Open-minded Skepticism

Fact requires observable cause and effect.

And how do we figure out what causes produce what effects?

Fact requires physical proof of existence. Fact requires observable cause and effect.

I disagree about the cause and effect--explaining facts is the role of hypotheses and theories.

From something I did a long time ago:

Observation: any information collected with the senses.

Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.

And as explained by Heinlein many years ago,

Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning; a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.

Coyote writes: I disagree about the cause and effect--explaining facts is the role of hypotheses and theories.

Let's not play dueling oversimplifications, though. It's one thing to describe the methodology of empirical inquiry properly, but defining science as an objective process of Baconian induction from unorganized observations is for schoolkids. The way we approach and interpret facts, and the way we define our knowledge and its limitations, are laden with cultural and personal baggage. If we don't acknowledge that science is a human endeavor with a socially embedded history, we're really not talking about the entire matter.

Edited by MrHambre, : No reason given.

Well and good.

I'm willing to keep an open mind, but not open to just any nonsense blowing in the wind.

That's where you get "airheads."

Fact requires physical proof of existence. Fact requires observable cause and effect. I disagree about the cause and effect--explaining facts is the role of hypotheses and theories. Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.

Your own definition of "fact" is that cause and effect must be repeatedly observable.

Your own definition of "fact" is that cause and effect must be repeatedly observable.

Coyote's definition of fact has nothing to do with cause and effect.

We can observe that the sun rises in the east without any reference to the possible causes or effects of this event.

You're right ... I was mistaken.
Facts mean nothing.
Observation is worthless.
Your beliefs win and nothing in the world is definite fact.

Off I go into my own world, you can keep this one.

Coyote writes: I'm willing to keep an open mind, but not open to just any nonsense blowing in the wind.

That's good to know.

Just out of curiosity, what in anything I posted seems nonsensical to you? I'm just wondering whether your intrepid anti-nonsense stance was articulated for my benefit.

Hi mikechell,

We here a EvC would argue over any and everything regardless of what the subject matter.

I once saw a thread several pages long over what the word superstition meant. (not kidding)

Pedantry and sarcasm with a smattering of provocation abound, however once you get a flavor of the various forumites you'll see it is just a bunch of argumentative over educated ol' buzzards waiting for fresh meat. Just kidding. ha ha.

Welcome to the fray, it's all in fun.
P.S. I have learned a tremendous amount here from the various forum members here. My mind has been opened about a vast array of subjects.

Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.

Edited by 1.61803, : *Added postscript

You're right ... I was mistaken. Facts mean nothing. Observation is worthless. Your beliefs win and nothing in the world is definite fact.

You seem to be deliberately misstating what I have said.

None of your response bears any relation to what was in my posts.

mikechell writes: Off I go into my own world, you can keep this one.

That is the bottom line: we are each in a world of our own. We can only communicate about the areas where our perceptions happen to coincide.

Observation is only worth what we can agree on.

Facts mean only what we agree they mean. Nothing indeed is "definite fact", only agreed fact.

Nobody wants your surrender, Mike. We just want to challenge your ideas. The more vigorously you defend them, the better.

When a poster gets a bunch of challenging posts, we call it a dog pile: anyone here any length of time has enjoyed that disheartening experience.

Fresh perspectives are not just welcome here, they're vitally important.

Don't go away mad. Don't go away at all.

You seem to be deliberately misstating what I have said.

YOU seem to believe I was talking to you and your statements.

You're observational skills might need a little ... honing.

mikechell writes: You're observational skills might need a little ... honing.

Yours might too, if you thought you observed anyone claiming that Facts mean nothing.

If facts are tainted by my belief, then my observation that facts mean nothing is no less "real" than any other observation.