Fact: people cannot see the future

[flyboy217]

It is exactly the same thing: All you need to do, is not die. All you need to do, is find a crop circle that was not made by humans.

It doesn't matter whether you are here to witness it: All you got to do is not die.

So, both examples are falsifiable. Same thing.

No. This is completely wrong. If all I had to do was "not die," then I've already done it. For example: at 1200 GMT today, I did "not die."

The question is whether I will never die -- that is, perform the act of "not dying" forever. This is something that cannot be verified in a finite time interval, and can thus never be proven. For if, at some time T, I declare "I have not died now, so I will not die," you will always be able to say "wait til T+1."

With the crops, once someone points out one natural one, it's game over.

If you do not believe me, please take some courses in mathematical logic. This point is quite clear.

But it is not possible, given the known facts. It is a fact that reindeer can not fly. We can list all sorts of very convincing arguments, e.g. they don't have wings. But that fact is only valid, until one reindeer takes off, flapping his...tail? Legs? Antlers?

Same thing.

Once a reindeer does fly by flapping his antlers, what happens to the "fact" that reindeer cannot fly? It becomes a "false fact?" Or an "ex-fact"?

 

[CFLarsen]

No. This is completely wrong. If all I had to do was "not die," then I've already done it. For example: at 1200 GMT today, I did "not die."

The question is whether I will never die -- that is, perform the act of "not dying" forever. This is something that cannot be verified in a finite time interval, and can thus never be proven. For if, at some time T, I declare "I have not died now, so I will not die," you will always be able to say "wait til T+1."

With the crops, once someone points out one natural one, it's game over.

If you do not believe me, please take some courses in mathematical logic. This point is quite clear.

Please. You can try that one with newbies, but not with me.

You need to explain why I can't - in a similar fashion - just say "Wait until a crop circle forms that could not have been made by humans".

Whether you are here when you die, is irrelevant. Whether you have already died, is irrelevant. There is absolutely no difference between the arguments:

1) You will never die.

and

2) Crop circles are always made by humans.

Both are falsifiable.

Once a reindeer does fly by flapping his antlers, what happens to the "fact" that reindeer cannot fly? It becomes a "false fact?" Or an "ex-fact"?

I think this is key to where you misunderstand things. Yes, you can call it an "ex-fact", if you like. Does that invalidate the statement "Reindeers cannot fly" at the time when reindeers could not fly?

Of course it doesn't.

You haven't been at this for very long, and I understand perfectly why you find it confusing. But if you want to argue from a skeptical POV, you need to understand how this works.

Skepticism is a provisional position: It is based on what we know now, with the caveat that things could (and, given the history of science, probably will!) change completely.

Reindeer could fly tomorrow. They don't do now, they never have. Ergo, it is perfectly correct to state that reindeers do not fly.

A true skeptic will say: "Hey, prove me wrong!"

 

[flyboy217]

Please. You can try that one with newbies, but not with me.

Oh, not with you, huh? I'll explain it to you again, this time more slowly. If you do not understand it this time, perhaps some other member of the forum will be kind enough to guide you through it at your own pace, because I don't have unlimited time.

Let us compare the two arguments.

Argument 1:

A: Could it be possible that I will never die?
B: No. It is a fact that you will, someday, die.
A: I'll prove you wrong.

(100,000 years later)
A: See, I'm not dead. I win.
B: Oh, just wait til tomorrow.

(1,000,000,000,000,000 years later)
A: Still going. I win!
B: Give it a few more days... remember, the argument is that you will never die.

(1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, years later)
A: There, I've won. I never died!
B: Waiiiit for it... someday isn't here yet!

(A googolplex years later)
A: Whew! I'm growing tired of this staying alive business!
B: As you should be. You're almost dead!
...

At what point in time can person A be said to have disproven the fact that he will die? At no point in time. This is the crucial point. Thus, it is senseless to argue against the claim that he will die.

Thus, when you ask:
"Flyboy217, do you think it is a fact that you will, someday, die?",
I will not argue that this is an invalid fact. Just like person A, I could never hope to disprove this fact.

Capice? Now let's examine argument 2.

Argument 2:

A: Could it be possible that some crop circles are created naturally?
B: No. It is a fact that crop circles cannot form naturally.
A: I'll prove you wrong.

(10 years later)
A: We've isolated the gene that causes crop circles to form naturally. Look at these 10 fields. They're forming crop circles as we speak.
B: D'oh. You are correct.

Person A has just shown person B's fact to be wrong, whereas this was not possible in argument 1. No biggie, really.

