OPINION =/= FACT
I do not dispute that it's an opinion. My dispute is that this opinion is excluded from the truth, even when determined after the fact, that it was always true.
And this is a very important point, so I'm glad we're both on the same-page here.
It is only true at the point of verification.
And at that point, we can "retroactively" call it "true" colloquially, but it could never have been "true" BEFORE verification occurred.
For example, if someone hypothesized that the Sun emits invisible rays of light, before there was any scientific evidence to support their claim, they would not be "correct" and their OPINION (prediction) would not and could not be considered TRUE.
Up to and until the moment of verification, that person is not a "prophet" or a "liar". That person is indistinguishable from a lunatic (space-alien abductee).
We should NEVER "take someones word-for-it".
Only NOW can we say it is TRUE that the Sun emits invisible rays of light, and has, as far as we reasonably can tell, (retroactively) ALWAYS emitted invisible rays of light.
FOR EXAMPLE,
OPINION-HYPOTHESIS-PREDICTION-GNOSIS-DREAM =/= REAL-TRUE-FACT
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
And what if i have a IR light detector and you do not.
I say that the sun emits light that you can't see.
And, you say that is not true.
This is the area i get into all the time.
And further, to this analogy, you have to build your own IR light detector, you can't use mine. (and most people can't be bothered to make one)
So, how do you correctly verbalize these things?
You can use logic to communicate a coherent theory of radiation.
At that point it becomes a question of Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence.
But more specifically to your question, "What qualifies as REAL-TRUE-FACTS?"...
Just like a court of law, both the prosecution and defense MUST agree on the facts (common-ground).
If you and your opponent disagree about a FACT, you must immediately stop the debate, and negotiate the point of disputed FACT.
In your specific (excellent) example, you would probably start with common-ground by discussing the visible spectrum and how a rainbow effect is produced by a prism, and then explain that the rainbow effect extends beyond the red and the blue on both sides, and then try and find some real-world examples of how they could test this and why you believe it is "important" in practical times.
You basically have to build a compelling case.
You can't just say, "it's a fact it's a fact it's a fact and you're a #?@!!o if you don't agree".
REAL-TRUE-FACTS are not always, necessarily "self-evident".
The real problem i get to is (in my analogy)
i say, "My measuring device shows this."
And their reply is, "well that's a nice theory, what about these other theories?"
Or
"I am appalled by the way you are stating a theory as a fact."
Or
"Science has disproven that ages ago."
It sounds to me like you're speaking to someone who doesn't understand the difference between a hypothesis (an unqualified opinion) and a theory (a reliable coherent peer-reviewed model).
Saying "my special meter shows this" is similar to someone saying "my special book says this".
You have to build a case (on common-ground) that doesn't include your meter.
No Facts???????
Leftists preach subjectivity which means no facts.
Grounds
The judge may ask on what grounds something might be on.
Eternal Principles
I believe in eternal principles that are objective, universal, real, absolute, etc.
Duct-Tape Truth
SJWs tend not believe in real truth but instead duct-tape truth that they can use to fix things whenever they want to with.
@stefan.molyneux
Stefan Molyneux talks about the value of philosophy in helping different parties see the same elephant. The problem can be that humans are often too blind.
Elephant Truth
So, I think the elephant is like a rock. Oh, those are the tusks. One guy thinks the elephant is a rope. Oh, that's his tail. Oh, the elephant must be fat like a hippo. So, he must be a hippo or a cow. No, that is just his body. His legs might be like a tree. Too often, we are blind.
Losing Eyes
We lack enough perspective to see the bigger picture in regards to many things. We got to always remind each other of our limitations. We are flawed. We are not perfect.
Rise of Han Solo Haha
But when we are taught to be too cocky like Han Solo, then we end up shooting Leia and not just Gredo first.
Subjectivity doesn't equal "no-facts".
Subjectivity = sample bias + opinion
(IFF) you can show me a human with no sample bias and no opinion (THEN) I'll show you a dead human.
Humans are subjective. But objectivity exists beyond that.
How can a subjective human access or perceive "objective truth-facts"?
I mean, sure, "objective truth-facts" might exists, somehow, hypothetically, in the abstract (like the logically necessary NOUMENON) but if humans aren't "objective", then they are never going to "know" any of these "objective truth-facts" (or how to "apply" them to real-world-situations).
That is a good question. Now, if objectivity didn't exist, then how could we even be aware that objectivity shine like stars in space? The answer is that we would probably not even know if they were not shinning on us.
The NOUMENON exists as a logical necessity.
HOWeVEer, this "objective fact" does not inform any of our moral-intuitions.
1 + 1 = 2 =/= I love you.
The ONLY ground you can build a case on is COMMON-GROUND.
That's why ESTABLISHING COMMON-GROUND should always be your first step when entering a discussion.
Common ground can be relative, subjective, and that is dangerous.
Common ground can be
Relative, subjective, and
That is dangerous.
- joeyarnoldvn
I'm a bot. I detect haiku.
Please explain how "common-ground" is "dangerous"?
In a village where the common ground is cannibalism, for example, then is that not dangerous? Do you want to argue how that is perhaps not dangerous? You could defend the cannibalists if you want.
People kill people for any number of (justifiable) reasons. What they do with the dead bodies would seem to be incidental.
It's not the "common-ground" that makes it any "more" or "less" "dangerous".
Please simply present your LIST of "eternal objective principles" instead of hiding them behind an "appeal-to-ignorance".
In other words, you believe in relativity?
Please simply present your LIST of "eternal objective principles" instead of hiding them behind an "appeal-to-ignorance".
I'd love to believe in "purely-objective-truth-facts". Just tell me what you know for certain are "purely-objective-truth-facts" so I can adopt them.
Simply insisting "they exist" is not sufficient evidence.
Is the value of the free market system not an eternal principle, for example, worth preserving for as long as we can?
Are you suggesting that "free-market-economics" is at the top of your LIST of "eternal objective principles"?
It would seem that "free-market-economics" is generally a "good" thing in most situations, but it is not a "universal good". Different markets require different levels of regulation in order to preserve maximum benefit.
This is an excellent metaphor, but I'm not sure Stefan really deserves any credit for it.
Stefan has nothing to do with the elephant.
This is called "sample-bias".
Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they're "blind".
All people are blind all of the time. I am blind. You are blind. When I say blind, I mean you don't know everything. You are not omniscient. You can't see all the colors. Our eyes are limited. Our brains are limited. Blind means the inability to see something. If you are not seeing everything, all the time, everywhere, at all times, in all ways, you are therefore not seeing some things like a blind person does not see anything at all.
Not seeing "everything" is not the same as "not seeing anything". Other than that, I generally agree with your statement. We are all "blind" to some things, even though we are not "blind" to ALL things.
You might be right. But without knowing everything, it is kind of hard to know completely if you are right about that. But I basically agree that you might be right about that.
What an interesting conversation. I would like to add:
You never know completely, that is the point. You are asked as a human to make your choice without having the certainty of being right or wrong in fulness. There is no outer authority or objectivity which will support you in your decisions or speeches other than your situational relative knowledge and wisdom.
You could ask yourself of the probability of a thing and then head towards the direction or avoid it, depends on the situation and circumstance in every single event.
Close enough.
As a follower of @followforupvotes this post has been randomly selected and upvoted! Enjoy your upvote and have a great day!
Here's another example,
Was the first video game called a "video game" at the time?
Or was it only retroactively considered a "video game"?