could happen tomorrow." That is why I said it is not viable.

Argument (2) is supported by the assertion that "it could still happen tomorrow." That is why I answered "yes," and explained that it is not the same as argument 1.

If you wanted to draw a parallel with argument 1, which is refuted by the argument "it could happen tomorrow," the question would have to be phrased:

3) "It is a fact that you will never die, flyboy217," which is the opposite of the question you asked me.

At which point I'd say "Eureka, now you understand why claims 1 and 3 are the same, and claim 2 is the opposite!"

It doesn't matter how long it takes! Get that through your skull.

LOL. Looks like you finally get it. Maybe.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
To me, it appears that the discussion between FB217 and pretty much everyone else in this thread is about the extent to which one needs to qualify, elaborate and contextualize (is there such a word?) one's statements - a sort of discussion that can't really be categorized as to whether it's about semanthics, language in general, retoric, philosophy or logic. I venture to guess this sort of argueing could go on forever [how long is 'forever'? I hear FB217 ask] - but I also venture to guess that, for instance, what CFLarsen meant with 'if you never die' was in an everyday context, as in 'if you live orders of magnitude longer than the length of the longest human life ever recorded thus far'.

So, while FB217 is logically correct when applying logic to strict semantics, I am of the opinion that this debate is useless for practical purposes, as practical language - i.e. communication - is highly dependent on implicit knowledge and truncated qualification of statements. To me, it looks like FB217 is arguing for the sake of argument, rather than for what I would find to be a more noble cause, such as to help shed light on how language is being used or should be used. IMHO, it is simply impractical to qualify one's statements to the extent FB217 is trying to argue for - if we all spoke an elaborate version of legaleese we'd really never get anything communicated - we'd be constantly focusing on how things are said rather than on what things are said...verbal masturbation, in my book.

Just my one cent worth.

(Edited because my English remains nowhere near perfect)

Please understand that I am not trying to prolong the original discussion. I ended it (I thought) with "I think the general consensus is that it's not necessarily the best response, but that it doesn't really hurt either."

Since then, I have been addressing mostly CFLarsen's question, which is a purely logical argument removed from its original purpose. I don't really care to continue it, and I think my last post has addressed it sufficiently.

[Anders W. Bonde]

Fair enough.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
To me, it looks like FB217 is arguing for the sake of argument, rather than for what I would find to be a more noble cause, such as to help shed light on how language is being used or should be used. IMHO, it is simply impractical to qualify one's statements to the extent FB217 is trying to argue for - if we all spoke an elaborate version of legaleese we'd really never get anything communicated - we'd be constantly focusing on how things are said rather than on what things are said...verbal masturbation, in my book.

Yup.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by flyboy217
Since then, I have been addressing mostly CFLarsen's question, which is a purely logical argument removed from its original purpose. I don't really care to continue it, and I think my last post has addressed it sufficiently.

If you say so.

[asthmatic camel]

A. It is a fact that Flyboy 217 is a boring pedant.

B. It is a fact that I consider Flyboy 217 to be a boring pedant.

Which should I use, A or B ?

[Hamhawk714]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by flyboy217
[B]Or maybe you could actually listen to what I have to say.

Like the invisible dragon, I would be more comfortable just saying "until you give me good evidence for this, it's silly, so let's move on." I'm fine with the moving on part. I just don't think something has to be declared impossible before one moves on. I can go on ignoring that invisible dragon in my bathroom as long as it's not pestering me.

One problem, I think, is that deciding for good that something is impossible probably does make one less likely to consider good evidence for it in the future. This can be countered by the simple argument that "staunch" skepticism in this sense is practical--if 1 in a million claims are real, then it saves a lot of time to give each claim just a bit less time than it might otherwise warrant.

Being reasonably new to this whole thing, it's quite possible that I, too, will eventually decide I've had enough of paranormal silliness and become more staunch to save myself time and energy. But I've got all the time in the world for that.



If anything paranormal is ever proven it will be all the more truely amazing,because it was almost universally considered impossible.Rather than,"as of now there is no scientific proof".The former puts it in a far superior context,doesn't it?