Too much effort to fight it...

[wiki trix]

Too much effort to fight it... I just changed my definition of "fact"
today. Now, rather than being a "known truth" (which is way too hard-
assed), a fact has just become, in my view, a "flexible but trusted
truth" which has frequently been corroborated through empirical
observation that is found to be acceptable. So, for example, it is a
fact that light is particle and it is a fact that light is a wave.

It works well enough for idiots and scientists alike. So if you think
that a creation story has been corroborated through empirical
observation that you find cogent. Then its a done deal. Bing bang
bong...

Can we all just get along now?

[Arkalen]

(2012/02/12 13:56), wiki trix wrote:
> Too much effort to fight it... I just changed my definition of "fact"
> today. Now, rather than being a "known truth" (which is way too hard-
> assed)

It's not just hard-assed, it's literally impossible. The only way to
make the word useable is to define it as "something that's certain
enough we can round it up to 'known truth' for practical purposes"...
which is how it's used in practice anyway. (and the rounding function
tends to depend on the context)

>, a fact has just become, in my view, a "flexible but trusted
> truth" which has frequently been corroborated through empirical
> observation that is found to be acceptable. So, for example, it is a
> fact that light is particle and it is a fact that light is a wave.
>
> It works well enough for idiots and scientists alike. So if you think
> that a creation story has been corroborated through empirical
> observation that you find cogent. Then its a done deal. Bing bang
> bong...
>
> Can we all just get along now?
>
>
>
>

--
Arkalen
Praise be to magic Woody-Allen zombie superhero telepathic vampire
quantum hovercraft Tim! Jesus.

[J. J. Lodder]

It's hopeless. 'Fact' is a thouroughly skunked word,
and there is nothing you can do about it,

Jan

[Frank J]

I have an even more radical suggestion: Pick *any* definition of key
terms (fact, theory, evolution, creationism, etc.) and stick to it,
and science will defeat anti-science in almost no time.

Anti-science activists bait-and-switch definitions because that tactic
is *essential* to their scams. It may even be the only one that is
essential - the other ones: cherry picking evidence, quote mining,
double standards, censoring refutations, etc., may be optional, but
they rarely avoid anything that will help their case, however
misleading.

The problem, though, is that the public, and even many critics who
know better, *let* the scam artists bait-and-switch definitions. And
the public - including most people who *accept* evolution - rarely
notices what's going on. The scam artists will not stop their games,
but if we make the public aware of it we could at least save the ~75%
that is not irreversibly in denial of evolution. By most accounts, we
currently have mo more than 25% that not only accepts evolution but
also agrees that "teach the controversy" is a bad iidea. And many
(most?) of even that 25% forms that conclusion for the wrong reason.

[Ron O]

On Feb 12, 1:14 am, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> (2012/02/12 13:56), wiki trix wrote:
>
> > Too much effort to fight it... I just changed my definition of "fact"
> > today. Now, rather than being a "known truth" (which is way too hard-
> > assed)
>
> It's not just hard-assed, it's literally impossible. The only way to
> make the word useable is to define it as "something that's certain
> enough we can round it up to 'known truth' for practical purposes"...
> which is how it's used in practice anyway. (and the rounding function
> tends to depend on the context)

I like the "we can round it up to "known truth"" part.

It always makes me wonder about why people can't get the notion that
scientific facts do not have 100% certainty. The worst offenders are
usually the Biblical fundy types who should know about the uncertainty
of their facts when they are shown to be wrong so often.

Ron Okimoto