--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Cute stories, and good point. Although, I have met > a few people for whom the last story seems to have > *been* a fact. As Stephen King once said in one of > his books, "God has a special provenance for babies, > small children, and the terminally stoned." All 3 > *sometimes* escape unscathed from circumstances > that bring others down, including having no income. > Think the Purusha guys who have managed to get other > people to pay for their lives for years, although > I'm not sure which of King's three categories they > fall into. :-) > > That joke aside, there seems to me a strong difference > between things that *clearly* fall into the realm of > facts that can be determined using empirical methods > and those that cannot, and should be more rightly > classed in the realm of opinion.
Yes. That is the point I was trying to illustrate. And even "fact" is not 100% certainty. All truth claims have some probability >0 and < 1 of being correct. And that assessment of probabilities may vary from person to person. In that regard I agree with where I thought you were headed -- that no knowledge or truth claim or model is 100% certain. It may predict well 99.9999% of the time, but it still is not absolute ceratinty. What I don't agree with is the notion (and I am not saying you were advocating this) that since nothing is certain, all claims are equally valid. > > I think that most of us are capable of determining > which is which, and of acting appropriately in the real > world, most of the time. But here on FFL the distinc- > tion often seems to be blurred. > But let's get back to the stories *I* told earlier. > I still think they're all Just Stories, and *don't* > deserve to be classed as Fact. Do you disagree? The Global Warming one stood out for me. While it is not certain, the degree of certainty has been rising for several decades. With the recent UN reports, IMO, its beyond 99% established. Thus what I infered from your story, not that you intended to imply it, was that both stories are equally valid. The latter one is quack bait compared the former. Even while neither is certain. > Can > you propose a set of empirical methods by which the > truth of any of them can be determined to the point > that they could be considered Facts? If what you mean by facts is 100% certainty, thats not the model I work with or beleive in. As I said, the Global warming one has far more wieght in the first one than the latter. > I'm not challeng- > ing the gist of what you said; it deserved to be said. > I'm just curious. Here they are again: As with all things, I think there is at least some truth in each story. And some possibility that it may be valid. but it may be 99/1, or 80/20 or 50/50. Not often precisely the latter. > > "Maharishi is one of the greatest spiritual teachers > the world has ever known. He is a living saint, fully > enlightened, and thus incapable of doing anything that > is not fully in accord with the laws of nature. There- > fore anything that anyone says against him is false, > and indicates that the person saying it is either > deluded or has some malevolent intent towards this > great saint. He's one of the world's 'good guys,' and > anyone who speaks ill of him is a 'bad guy.'" > > "Maharishi is a con man who has systematically ripped > off the gullible seekers who have followed him for > decades. He promises them everything -- including > enlightenment -- and delivers on almost nothing. And > to protect himself he has created an autocracy that > punishes any questioning of his authority or his > essential 'right' to dictate to his followers what > they should do and think with excommunication or > worse (legal action should they violate the copy- > rights he has taken out on common domain techniques > and knowledge). He's a 'bad guy,' and anyone who > tells the 'truth' about him (as defined above) is a > 'good guy.'" > > "Global warming is a serious problem that threatens > the future of humanity and the Earth, and those who > attempt to diminish its importance are enemies of > humanity." > > "Global warming is a scam perpetrated by 'scientists' > who are in it for the money, and who are putting over > one of the biggest frauds in history on their fellow > human beings." > > "Polticians of the Republican/Democratic Party (pick one) > are 'good guys' who have the welfare of the population > as a whole in their hearts. Anyone who says something > negative about them is doing so because they *oppose* > the welfare of the population as a whole. Such people > are liars and are not to be trusted." > > "Polticians of the Republican/Democratic Party (pick one) > are 'bad guys' who have sold out to the interests of > those who control them from behind the scenes. The only > thing they care about is themselves, and putting more > money and more power in their pockets. Anyone who says > something negative about them is doing so because they > *oppose* these self-interested actions, and are acting > from a sense of heroism, 'protecting' the welfare of the > population as a whole. Such people are heroes and are > to be trusted implicitly because they *are* heroes." > > "I am 'right' because because the sources I have quoted > to support my position are 'better' than yours." > > "You are 'wrong' because because the sources you have > quoted to support your position are 'lesser' than mine." > > "My view of who I am and what I do and why I do it is > 'correct' and yours is 'incorrect,' because I say so. > No one could *possibly* believe the things you're saying > about me, so the fact that you're saying them means that > you are intentionally 'lying' about me." > > "Your view of who you am and what you do and why you do > it is 'incorrect' and mine is 'correct,' because I say so. > I *do* believe the things I'm saying about you, and you > just can't handle the possibility that they're true." >
