Objectivity and Atheism

[pinkocommie]

I don’t see your point. If it is a fact that you have two hands, in any event could it both be false that you have two hands and fact that you have two hands? No, therefore one cannot be used to the exclusion of the other hence they are pretty much the same thing. If I believe it to be false that you are happy, it is my opinion that you are not in fact happy. You could not be truthfully happy, and factually sad. If we are talking about perceived truths, it is slightly different; for instance, it is true that I perceive you to be sad whilst you are in fact happy. In other words, it was a fact (true) that I thought you where sad, but also a fact (true) that you were happy. The first part deals with the truth of my perceptions, the second part the truth of your being; these are two different things which you seem to have confused. I can truthfully think the sky is pink, but it can be truthfully blue.

Ok, to continue the analogy - if someone saw a picture of me in which my hands were removed via photoshop, they could say that it is the truth that I don't have two hands and to them, this would be the truth because of their perception.  This truth that they have come to is honest because they're establishing their perception of truth based on the information they have available to them.  While factually they are wrong, they are still telling the truth.  That's why the two are in actually not interchangeable at all.

To use a real life analogy, with the advent of forensics in modern police work, more and more we are finding that innocent people have been sent to prison.  Often these cases were originally made around eye witness testimony.  These eye witnesses were absolutely telling the truth when they identified whom their assailants were, however the fact is that according to DNA and other forensic evidence, it wasn't the person they identified as the convict that actually committed the crime.

The problem I see with your belief that facts are the same as truths because what people believe are facts to them is not proof that they are interchangeable, only that people have the ability to make the two terms personally interchangeable.  You can say that unicorns are real and your belief that unicorns are real is a fact - but that doesn't make unicorns real.  All that means is that it is a fact that you believe that, that one fact is only personally relevant and is in no way proof to anyone else that unicorns are, in fact, real.

[Ihateusernames]

I don’t see your point. If it is a fact that you have two hands, in any event could it both be false that you have two hands and fact that you have two hands? No, therefore one cannot be used to the exclusion of the other hence they are pretty much the same thing. If I believe it to be false that you are happy, it is my opinion that you are not in fact happy. You could not be truthfully happy, and factually sad. If we are talking about perceived truths, it is slightly different; for instance, it is true that I perceive you to be sad whilst you are in fact happy. In other words, it was a fact (true) that I thought you where sad, but also a fact (true) that you were happy. The first part deals with the truth of my perceptions, the second part the truth of your being; these are two different things which you seem to have confused. I can truthfully think the sky is pink, but it can be truthfully blue.

Ok, to continue the analogy - if someone saw a picture of me in which my hands were removed via photoshop, they could say that it is the truth that I don't have two hands and to them, this would be the truth because of their perception.  This truth that they have come to is honest because they're establishing their perception of truth based on the information they have available to them.  While factually they are wrong, they are still telling the truth.  That's why the two are in actually not interchangeable at all.

To use a real life analogy, with the advent of forensics in modern police work, more and more we are finding that innocent people have been sent to prison.  Often these cases were originally made around eye witness testimony.  These eye witnesses were absolutely telling the truth when they identified whom their assailants were, however the fact is that according to DNA and other forensic evidence, it wasn't the person they identified as the convict that actually committed the crime.

The problem I see with your belief that facts are the same as truths because what people believe are facts to them is not proof that they are interchangeable, only that people have the ability to make the two terms personally interchangeable.  You can say that unicorns are real and your belief that unicorns are real is a fact - but that doesn't make unicorns real.  All that means is that it is a fact that you believe that, that one fact is only personally relevant and is in no way proof to anyone else that unicorns are, in fact, real.

Pinkocommie, You two do realize this post is saying the exact same thing as Dagda's 'perceived truths', correct?   We have arrived at agreement!

