FACT vs. TAF

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Bill Arnold

FACT vs. TAF

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 17 nov 2007 05:19:02

BA: I made a statement of fact that Ptolemy stated that the sun went
around the earth, and later Copernicus got it right when he stated that
the earth goes around the sun. That is fact, and both facts are correct,
because both facts are attached to the attestors of the facts. Now, TAF
ignores those FACT statements and comes up with his own mumblejumble
about astrophysics as if he were an astrophysicist. So: a small child asks
one of us: which is it, because I am confused, and I have heard it is not
the way I SEE it that the sun goes run the earth, but someone told me
the earth moves and goes around the sun? And TAF comes up with some
mumblejumble to explain Plato's conundrum of the appearance of reality.
What TAF ignores is that the earth turns and that is what gives the appearance
of reality. His mumblejumble ignores the point of the question: explain
the FACT that the sun appears to go around the earth. Instead he wanders
off in an ad hominem attack on all who deal with this simple question,
which for centuries was viewed in that primitive way: and claims himself
an astrophysicist.


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

wjhonson

Re: FACT vs. TAF

Legg inn av wjhonson » 17 nov 2007 05:21:01

On Nov 16, 8:05 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: I made a statement of fact that Ptolemy stated that the sun went
around the earth, and later Copernicus got it right when he stated that
the earth goes around the sun. That is fact, and both facts are correct,
because both facts are attached to the attestors of the facts. Now, TAF
ignores those FACT statements and comes up with his own mumblejumble
about astrophysics as if he were an astrophysicist. So: a small child asks
one of us: which is it, because I am confused, and I have heard it is not
the way I SEE it that the sun goes run the earth, but someone told me
the earth moves and goes around the sun? And TAF comes up with some
mumblejumble to explain Plato's conundrum of the appearance of reality.
What TAF ignores is that the earth turns and that is what gives the appearance
of reality. His mumblejumble ignores the point of the question: explain
the FACT that the sun appears to go around the earth. Instead he wanders
off in an ad hominem attack on all who deal with this simple question,
which for centuries was viewed in that primitive way: and claims himself
an astrophysicist.


Yes you made a statement of fact that he said it. That is quite
different from saying that because he said it, *it* is a statement of
fact.

I can say, that someone said something, and my saying that he said it,
is a fact. However what I cannot say, is that *what* he said is
itself a fact. I can only say, that he said it, and that he said it,
itself, is a fact.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: FACT vs. TAF

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2007 06:35:06

[Um, Bill, it is considered impolite - even rude - to rename a thread
with the name of the person you are debating.]

On Nov 16, 8:05 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: I made a statement of fact that Ptolemy stated that the sun went
around the earth,

And that is a fact (at least it is generally accepted to be a fact),
that Ptolemy said this.

and later Copernicus got it right when he stated that
the earth goes around the sun. That is fact,

And this is not a fact - that Copernicus got it right (at least not
entirely right). It is a fact (or at least it is accepted as fact)
that Copernicus said this, but that is different than concluding that
what he said was itself fact.

and both facts are correct,
because both facts are attached to the attestors of the facts.

What they said is fact because they said it. We live in a perfect
world, where no one lies or passes on misinformation. No one is
deceitful or boastful or just insufficiently knowledgeable of the
facts. Nonsense.

Now, TAF
ignores those FACT statements and comes up with his own mumblejumble
about astrophysics as if he were an astrophysicist.

But, Bill, old buddy. I made a statement of fact. By your own
criteria, it is thus fact. This is where your ridiculous definition
of fact gets you into trouble - you can't claim what I said is
anything other than fact, because you can neither deny that I said it
as a statement of fact, nor can you challenge it because by your own
admission, you didn't understand it well enough to make a reasoned
challenge. By your own petard, what I said is fact. You call it
mumblejumble, which is nothing but an admission that you surely are
_not_ an astrophysicist, and likewise are in no position to pass
judgment on the accuracy of the three competing models (not because
you are not an astrophysicist, but because you are clueless about the
field). You have given us a perfect example of why public opinion is
not a good barometer of fact. There was a psychological study a couple
of years back that concluded that the people who were most clueless
were also most lacking in self-awareness of their cluelessness.


