4 ms·

You are claiming an article of faith as fact. It isn't. You can assert probabilities but you can't prove a negative. Appeal to ridicule doesn't change that.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
That's exactly what I'm saying. I can't prove a negative -- the burden of proof is on the other party. By your reasoning, being unable to prove a negative means that, outside of maybe math, facts don't really exist. I can't prove that WW2 wasn't an elaborate hoax, I can't prove that Texas is a real state, I can't prove that babies aren't brought around by very stealthy storks. The point is, you already accept WW2 as factual -- or you certainly wouldn't object to someone presenting it as such on an internet forum -- despite it possibly being a shared worldwide hallucination, so you're not even being internally consistent.
- mythrwy 5y ago
  The probability Texas is a real state is very different then the probability fraud caused Trump to lose the 2020 election. You again are appealing to ridicule. Once again, just to be clear, I'm not saying Trump won the 2020 election. Trump's claims he won for sure and "everyone knows it" are just as nonfactual and people who claim Trump actually won is a "fact" are also making preference based statements of faith, just as you and original poster are doing. Unless they have top secret proof they are not sharing which as you alluded to earlier, appears unlikely. What I'm taking about is the nature of "absolute fact" and "probability" and stating things as certain facts that are not certain facts. Also assessing the possibility or probability of events occurring. Here are statements I'd have no problem with: "No conclusive evidence has been presented that fraud tipped the scales in the 2020 election" "It appears extremely unlikely Trump actually won the 2020 election because the evidence thus far presented in court has not held up to scrutiny" Here is a statement I do have a problem with: "1/3 of people are so dumb they don't even believe the "fact" that the 2020 election was legitimate so XXX because facts don't matter to unwashed idiots" (which was the gist of the original post I took exception with).
  - Certhas 5y ago
    You are imposing arbitrary and extreme standards for the usage of the term fact. These standards neither reflect real world usage, nor do they reflect any sensible first principle definition. You also consistently conflate trust and faith. I have to trust a number of entities to come to the conclusion that this is a fact. Just like I have to trust a number of social entities to come to the conclusion that the existence of atoms is a fact. The point is that there are excellent reasons to trust these entities. Faith is trust without reason. That is _not_ at play here.
    - mythrwy 5y ago
      No not at all. It's entirely within the realm of probability that an election was fraudulent enough to alter the outcome. That has happened in world history more then once. On the other hand it's not within the realm of reasonable possibility that Texas doesn't actually exist. These two scenarios are not comparable. It very simply is not a "fact" that Joe Biden won the election cleanly (nor the converse). It might be most probable but it is not "fact" and there are people who feel the evidence points to a different conclusion then you have arrived at. Perhaps they are wrong but the issue here is one of "fact" and determining "fact" in this case is a very large search space. At most (right now) we can say what evidence we see and what we believe is most probable, not beat our opponents over the head for how stupid they are for not seeing "facts". (this was my whole point). faith /fāTH/ noun 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    > The probability Texas is a real state is very different then the probability fraud caused Trump to lose the 2020 election. It's still non-zero, so by your own reasoning it cannot be an "absolute fact". You just don't like the fact that someone's pointing out your own internal inconsistency.
    - mythrwy 5y ago
      Texas can be proven to exist quite easily. Proving the 2020 election was clean is a different matter. But you probably know this on some level already. “That which enters the mind through reason can be corrected. That which is admitted through faith, hardly ever.”

TulliusCicero 5y ago

That's exactly what I'm saying. I can't prove a negative -- the burden of proof is on the other party. By your reasoning, being unable to prove a negative means that, outside of maybe math, facts don't really exist. I can't prove that WW2 wasn't an elaborate hoax, I can't prove that Texas is a real state, I can't prove that babies aren't brought around by very stealthy storks. The point is, you already accept WW2 as factual -- or you certainly wouldn't object to someone presenting it as such on an internet forum -- despite it possibly being a shared worldwide hallucination, so you're not even being internally consistent.

mythrwy 5y ago
The probability Texas is a real state is very different then the probability fraud caused Trump to lose the 2020 election. You again are appealing to ridicule. Once again, just to be clear, I'm not saying Trump won the 2020 election. Trump's claims he won for sure and "everyone knows it" are just as nonfactual and people who claim Trump actually won is a "fact" are also making preference based statements of faith, just as you and original poster are doing. Unless they have top secret proof they are not sharing which as you alluded to earlier, appears unlikely. What I'm taking about is the nature of "absolute fact" and "probability" and stating things as certain facts that are not certain facts. Also assessing the possibility or probability of events occurring. Here are statements I'd have no problem with: "No conclusive evidence has been presented that fraud tipped the scales in the 2020 election" "It appears extremely unlikely Trump actually won the 2020 election because the evidence thus far presented in court has not held up to scrutiny" Here is a statement I do have a problem with: "1/3 of people are so dumb they don't even believe the "fact" that the 2020 election was legitimate so XXX because facts don't matter to unwashed idiots" (which was the gist of the original post I took exception with).
- Certhas 5y ago
  You are imposing arbitrary and extreme standards for the usage of the term fact. These standards neither reflect real world usage, nor do they reflect any sensible first principle definition. You also consistently conflate trust and faith. I have to trust a number of entities to come to the conclusion that this is a fact. Just like I have to trust a number of social entities to come to the conclusion that the existence of atoms is a fact. The point is that there are excellent reasons to trust these entities. Faith is trust without reason. That is _not_ at play here.
  - mythrwy 5y ago
    No not at all. It's entirely within the realm of probability that an election was fraudulent enough to alter the outcome. That has happened in world history more then once. On the other hand it's not within the realm of reasonable possibility that Texas doesn't actually exist. These two scenarios are not comparable. It very simply is not a "fact" that Joe Biden won the election cleanly (nor the converse). It might be most probable but it is not "fact" and there are people who feel the evidence points to a different conclusion then you have arrived at. Perhaps they are wrong but the issue here is one of "fact" and determining "fact" in this case is a very large search space. At most (right now) we can say what evidence we see and what we believe is most probable, not beat our opponents over the head for how stupid they are for not seeing "facts". (this was my whole point). faith /fāTH/ noun 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  > The probability Texas is a real state is very different then the probability fraud caused Trump to lose the 2020 election. It's still non-zero, so by your own reasoning it cannot be an "absolute fact". You just don't like the fact that someone's pointing out your own internal inconsistency.
  - mythrwy 5y ago
    Texas can be proven to exist quite easily. Proving the 2020 election was clean is a different matter. But you probably know this on some level already. “That which enters the mind through reason can be corrected. That which is admitted through faith, hardly ever.”