[Dagda]

[quote="pinkocommie
The problem I see with your belief that facts are the same as truths because what people believe are facts to them is not proof that they are interchangeable, only that people have the ability to make the two terms personally interchangeable.  You can say that unicorns are real and your belief that unicorns are real is a fact - but that doesn't make unicorns real.  All that means is that it is a fact that you believe that, that one fact is only personally relevant and is in no way proof to anyone else that unicorns are, in fact, real.[/quote]

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear, but that is what I said in my last post. Your two examples again confuse the facts of perception and the facts of being. In the Photoshop example the only reason that truth and fact can’t be used interchangeably is because you have mashed together two instances and made one example.

[pinkocommie]

[quote="pinkocommie
The problem I see with your belief that facts are the same as truths because what people believe are facts to them is not proof that they are interchangeable, only that people have the ability to make the two terms personally interchangeable.  You can say that unicorns are real and your belief that unicorns are real is a fact - but that doesn't make unicorns real.  All that means is that it is a fact that you believe that, that one fact is only personally relevant and is in no way proof to anyone else that unicorns are, in fact, real.

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear, but that is what I said in my last post. Your two examples again confuse the facts of perception and the facts of being. In the Photoshop example the only reason that truth and fact can’t be used interchangeably is because you have mashed together two instances and made one example.[/quote]

I'm sorry, I guess my point is that I agree that truth is a matter of perception while fact is not which is why they're not interchangeable.  If that's what you were saying as well then we agree!  I had thought you were trying to say that truth and fact were essentially interchangeable terms, which I disagree with.  They CAN be the same, but they are far from interchangeable.  Sorry for my confusion!  

[Whitney]

I'm sorry, I guess my point is that I agree that truth is a matter of perception while fact is not which is why they're not interchangeable.

I think you are saying truth when a better word would be honesty (considering the examples you are using).  If I see a picture of you without hands and I say "pinko doesn't have hands" I am being honest (I am not saying something I know is a lie) however I am not stating something that is true or factual (I'm not sure there is a difference between the words truth and fact other than that 'fact' seems to refer to tangible exidence while truth refers to that which is observed).  If I said that "pinko doesn't hands in his picture" then I'd be speaking the truth and stating a fact.

[pinkocommie]

I'm sorry, I guess my point is that I agree that truth is a matter of perception while fact is not which is why they're not interchangeable.

I think you are saying truth when a better word would be honesty (considering the examples you are using).  If I see a picture of you without hands and I say "pinko doesn't have hands" I am being honest (I am not saying something I know is a lie) however I am not stating something that is true or factual (I'm not sure there is a difference between the words truth and fact other than that 'fact' seems to refer to tangible exidence while truth refers to that which is observed).  If I said that "pinko doesn't hands in his picture" then I'd be speaking the truth and stating a fact.

I think I'm just doing a terrible job of explaining what I mean.    

[Dagda]

I am almost in agreement with you. Basically, what I am saying is that there are two different types of truth/fact. Let us call the truth1 and truth2. Truth1 deals with truths/facts/honesty about perception. Truth2 deals with facts/truths about being. Whilst truth1 and truth2 can’t be used interchangeably, truth2 and your definition of facts could be used  interchangeably, and as per my original post, it is when truth2 is in use that an event is objective (it exists independently of truth1). When it is truth1 that is in use (e.g. I hate rap music etc) then the event/thing is subjective (needs human action to make it exist). I have probably just confused things more, but there you are

[pinkocommie]

I am almost in agreement with you. Basically, what I am saying is that there are two different types of truth/fact. Let us call the truth1 and truth2. Truth1 deals with truths/facts/honesty about perception. Truth2 deals with facts/truths about being. Whilst truth1 and truth2 can’t be used interchangeably, truth2 and your definition of facts could be used  interchangeably, and as per my original post, it is when truth2 is in use that an event is objective (it exists independently of truth1). When it is truth1 that is in use (e.g. I hate rap music etc) then the event/thing is subjective (needs human action to make it exist). I have probably just confused things more, but there you are

I see what you're saying, and I think the distinctions I make from your example are very slight.  In my mind, there is truth which can encompass facts but also deals with perception.  Facts can also be truths but they're entirely independent of perception.  I see your explanation as an example of why we do have two distinct terms - truth and fact - which while often interchangeable are not consistently interchangeable and therefore cannot be considered the same thing.

I think when I read this:

Fact and truth are so similar that they could be used almost interchangeably. Truth is factual and facts are true.

I took it to mean that you believed fact and truth were essentially the same thing, when in my opinion it's the essential meanings of the terms that cause them to be different.  Anyway, thanks for being patient with me.  I appreciate it.  

[Typist]

You can say that unicorns are real and your belief that unicorns are real is a fact - but that doesn't make unicorns real.

This is a good example of how tricky and subjective "facts" can be.

For some reason I'm not aware of, atheist forums like to use unicorns as the ultimate example of something that doesn't exist.   Everybody casually nods and agrees with this example, assuming it to be obviously true.   The non-existence of unicorns is declared a "well known objective fact".  

And yet, it's pretty easy to make a logic based case that unicorns currently do exist.

But that's not the real story.   The real story is that once a "fact" is widely accepted, people begin making personal identity and sometimes business investments upon this "fact".  It becomes important to defend this "fact" because we don't want to look like fools, or have our thought leader authority status challenged.  

Thus, once a "fact" gains enough momentum, few are truly interested in examining this "fact", and most of the intellectual energy will go in to maintaining the status quo.

That's the problem I see with "facts".   They quickly become sand in the gears of a real inquiry.

[Typist]

A fact is an instance of something, truth is an interpretation derived from facts, no?  

"The sky is blue" is more of a truth than a fact.  A blind person has no way of knowing if the sky is really blue so the statement may not ever be true.

"The sky is blue because of the way photons bounce around in the atmosphere and eventually make their way into our eyes, which have the ability to interpret the photons into a neurological impulse shot to our brains that assigns meaning to what is seen.  Such as "The sky is blue."  This, if my example holds, is an example of a fact.

This is a good example, but I wasn't quite sure of the point you were trying to make.

I see the fact as "the sky appears blue to humans."

"The sky is blue" seems a good example of a subjective "truth", that is, it looks blue to us.   Was that your point?

[G-Roll]

You can say that unicorns are real and your belief that unicorns are real is a fact - but that doesn't make unicorns real.

This is a good example of how tricky and subjective "facts" can be.

For some reason I'm not aware of, atheist forums like to use unicorns as the ultimate example of something that doesn't exist.   Everybody casually nods and agrees with this example, assuming it to be obviously true.   The non-existence of unicorns is declared a "well known objective fact".  

And yet, it's pretty easy to make a logic based case that unicorns currently do exist.

But that's not the real story.   The real story is that once a "fact" is widely accepted, people begin making personal identity and sometimes business investments upon this "fact".  It becomes important to defend this "fact" because we don't want to look like fools, or have our thought leader authority status challenged.  

Thus, once a "fact" gains enough momentum, few are truly interested in examining this "fact", and most of the intellectual energy will go in to maintaining the status quo.

That's the problem I see with "facts".   They quickly become sand in the gears of a real inquiry.

no.

people dont believe in unicorns because they actually do not exist. there is a big lack of evidence that unicorns walk the earth today.
if you would have stated that they used to exists and went extinct and all evidence was washed from the earth, i wouldnt be posting this..

i agree with some of your post. just not to the extreme you have taken it.

[Typist]

there is a big lack of evidence that unicorns walk the earth today.

Ok, but, I didn't say unicorns walk the earth today.

[G-Roll]

And yet, it's pretty easy to make a logic based case that unicorns currently do exist.

You believe in unicorns… admit it.

[Typist]

You believe in unicorns… admit it.

Sorry, you're late.   I've already admitted it a number of times in various threads across the forum.

[G-Roll]

You believe in unicorns… admit it.

Sorry, you're late.   I've already admitted it a number of times in various threads across the forum.

DAMN IT!! i thought i had something here.

not to toot my own horn, but i know a unicorn believer when i see one.