I've Come To Realize That "Facts" Don't Mean Much If A Person Refuses To Accept Them

by minimus 160 Replies latest jw friends

  • blondie
    blondie

    My experience is that jws and others function by this motto:

    DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS

    Earl Fredrick Landgrebe (January 21, 1916 – July 1, 1986) was a politician and businessman. He served as an Indiana state senator and United States representative for the 2nd district. Langrebe was from Valparaiso in Porter County , Indiana . He is remembered unfavorably for his famous line at the Watergate hearings : "Don’t confuse me with the facts." [1] Landgrebe stuck with Richard Nixon until the bitter end.

  • cofty
    cofty

    I can't prove the earth is round - I have not personally verified the evidence.

    I can look at the images from space, read the testimony of astronauts, study the basics of orbital mecahnics and conclude that the degree of error or conspiracy that would have to be involved in covering up a flat earth is unreasonable.

    There is no hypocrisy involved in asserting our 100% confidence that the earth is not flat just as there is no hypocrisy in asserting our complete confidence in many other facts.

    Nobody should "automatically" accept what science says - we should consider the evidence and any opposing views.

  • minimus
    minimus

    Who would have thought that my initial statement could get into such a fluid discussion??

  • moshe
    moshe

    It takes good research and keen observation to come up with true facts--

    Take fading, of which there are many wearing that badge--We have many members here who are long term faders, but we have no verified studies to tell us, if fading is a better way to leave the KH than just openly leaving/quitting and starting a new life without JW interference. I wish some College PHD wanabe would pursue his thesis on this issue--I have my own theory about the difference between faders and WT quiters and why they chose different roads-

  • AGuest
    AGuest
    Facts should be verifiable.

    And that is the problem, dear Gopher (peace to you!): for many... most... and possibly most here... something is not a fact... until it is verified. But that's not really the definition trying to be sold. What is trying to be SOLD... is that something is not TRUE... until it is verified. And THAT... is a lie. Again, the earth was round BEFORE man verified that it was. Always was, regardless of what man thought, knew, and/or verified. And MANY things that are not accepted as fact BEFORE they are verified... are in fact TRUE... before they are verified. At least one here wishes to force upon us that something stated as true is NOT... unless and until it is verified. Which means that the earth was NOT round... until it was verified that it was. What shape, though, was it BEFORE it was verified? And were those who said it WAS round before such "verification" wrong? The cultures/societies of their time not only said they were... but that they were criminals for even suggesting it.

    Just because we don't have the tools/means TO verify a thing... yet... doesn't mean it isn't TRUE. While it may not be a "fact", as that term is used NOW (something "verified" by scientific experimentation)... it still may BE. What some here wish is for one who knows something to be true to not SAY so... until SCIENCE says so... IF science says so... and if it doesn't, then one cannot say it.

    I have a problem with that and here's why: when I first recognized my Lord as speaking to me, I shared what he gave me with men of the WTBTS, including a GB member. Now, I told them from who I received it, as well as tried to show them where it was written. Their position? "Well, okay, it (the Bible) might say that... but the WT doesn't say it. And until it DOES... YOU can't say it!"

    It is absolutely NO difference to ME... than what some here wish for me, as well. I can't say what I KNOW to be true, based on what has occurred with ME... until THEY say I can... and THEY won't say I can unless and until science says it. Like the WTBTS, however, science doesn't come back and say, "Hey, you know what... you were right that time ago when you said. We just couldn't see/understand/had the tools to see it for ourselves at the time."

    Perhaps when the proponents of science stop SPEAKING and ACTING like the proponents of religion, more people would listen to them. But as someone here once said of ME... "If it quacks like a duck"... well, either it's a duck... or it's a decoy at the other end of which is a gun.

    Many scientific facts of today also cannot be varified by the average person.

    This isn't necessarily a problem for me, dear Satanus (peace to you, as well!). This, though, is:

    Certainly, science facts are incomplete.

    As is a lot of religious doctrine/teachings/beliefs. The same people who say, "Don't swallow religion! There's just too many HOLES in it!" turn around and say, "But swallow this scientific theory. No, no, don't worry about the holes; they're of no real significance!" And then, when the holes ARE of significance... at least to ME... they say, "Well, we never said science was COMPLETELY accurate. Facts change as our understanding changes."

