The Argument From Reason...

[Machinist]

Did you guys ever come to an agreed upon definition of truth?

[Tassman]

I stand corrected: honest, reliable, credentialled, and qualified people, whom I have never met, with my acceptance of their attributes being based on the assessments by people whom I have also not met. I also accept the proffered evidence as valid without actually personally verifying that it has not been fabricated. A lot of faith is exercised in accepting the existence of exoplanets.

No "faith" required, re exoplanets, merely an acceptance of the abundant available evidence: "An exoplanet or extrasolar planet is a planet outside the Solar System. The first possible evidence of an exoplanet was noted in 1917, but was not recognized as such. The first confirmation of detection occurred in 1992. A different planet, originally detected in 1988, was confirmed in 2003."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet

[tabibito]

Cosmologists have provided abundant evidence of exoplanets. It is accepted science, NOT mere hearsay from “honest and reliable people.”

I stand corrected: honest, reliable, credentialled, and qualified people, whom I have never met, with my acceptance of their attributes being based on the assessments by people whom I have also not met. I also accept the proffered evidence as valid without actually personally verifying that it has not been fabricated. A lot of faith is exercised in accepting the existence of exoplanets.

[Tassman]

I haven't seen one; therefore only anecdotal evidence supports their existence. I accept their existence as real only on the basis of witness reports, which I believe have been made by honest and reliable people. I cannot demonstrate that the witnesses are not deluded or lying.

Cosmologists have provided abundant evidence of exoplanets. It is accepted science, NOT mere hearsay from “honest and reliable people.”

With regard to God and miracles, that is indeed the argument.

There is NO objective argument for gods and miracles and the purported supernatural universe – merely subjective testimony.

The reports were not just disbelieved, they were declared false and ridiculed.

Indeed. It was the same in ancient Rome at reports of giraffes. In both instances their existence was ultimately verified and their existence established. Not so for the Loch Ness Monster, unicorns or mermaids.

[tabibito]

Belief in exoplanets is verified by their actual existence as predicted by cosmologists as highly probable based upon existing knowledge.

I haven't seen one; therefore only anecdotal evidence supports their existence. I accept their existence as real only on the basis of witness reports, which I believe have been made by honest and reliable people. I cannot demonstrate that the witnesses are not deluded or lying.

The argument is NOT that [I]“that facts can only exist if they can be verified&#8221

With regard to God and miracles, that is indeed the argument.

OF COURSE, platypuses’ existence was wholly unaffected by verification. Obviously. But without formal proof, the reports of such exotic creatures on the other side of the world was doubted.

The reports were not just disbelieved, they were declared false and ridiculed.

[Tassman]

Absence of a reasonable cause for disbelief would be one reason - if encounters with the witness have demonstrated the witness to be reliable, his account can be accepted. Were that not so, I would be justified in denying the existence of exoplanets, among a large number of other phenomena.

Belief in exoplanets is verified by their actual existence as predicted by cosmologists as highly probable based upon existing knowledge.

Which demonstrates the weakness of the argument that facts can only exist, or be accepted, if they can be verified.

The argument is NOT that “that facts can only exist if they can be verified” but rather ‘facts’ can only be shown to be true if they are verified – there’s a difference.

Which has absolutely no impact on the reality - though unverified, the facts indubitably exist.

Indeed. See above.

The fact of the platypus' existence was wholly unaffected by verification. Quite a number of species existed prior to their discovery. That their existence was unknown had no influence on reality; bacteria being a particularly well known example. Fact and reality are not established by verification - fact and reality becoming believable or known does often rely on verification.

OF COURSE, platypuses’ existence was wholly unaffected by verification. Obviously. But without formal proof, the reports of such exotic creatures on the other side of the world was doubted.

[tabibito]

Why would one ASSUME anything of the sort?

Absence of a reasonable cause for disbelief would be one reason - if encounters with the witness have demonstrated the witness to be reliable, his account can be accepted. Were that not so, I would be justified in denying the existence of exoplanets, among a large number of other phenomena.

And therefore, cannot be shown to be true.

Which demonstrates the weakness of the argument that facts can only exist, or be accepted, if they can be verified.

Yes, facts exist can independently of substantiation. But they cannot be shown objectively to exist without verified evidence.

Which has absolutely no impact on the reality - though unverified, the facts indubitably exist.

The fact of platypuses existing was finally established by producing verified evidence of their existence. The same applies to black swans and a host of other examples. Otherwise, they belong in the same category as the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot.

The fact of the platypus' existence was wholly unaffected by verification. Quite a number of species existed prior to their discovery. That their existence was unknown had no influence on reality; bacteria being a particularly well known example. Fact and reality are not established by verification - fact and reality becoming believable or known does often rely on verification.

[Tassman]

Now that is one extraordinary claim. Assuming that the event actually happened, it is as true as anything that science can verify:

Why would one ASSUME anything of the sort?

one of a very large number of types of event that cannot be verified by the scientific method.

And therefore, cannot be shown to be true.