Do you now see why the two arguments are not the same?

You need to explain why I can't - in a similar fashion - just say "Wait until a crop circle forms that could not have been made by humans".

The whole point is that you can argue this, and you would be arguing for the assertion that crop circles can form naturally, instead of the assertion that they cannot.

In argument 1, person B has the option of saying "wait some more," while in argument 2, it is person A who has that leisure.

That is why the analogy for "It is a fact that crop circles can't form naturally" is "It is a fact that I will never die," not "It is a fact that I will die."

You haven't been at this for very long, and I understand perfectly why you find it confusing.

Your constant arrogance and condescension are ridiculous in light of the fact that you are rarely able to follow logically reasoned arguments.

If anyone else feels comfortable with logical arguments, feel free to chip in.

*Edited to remove the extraneous word "never"*

 

[thaiboxerken]

If anyone else feels comfortable with logical arguments, feel free to chip in.

Your arguments left the realm of logic a few days ago.

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh, not with you, huh? I'll explain it to you again, this time more slowly. If you do not understand it this time, perhaps some other member of the forum will be kind enough to guide you through it at your own pace, because I don't have unlimited time.

In other words: You do not have any arguments against my point, so you ask for help.

At what point in time can person A be said to have disproven the fact that he will die? At no point in time. This is the crucial point. Thus, it is senseless to argue against the claim that he will never die.

No, it is not "senseless", it is crucial, if you want to address this in a skeptical way.

Thus, when you ask:
"Flyboy217, do you think it is a fact that you will, someday, die?",
I will not argue that this is an invalid fact. Just like person A, I could never hope to disprove this fact.

It isn't about "hope", it's about reality: Can you - or can you not - disprove this fact? Yes or no?

Person A has just shown person B's fact to be wrong, whereas this was not possible in argument 1. No biggie, really.

Do you now see why the two arguments are not the same?

The two arguments are the same, because the time frame doesn't matter (either). It doesn't matter whether it takes 10 years or a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. All that matters is: Has it been shown to be false, yes or no?

You keep making up these excuses, but they just don't cut it.

The whole point is that you can argue this, and you would be arguing for the assertion that crop circles can form naturally, instead of the assertion that they cannot.

In argument 1, person B has the option of saying "wait some more," while in argument 2, it is person A who has that leisure.

That is why the analogy for "It is a fact that crop circles can't form naturally" is "It is a fact that I will never die," not "It is a fact that I will die."

It doesn't matter how long it takes! Get that through your skull.

Your constant arrogance and condescension are ridiculous in light of the fact that you are rarely able to follow logically reasoned arguments.

You can choose to address the points in a logical, skeptical way, or you can choose to attack me personally.

If anyone else feels comfortable with logical arguments, feel free to chip in.

Ask for help all you like.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

To me, it appears that the discussion between FB217 and pretty much everyone else in this thread is about the extent to which one needs to qualify, elaborate and contextualize (is there such a word?) one's statements - a sort of discussion that can't really be categorized as to whether it's about semanthics, language in general, retoric, philosophy or logic. I venture to guess this sort of argueing could go on forever [how long is 'forever'? I hear FB217 ask] - but I also venture to guess that, for instance, what CFLarsen meant with 'if you never die' was in an everyday context, as in 'if you live orders of magnitude longer than the length of the longest human life ever recorded thus far'.

So, while FB217 is logically correct when applying logic to strict semantics, I am of the opinion that this debate is useless for practical purposes, as practical language - i.e. communication - is highly dependent on implicit knowledge and truncated qualification of statements. To me, it looks like FB217 is arguing for the sake of argument, rather than for what I would find to be a more noble cause, such as to help shed light on how language is being used or should be used. IMHO, it is simply impractical to qualify one's statements to the extent FB217 is trying to argue for - if we all spoke an elaborate version of legaleese we'd really never get anything communicated - we'd be constantly focusing on how things are said rather than on what things are said...verbal masturbation, in my book.

Just my one cent worth.

(Edited because my English remains nowhere near perfect)

 

[flyboy217]

In other words: You do not have any arguments against my point, so you ask for help.

No. In other words, you seem unwilling to actually listen to my argument, so it would be best if I stopped responding.

Let's cut to the chase. This is the core of your argument:

The two arguments are the same, because the time frame doesn't matter (either). It doesn't matter whether it takes 10 years or a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. All that matters is: Has it been shown to be false, yes or no?