    Who else, pray tell, says that very same thing? Religion (well, "christianity"): "Well, we never said that what we knew was COMPLETELY accurate. Facts change as our understanding changes."

    Religionists can't see/understand where proponents of science are coming from when THEY say the facts "can change." Proponents of science can't see/understand where religionists are coming from when THEY say the facts "can change." Both would deny it, but to me, they are coming from the exact same place. And I don't want to "go" to either. And why should I? I have a Source that does not change. And that's good enough for me.

    Peace!

    A doulos of Christ,

    SA

  • AGuest
    AGuest
    I can look at the images from space, read the testimony of astronauts, study the basics of orbital mecahnics and conclude that the degree of error or conspiracy that would have to be involved in covering up a flat earth is unreasonable.

    You can now. Some stated as fact that the earth was round long, long before such tools and means of verification were available. Were they wrong? Many of their day thought so. Wrong... to the point of having to join secret societies in order to say so... and not be put to death by those who didn't believe them.

    A doulos of Christ,

    SA

  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    These selfsame, proudly atheist forum members promote science as the answer to everything, and yet it's unlikely that they verified many scientific claims on their own.

    First of all, you can lay off the pejoratives anytime. Second, you are making random claims out of ignorance with zero evidence or knowledge to back it up. Third, the example you used to show that personal experience can trump science.....yeah, knowing about electricity and how it can conduct through air is something you know thanks to science. IOW, you used science to attempt to prove that a personal experience you would only be able to understand THANKS to science can somehow trump science. You might want to try that one again.

    Seriously, your insults and claims of what "proudly" atheists is sad. Just stop.

  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    for many... most... and possibly most here... something is not a fact... until it is verified. But that's not really the definition trying to be sold. What is trying to be SOLD... is that something is not TRUE... until it is verified. And THAT... is a lie.

    No one is trying to sell anything. Stop with the insults. If you want your postion to be taken seriously, come up with something useful. Simply making up stuff about the soul living in baby teeth and then insulting those dubious of those claims doesn't help anything or anyone.

    You can now. Some stated as fact that the earth was round long, long before such tools and means of verification were available. Were they wrong? Many of their day thought so. Wrong... to the point of having to join secret societies in order to say so... and not be put to death by those who didn't believe them.

    It could be proven thousands of year ago the earth was round using simple math and observational evidence. Math and science were uncovering useful knowledge, religion and dogma were trying to kill people. Thanks for pointing that out! Yay Science!

  • Gopher
    Gopher

    Satanus:

    "The kind of person who automatically accepts what science says today, is the same kind of person who automatically accepted what science of the day said a thousand yrs ago."

    I don't know if anyone here is advocating that we label every scientific theory as fact. Be careful of constructing a straw man here.

    There are certain things that are definitely factual, and can be proven scientifically. One is that disease is caused by germs and viruses. Certain religions still practiced claim that disease is caused by bad spirits and you need a shaman to cast them out.

    Scientific assertions are not facts but theories. The scientific consensus is that any two particles of matter attract one another with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of distance between them. I just stated the THEORY of gravity. It isn't framed as a "fact", even though it is common to accept it as such (and some would say practically, it is factual to them).

    A scientific theory is the best working explanation of a phenomenon that is happening (like attraction between masses) or did happen (development of plant and animal species).

    "Certainly, science facts are incomplete."

    I must kindly but firmly disagree. Facts are never controvertible. However theories can be improved upon or replaced, like the "Static Universe" theory once propounded by Einstein. However when Edwin Hubble discovered the relationship between red shift and distance, the weight of evidence shifted to the Big Bang theory and the expanding universe. Even Einstein abandoned the Static Universe theory when he considered the new evidence. "Static Universe" and "Big Bang" are not and never were framed as scientific facts, but rather as theories - the best available explanation as understood by a consensus of the scientific community. Scientific theories are constantly under scrutiny and review as the scientific search for the best possible explanation never ends.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Gopher

    'science facts are incomplete."

    'I must kindly but firmly disagree''

    All scientific facts are there? The canon is closed? Only modifications are needed? Your giving me a laugh, here.

    S

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit