Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jaume on January 23, 2011 at 6:49pm

Vast question, but I'd say that in most cases it boils down to determining whether a statement is subjective or objective. Example:

 

My * is big - subjective statement, opinion

My * is bigger than yours - objective statement, fact

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roger tholen on January 23, 2011 at 7:13pm

As I wrote, if something can be demonstrated, it could be said to be a fact. If not, its an opinion. If you have a better way of determining a fact or opinion, I would like to hear it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jaume on January 23, 2011 at 7:46pm

I might use a measuring tape.

 

Trust me, you'd realize you wouldn't need a measuring tape as soon as you see it. I built this cell phone myself, and it's both heavier and larger than my old desktop.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirk Holden on January 24, 2011 at 5:45pm

Nothing in the universe is always true to us mortals. Facts are provisionally true given

Air pressure

Air temperature

Gravitational pull of your planet

etc.

 

Facts are conveniently wrapped in envelopes of the environment they sit in at that moment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roger tholen on January 23, 2011 at 7:11pm

I've always thought if something was demonstrable, this could be said to be a fact. If not demonstrable its an opinion. Unless someone has a more accurate way of telling which is which, I would like to hear it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dataguy on January 23, 2011 at 8:05pm

One of the most basic measurements which can often be performed with very little research is to determine if the 'facts' provide a financial interest for the person stating them. Is your 'consultant' also a salesman? Is your politician taking the stand that supports big business (oil, military, NRA, Wall Street)?

It's one of my pet peeves seeing how many people don't understand this basic concept.

Don't even get me started!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anna on January 24, 2011 at 3:15am

This is an easy one, for there is only 1 method that humans have ever had available to them. 

 

The measurement that you should use is: "The Scientific Method".

 

Theres plenty about it on the internet :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on January 24, 2011 at 2:15pm

Some things, like value judgments and morals are not amenable to objective qualifications.  Opinions of such topics are subjective and relative.

The belief that there is an objective reality behind our limited of perception of it is a matter of faith.  There's a very real chance that we live in a holographic universe which is nothing like it seems.  Science doesn't pretend to describe the "real" world.  It describes models of systems (atoms, molecules, the universe, multiverse, etc.)

I think the best measurements we currently have are evidence and prediction.  These two combine to give us reasonable confidence in our models of reality.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on January 25, 2011 at 2:18am

@Derry,

Read Stephen Hawking's new book, "The Grand Design".  It's not postmodern waffle, it's not even a postmodern pancake.  It's post-classical waffle . . . also known as quantum theory.  Your "classical" view of the universe is passe . . . so yesterday.  It's a quantum world now, baby!

Okay, okay . . . what the heck, here's the relative passage from The Grand Design . . .

. . . common sense is based upon everyday experience, not upon the universe as it is revealed through the marvels of technologies such as those that allow us to gaze deep into the atom or back to the early universe.

Until the advent of modern physics it was generally thought that all knowledge of the world could be obtained through direct observation, that things are what they seem, as perceived through our senses. But the spectacular success of modern physics, which is based upon concepts such as Feynman’s that clash with everyday experience, has shown that that is not the case. The naive view of reality therefore is not compatible with modern physics. To deal with such paradoxes we shall adopt an approach that we call model-dependent realism. It is based on the idea that our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the world. When such a model is successful at explaining events, we tend to attribute to it, and to the elements and concepts that constitute it, the quality of reality or absolute truth. But there may be different ways in which one could model the same physical situation, with each employing different fundamental elements and concepts. If two such physical theories or models accurately predict the same events, one cannot be said to be more real than the other; rather, we are free to use whichever model is most convenient.

In the history of science we have discovered a sequence of better and better theories or models, from Plato to the classical theory of Newton to modern quantum theories. It is natural to ask: Will this sequence eventually reach an end point, an ultimate theory of the universe, that will include all forces and predict every observation we can make, or will we continue forever finding better theories, but never one that cannot be improved upon? We do not yet have a definitive answer to this question, but we now have a candidate for the ultimate theory of everything, if indeed one exists, called M-theory. M-theory is the only model that has all the properties we think the final theory ought to have.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on January 25, 2011 at 2:43am

Oops, forgot to include this passage as well . . .

. . . Though realism may be a tempting viewpoint, as we’ll see later, what we know about modern physics makes it a difficult one to defend. For example, according to the principles of quantum physics, which is an accurate description of nature, a particle has neither a definite position nor a definite velocity unless and until those quantities are measured by an observer. It is therefore not correct to say that a measurement gives a certain result because the quantity being measured had that value at the time of the measurement. In fact, in some cases individual objects don’t even have an independent existence but rather exist only as part of an ensemble of many. And if a theory called the holographic principle proves correct, we and our four-dimensional world may be shadows on the boundary of a larger, five-dimensional space-time. In that case, our status in the universe is analogous to that of the goldfish.

For more info on the holographic principle, check out this wiki.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on January 26, 2011 at 3:29am

Let me know when you find it, Derry.

There's reality and then there's our perception of it.  At a very basic level, everything we perceive and think is subjective.

So what do we uphold?

Whatever you feel strongly enough about.

I believe in freedom and free will.  They are what I uphold.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Snowcrash on January 24, 2011 at 2:29pm

There is also the religious measurement ofcourse hehe.

 

The bible says so = Fact

Science says it = the devil

 

Sadly the largest part of humanity believes in this measurement.

-------------------------------------

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." – Gene Roddenberry

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page