By "these two arguments," which two--precisely--do you mean? If I understand you correctly, the two arguments you are claiming to be equal are:

1) "It is a fact that crop circles cannot form naturally," which is what I started this thread with, and

2) "It is a fact that you will eventually die, flyboy217," which you asked if I agreed with.

I claim the arguments are opposite, and you claim they are "the same." I'll explain once more why they are opposite:

Argument (1) is refuted by the assertion "it could happen tomorrow." That is why I said it is not viable.

Argument (2) is supported by the assertion that "it could still happen tomorrow." That is why I answered "yes," and explained that it is not the same as argument 1.

If you wanted to draw a parallel with argument 1, which is refuted by the argument "it could happen tomorrow," the question would have to be phrased:

3) "It is a fact that you will never die, flyboy217," which is the opposite of the question you asked me.

At which point I'd say "Eureka, now you understand why claims 1 and 3 are the same, and claim 2 is the opposite!"

It doesn't matter how long it takes! Get that through your skull.

LOL. Looks like you finally get it. Maybe.

 

[flyboy217]

To me, it appears that the discussion between FB217 and pretty much everyone else in this thread is about the extent to which one needs to qualify, elaborate and contextualize (is there such a word?) one's statements - a sort of discussion that can't really be categorized as to whether it's about semanthics, language in general, retoric, philosophy or logic. I venture to guess this sort of argueing could go on forever [how long is 'forever'? I hear FB217 ask] - but I also venture to guess that, for instance, what CFLarsen meant with 'if you never die' was in an everyday context, as in 'if you live orders of magnitude longer than the length of the longest human life ever recorded thus far'.

So, while FB217 is logically correct when applying logic to strict semantics, I am of the opinion that this debate is useless for practical purposes, as practical language - i.e. communication - is highly dependent on implicit knowledge and truncated qualification of statements. To me, it looks like FB217 is arguing for the sake of argument, rather than for what I would find to be a more noble cause, such as to help shed light on how language is being used or should be used. IMHO, it is simply impractical to qualify one's statements to the extent FB217 is trying to argue for - if we all spoke an elaborate version of legaleese we'd really never get anything communicated - we'd be constantly focusing on how things are said rather than on what things are said...verbal masturbation, in my book.

Just my one cent worth.

(Edited because my English remains nowhere near perfect)

Please understand that I am not trying to prolong the original discussion. I ended it (I thought) with "I think the general consensus is that it's not necessarily the best response, but that it doesn't really hurt either."

Since then, I have been addressing mostly CFLarsen's question, which is a purely logical argument removed from its original purpose. I don't really care to continue it, and I think my last post has addressed it sufficiently.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Fair enough.

 

[CFLarsen]

To me, it looks like FB217 is arguing for the sake of argument, rather than for what I would find to be a more noble cause, such as to help shed light on how language is being used or should be used. IMHO, it is simply impractical to qualify one's statements to the extent FB217 is trying to argue for - if we all spoke an elaborate version of legaleese we'd really never get anything communicated - we'd be constantly focusing on how things are said rather than on what things are said...verbal masturbation, in my book.

Yup.

 

[CFLarsen]

Since then, I have been addressing mostly CFLarsen's question, which is a purely logical argument removed from its original purpose. I don't really care to continue it, and I think my last post has addressed it sufficiently.

If you say so.

 

[asthmatic camel]

A. It is a fact that Flyboy 217 is a boring pedant.

B. It is a fact that I consider Flyboy 217 to be a boring pedant.

Which should I use, A or B ?

 

[Hamhawk714]

Or maybe you could actually listen to what I have to say.

Like the invisible dragon, I would be more comfortable just saying "until you give me good evidence for this, it's silly, so let's move on." I'm fine with the moving on part. I just don't think something has to be declared impossible before one moves on. I can go on ignoring that invisible dragon in my bathroom as long as it's not pestering me.

One problem, I think, is that deciding for good that something is impossible probably does make one less likely to consider good evidence for it in the future. This can be countered by the simple argument that "staunch" skepticism in this sense is practical--if 1 in a million claims are real, then it saves a lot of time to give each claim just a bit less time than it might otherwise warrant.

Being reasonably new to this whole thing, it's quite possible that I, too, will eventually decide I've had enough of paranormal silliness and become more staunch to save myself time and energy. But I've got all the time in the world for that.



If anything paranormal is ever proven it will be all the more truely amazing,because it was almost universally considered impossible.Rather than,"as of now there is no scientific proof".The former puts it in a far superior context,doesn't it?