So: a small child asks
one of us: which is it, because I am confused, and I have heard it is not
the way I SEE it that the sun goes run the earth, but someone told me
the earth moves and goes around the sun? And TAF comes up with some
mumblejumble to explain Plato's conundrum of the appearance of reality.
What TAF ignores is that the earth turns and that is what gives the appearance
of reality.

Try again. Next time, aim for accuracy . . . . but I forgot, you
didn't understand what I said, so you can't possibly know whether it
had anything to do with Plato or the rotation of the earth or the
appearance of reality. You, by your own admission, are making supposed
statements of fact about which you haven't the slightest knowledge,
again proving how utterly ridiculous it is to claim that statements of
fact make what is stated fact.


His mumblejumble ignores the point of the question: explain
the FACT that the sun appears to go around the earth.

I did not ignore it any more than Ptolemy or Copernicus did. Again,
if you can't understand what I said, you can't tell what I ignored or
didn't ignore.

Instead he wanders
off in an ad hominem attack on all who deal with this simple question,
which for centuries was viewed in that primitive way:

It is not an ad hominem to state that Copernicus was not entirely
correct. Saying someone is wrong is not attacking them personally.

and claims himself an astrophysicist.

And yet another lie. I claimed nothing of the sort. You know I
claimed nothing of the sort. No matter how many times you repeat it it
is still a lie. No matter whether I call you to task for it or not it
is still a lie. Whether anyone challenges it, it is still a lie. It
is falsity unadulterated, but is again revealing concerning both your
concept of fact and your character.

I just said that you, a self-professed English professor, certainly
are _not_ an astrophysicist, and your failure to understand my
description of planetary dynamics only proves my point - that you have
no business pontificating on things you most clearly and utterly fail
to comprehend.

taf

Renia

Re: FACT vs. TAF

Legg inn av Renia » 17 nov 2007 08:01:02

Bill Arnold wrote:
BA: I made a statement of fact that Ptolemy stated that the sun went
around the earth,

No, you simply made a statement. That someone makes a statement, does
not make the content of the statement into a fact.


and later Copernicus got it right when he stated that
the earth goes around the sun. That is fact, and both facts are correct,
because both facts are attached to the attestors of the facts.

No, they are both statements. One of those statements _may_ be a fact,
but just because someone makes a statement, does not make the content of
that statement into a fact.

Now, TAF
ignores those FACT statements and comes up with his own mumblejumble
about astrophysics as if he were an astrophysicist.

Well, Taf is a scientist, so astrophysics might be in his wider sphere
of interest.

But one does not have to have an interest or knowledge of astrophysics
to see that your idea of what constitutes a fact is flawed.

Just _because_ someone says something (makes a statement) does not make
the content of that statement into a fact.


So: a small child asks
one of us: which is it, because I am confused, and I have heard it is not
the way I SEE it that the sun goes run the earth, but someone told me
the earth moves and goes around the sun? And TAF comes up with some
mumblejumble to explain Plato's conundrum of the appearance of reality.
What TAF ignores is that the earth turns and that is what gives the appearance
of reality. His mumblejumble ignores the point of the question: explain
the FACT that the sun appears to go around the earth. Instead he wanders
off in an ad hominem attack on all who deal with this simple question,
which for centuries was viewed in that primitive way: and claims himself
an astrophysicist.

He's not claiming to be an astrophysicist. He's not really dealing with
the scientific mumbo-jumbo of how the earth and/or sun appear to be
revolving around each other or not.

He's dealing with the essence of the meaning of the word "fact".

A fact is not a fact, just because a person makes a statement (of fact).
Another fact is not another fact, just because someone else with new
information makes a different statement (of fact).

When one person makes a statement about something, what they are
uttering is not a fact, but a theory.

When a second person with new information makes a statement refuting the
first theory, then it is still not a fact, but a theory.

Even Einstein's theory of relativity is not a fact, but a theory.

Much of what we claim as "facts", in any subject, is, in reality, no
more than "theory".

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»