Why people are more than just their material bodies.

[Tassman]

Again Tass, verification has nothing to do with whether something is a fact or not. The moon was an objective fact before there were any rational minds to grasp that fact. A deer dies in the forest, his bones turn to dust or are eaten, no evidence left of that animal - yet it was still a fact.

Facts are things that are understood or proved to be true, like the existence of the moon as a satellite orbiting the earth rather than a fixed light in the night sky - as was widely believed to be for millennium. Verification determines what the “facts” are and how they function according to the laws and constants of nature in the natural world.

As far extraordinary claims, if the person making the claim has no history of delusion or mental illness, or present drug use, then we take it on face value. I have no rational reason to assume that my experience with the floating fern was a delusion.

But there is no rational reason to assume that your experience with the floating fern was a miracle. Nor is categorizing as a miracle any other occurrence that we don’t understand.

Again even that is silly, we didn't need science to observe the moon, sun or weather.

Merely “observing” a phenomenon such as the moon, sun or the weather does not necessarily provide understanding. We need science to explain that the sun is a star (one among billions) and not a fiery chariot being drawn daily from east to west across the sky by the god Helios. Or that lightening is a naturally occurring electrostatic discharge and NOT the god Thor venting his wrath on us mere mortals with thunderbolts etc. etc. etc.

[seer]

Facts are things that are understood or proved to be true, like the existence of the moon as a satellite orbiting the earth rather than a fixed light in the night sky - as was widely believed to be for millennium. Verification determines what the “facts” are and how they function according to the laws and constants of nature in the natural world.

Nonsense Tass, a fact is something that is true, not proven true. The moon exists - that is a fact, and was a fact long before there were any minds around to prove anything..

But there is no rational reason to assume that your experience with the floating fern was a miracle. Nor is categorizing as a miracle any other occurrence that we don’t understand.

And there is no rational reason to assume it was a natural event, in other words there is no logical reason to categorically discount miracles.

Merely “observing” a phenomenon such as the moon, sun or the weather does not necessarily provide understanding. We need science to explain that the sun is a star (one among billions) and not a fiery chariot being drawn daily from east to west across the sky by the god Helios. Or that lightening is a naturally occurring electrostatic discharge and NOT the god Thor venting his wrath on us mere mortals with thunderbolts etc. etc. etc.

Again, you don't need science to know that the sun, moon or weather exist as fact. How it all works is a different story.

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, a fact is something that is true, not proven true. The moon exists - that is a fact, and was a fact long before there were any minds around to prove anything..

No. One does not know a “fact” is “true” without verification. Oxford Dictionary: “FACT - a thing that is known or proved to be true.”

And there is no rational reason to assume it was a natural event, in other words there is no logical reason to categorically discount miracles.

There is NO rational reason to assume that anything is a ‘miracle’ given that we live in a world governed by the laws and constants of the natural universe.

Again, you don't need science to know that the sun, moon or weather exist as fact. How it all works is a different story.

“Observation” is more than just seeing something – all creatures with eyes can do that – it is the active acquisition of information from what we see.

In short, ‘observation’ needs to be accompanied by substantiated facts and for this we need science. Especially as the “facts” supplied by religious mythology were seriously wrong, Helios and the sun-chariot being an example.

[seer]

No. One does not know a “fact” is “true” without verification. Oxford Dictionary: “FACT - a thing that is known or proved to be true.”

Webster fact 1a : something that has actual existence...

So the the existence of the moon is a fact and true even if there was no verification. Or are you really saying that the moon only exists if there is someone is around to verify it?

[Machinist]

I vote Webster!

[Tassman]

Webster fact 1a : something that has actual existence...

So the the existence of the moon is a fact and true even if there was no verification. Or are you really saying that the moon only exists if there is someone is around to verify it?

The sun and moon exist as visible phenomena, nothing more. It is not a fact that the moon is a goddess, as believed in Classical times. Or that the sun circles the sky from east to west as was commonly believed for millennia – and reinforced by geocentric religions and mythologies.

The fact is that we live in a heliocentric solar system – one of countless billions in the universe – and this fact has been verified by empirical scientific research, NOT the subjective reasoning of observers based upon what seems to be true.

[seer]

The sun and moon exist as visible phenomena, nothing more. It is not a fact that the moon is a goddess, as believed in Classical times. Or that the sun circles the sky from east to west as was commonly believed for millennia – and reinforced by geocentric religions and mythologies.

The fact is that we live in a heliocentric solar system – one of countless billions in the universe – and this fact has been verified by empirical scientific research, NOT the subjective reasoning of observers based upon what seems to be true.

Nonsense Tass, again Webster fact 1a : something that has actual existence...

The existence of the sun is a fact and true even without rational minds to grasp that truth. Its existence does not depend on what we know about it or what we can prove about it.

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, again Webster fact 1a : something that has actual existence...

The existence of the sun is a fact and true even without rational minds to grasp that truth. Its existence does not depend on what we know about it or what we can prove about it.

I think we can all agree that the sun exists as a visible phenomenon but that’s not saying much. The issue is that only science has the methodology to factually verify where the sun goes at night.

[seer]

I think we can all agree that the sun exists as a visible phenomenon but that’s not saying much. The issue is that only science has the methodology to factually verify where the sun goes at night.

OK, so you agree that its existence is a fact and true even without other proofs or explanations. Just as my tea drinking event....

[Tassman]

OK, so you agree that its existence is a fact and true even without other proofs or explanations. Just as my tea drinking event....

Not at all. The sun is visible to all whereas your “tea-drinking event” is exclusive to you. And, just as it takes empirical science to explain the essential properties of the sun, so your tea-during requires verification to qualify as an actual, objective occurrence rather than a false memory.

[seer]

Not at all. The sun is visible to all whereas your “tea-drinking event” is exclusive to you. And, just as it takes empirical science to explain the essential properties of the sun, so your tea-during requires verification to qualify as an actual, objective occurrence rather than a false memory.

Nonsense, my tea drinking even happened in real time in history. Nothing can change that fact - again, if there were no minds in the universe to verify the existence of the sun it would still exist, verification is immaterial. If you were in my kitchen last Tuesday morning you would have seen the same thing - but your witness does not bear on the fact of whether that event took place or not.

[Tassman]

Nonsense, my tea drinking even happened in real time in history. Nothing can change that fact

It is a subjective “fact” of relevance to you alone and assumes, without verification, that you are not delusional or dementing etc. The triviality of the occurrence doesn’t alter the fact that without verification we only have your personal assurance that it occurred. The same applies to claims of alien abduction or experiencing a ‘miraculous’ event.

- again, if there were no minds in the universe to verify the existence of the sun it would still exist, verification is immaterial.

Indeed. But without empirical verification of the essential properties of the sun it is open to false claims about it being god (as in ancient Egypt) or a fiery chariot traversing the sky (as believed in Classical times) or capable of careening towards Earth as claimed in the Miracle of Fatima.

[Machinist]

It is a subjective “fact” of relevance to you alone and assumes, without verification, that you are not delusional or dementing etc. The triviality of the occurrence doesn’t alter the fact that without verification we only have your personal assurance that it occurred. The same applies to claims of alien abduction or experiencing a ‘miraculous’ event.

Is there then, a word in the English language for events that do happen in reality, but are for whatever reasons, unable to be verified? If the word fact is reserved exclusively for things that are scientifically verifiable, what word do we have for those countless billions of events that happen all around us, that no one bothers to record?

It is interesting to me that Webster and Oxford have such radically different definitions for this simple word, each with their own assumptions about the nature of reality.