Come now - facts (particularly where events are concerned) frequently exist independently of substantiation. And there's the whole realm of "anecdotal evidence" to consider, with eyewitness testimony being relegated to the status of "anecdotal evidence" as a means to discredit "eyewitness testimony" all too frequently, where it should properly be reserved for second or third person reports. Nor should it be forgotten that the scientific method actually assesses eyewitness testimony and even anecdotal evidence to formulate hypotheses.

Yes, facts exist can independently of substantiation. But they cannot be shown objectively to exist without verified evidence.

There is an obligation on the person who challenges the claim to produce evidence in support of the challenge. Should a person alleging that a claim is false (your aforementioned delusional, or a false memory etc. etc. etc.) there would need to be some reasonable grounds established before the claim should be rejected. The reports of initial responses in Europe to the descriptions of the platypus being a salutary cautionary tale.

The fact of platypuses existing was finally established by producing verified evidence of their existence. The same applies to black swans and a host of other examples. Otherwise, they belong in the same category as the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot.

[Tassman]

How is the tea drinking less true than anything else? It isn't. An old bear dies in the woods, it turns to dust, no witnesses - that remains a fact despite the lack of evidence.

The act of having a cup of tea is not the issue – that’s relatively easy to substantiate given that it occurs historically in real time.

But your initial argument was that your conscious experience of it was not a material occurrence because ‘consciousness’ is not material. Whereas, in reality, there is no coherent energy medium for the functioning of consciousness beyond the material activity of the living brain. In short, consciousness is not an independent entity.

Everything you know comes through personal experience Tass, there is nothing else. .

Indeed. But you are arguing for arriving at unsubstantiated TRUTH solely from personal subjective experience. And “Personal experience” can vary from person to person for a variety of reasons ranging from mental health issues to social programming and childhood memories. So, again, how can you determine the “truth” of your personal subjective experience if another person’s subjective experience conflicts with yours?

Ten scientists can tell you A, but A is still filtered through your subjective personal experience

And the "filtering" process will include assessing the verified evidence supporting "A".

[seer]

Your “tea drinking” is NOT “as true as anything verified by science” unless it is verified by some sort of evidence. Hypothetically, it could be delusional, or a false memory etc. etc. etc.

How is the tea drinking less true than anything else? It isn't. An old bear dies in the woods, it turns to dust, no witnesses - that remains a fact despite the lack of evidence.

If unsubstantiated, the only “FACT” is in your own mind.

You have yet to explain how you determine the “truth” of your personal subjective experience when another’s subjective experience conflicts with yours.

Everything you know comes through personal experience Tass, there is nothing else. Ten scientists can tell you A, but A is still filtered through your subjective personal experience.

[tabibito]

Your “tea drinking” is NOT “as true as anything verified by science” unless it is verified by some sort of evidence. Hypothetically, it could be delusional, or a false memory etc. etc. etc.

Now that is one extraordinary claim. Assuming that the event actually happened, it is as true as anything that science can verify: one of a very large number of types of event that cannot be verified by the scientific method.

If unsubstantiated, the only “FACT” is in your own mind.

Come now - facts (particularly where events are concerned) frequently exist independently of substantiation. And there's the whole realm of "anecdotal evidence" to consider, with eyewitness testimony being relegated to the status of "anecdotal evidence" as a means to discredit "eyewitness testimony" all too frequently, where it should properly be reserved for second or third person reports. Nor should it be forgotten that the scientific method actually assesses eyewitness testimony and even anecdotal evidence to formulate hypotheses.

You have yet to explain how you determine the “truth” of your personal subjective experience when another’s subjective experience conflicts with yours.

There is an obligation on the person who challenges the claim to produce evidence in support of the challenge. Should a person alleging that a claim is false (your aforementioned delusional, or a false memory etc. etc. etc.) there would need to be some reasonable grounds established before the claim should be rejected. The reports of initial responses in Europe to the descriptions of the platypus being a salutary cautionary tale.

[Machinist]

There is a difference between Truth and Troof.

[Tassman]

Of course the fact of my tea drinking is as true as anything verified by science. It is a FACT, and it is TRUE.

Your “tea drinking” is NOT “as true as anything verified by science” unless it is verified by some sort of evidence. Hypothetically, it could be delusional, or a false memory etc. etc. etc.

But verification, or not, does not change the FACT of the matter.

If unsubstantiated, the only “FACT” is in your own mind.

You have yet to explain how you determine the “truth” of your personal subjective experience when another’s subjective experience conflicts with yours.

[seer]

Indeed. It is historically verifiable. But your argument goes further. You claim that a purely subjective experience is “as true as any verifiable" scientific discovery”. It is NOT.

Of course the fact of my tea drinking is as true as anything verified by science. It is a FACT, and it is TRUE. It is not partially a fact, and it is not partially true.

But without verification there is no means of determining the “truth” of your personal subjective experience compared to that of another’s, whose subjective experience conflicts with yours.

But verification, or not, does not change the FACT of the matter.

[Machinist]

From a Theistic, "meta" perspective (if you will), then what events actually happen, even subjective experiences, are going to be "true". If you're making objective verification a prerequisite before something is "true", then obviously some things are never going to be proven.