The Facts are wrong

I'd like to bring to light that all information is jaded.
Its under a theory called "Terms for Order" and it states that almost all information you have it second hand information.
..
Another theory called "Terministic Screens" states that: terms chosen change perspective, and every word choice makes a significant difference.
...
In our society we value "facts" very highly.
Which makes sense since they seem to be solid and grounded in through testing.
But facts change quite frequently.
Often one former "fact" is replaced with a better and more solid "fact".
I know the Earth is round.
I know this because I trust others.
My trust in others is faith that they have obtained this from a true source.
I have faith the Earth is round.
But first-hand I have no knowledge of this.
...
I ask you SP. How do you feel about ALL of your information coming second hand?

EDIT:

Ermm..
I think I lead you guys astray of my point.
..
I don't really doubt facts as being throughly tested.
...
My point is that all of your information/opinions/ideals/societal values are based on things that other people tell you.
Even your sensory perception is influenced by those thoughts others have told you.
...
The thought process is closer to- The thoughts and values you have cannot be independent from the information your receive because of the reiteration of information

And not, Chompy hates facts and retarded

I'd like to bring to light that all information is jaded.
Its under a theory called "Terms for Order" and it states that almost all information you have it second hand information.
..
Another theory called "Terministic Screens" states that: terms chosen change perspective, and every word choice makes a significant difference.
...
In our society we value "facts" very highly.
Which makes sense since they seem to be solid and grounded in through testing.
But facts change quite frequently.
Often one former "fact" is replaced with a better and more solid "fact".
I know the Earth is round.
I know this because I trust others.
My trust in others is faith that they have obtained this from a true source.
I have faith the Earth is round.
But first-hand I have no knowledge of this.
...
I ask you SP. How do you feel about ALL of your information coming second hand?

Stand on a tall building and look out over the horizon. You don't have to be very high up to see the curvature of the earth.

Stand on a tall building and look out over the horizon. You don't have to be very high up to see the curvature of the earth.

I could make arguments about the unreliability of human senses.
But I don't want to get into that nonsense.
...
I really want to know what guys think you think you know.
And wonder why everyone thinks they think they know anything?

I ask you SP. How do you feel about ALL of your information coming second hand?

[color="#cc8899"]
I've thought about this a few times. Ultimately, you can be sure of nothing but what you test and confirm for yourself. Sometimes not even that. However, for the sake of saving ourselves the misery of an existence filled with redundant and never-ending testing and experimentation to arrive at the same conclusions that have been reached a million times before, we take for granted the discoveries and experiments of those who came before us and build upon them. If we're wrong, at least we're wrong in-depth.[/COLOR]

Not to mention the fact that a key aspect to any scientific article is that the results must be predictable & reproducible... I don't trust any kook that randomly spouts things, but I do trust the greater scientific community at large.

The world is round.
Feces smells bad.
The sun is hot.
Space contains no oxygen.

This is "jaded?"

Chompy, you can prove the earth is round by watching a sail ship go disappear in the distance. You see its masts disappear after the hull, whereas if the Earth was flat, the ship would disappear all at once.

I'm sorry but this is beyond stupid.

Watch the first episode of Cosmos and right pineappleing there is a test that anyone can do to prove the earth is round.

Actually the first pineappleing episode of Cosmos disproves everything you just said.

Whoever came up with this second hand information pomegranate is just some fucking retard try to be philosophical.

Whoever came up with this second hand information pomegranate is just some pineappleing retard try to be philosophical.

So you know first-hand through experience ALL/MOST/ANY of the information you have?
Or do you just take for granted that those who speak must have done it themselves?
Or you reproduce events/experiments with the assumption that your hypothesis is not only correct but ALREADY proven.

The world is round.
Feces smells bad.
The sun is hot.
Space contains no oxygen.

This is "jaded?"

Chompy, you can prove the earth is round by watching a sail ship go disappear in the distance. You see its masts disappear after the hull, whereas if the Earth was flat, the ship would disappear all at once.

Yes I picked a bad example.
...
But feces smell bad is an opinion.

The only knowledge you have of the sun is that it is sometimes hot.
Why isn't the sun as hot in the winter?
Does the sun being out when its hot mean the sun is the source of heat?
Does correlation imply causation?
You have been told its hot. And people tell you what the sun is made of makes it hot. But first hand I don't think you know its hot.

...
I ditto for no oxygen in space.

So you know first-hand through experience ALL/MOST/ANY of the information you have?
Or do you just take for granted that those who speak must have done it themselves?
Or you reproduce events/experiments with the assumption that your hypothesis is not only correct but ALREADY proven.




Yes I picked a bad example.
...
But feces smell bad is an opinion.

The only knowledge you have of the sun is that it is sometimes hot.
Why isn't the sun as hot in the winter?
Does the sun being out when its hot mean the sun is the source of heat?
Does correlation imply causation?
You have been told its hot. And people tell you what the sun is made of makes it hot. But first hand I don't think you know its hot.

...
I ditto for no oxygen in space.

You missed the point.

The point was, for anything out there, you and do the test yourself.

Again, this second hand theory bullshit was made by some fucking moron who thinks hes smarter than everyone else and made sad attempt at being philosophical.

1 + 1 = 2.

Fact.

Water puts out fire.

Fact.

I can come up with dozens of more "facts" that you can't say "it's second handed information or an opinion."

1 + 1 = 2.

Fact.

Isn't that more of a definition? lol.

The only knowledge you have of the sun is that it is sometimes hot.
Why isn't the sun as hot in the winter? Heat is a function of radiation over area. When the sun is lower to the horizon, area is larger while radiation remains constant - and in the winter it's always low to the horizon.
Does the sun being out when its hot mean the sun is the source of heat? I simulate a light bulb in my home. The heat given from it behaves in the same way as infrared measurements of the sun (though at a much lower blackbody temperature). Thus I infer that the sun is a source of heat with a high specific temperature.
Does correlation imply causation? Does saying things make them relevant? The sun being hot is just a theory. It fits with our concepts of radiation, but it could be wrong. As an explanation for all this heat around here, it's pretty good. It may not be causation, but when the correlation is exactly 100%, what is the difference?
You have been told its hot. And people tell you what the sun is made of makes it hot. But first hand I don't think you know its hot. No, but I'm reasonably sure - that's the best it can be, and that's good enough for me.

...
I ditto for no oxygen in space. Does the moon stay up? There's no oxygen in space. The Earth hasn't tumbled into the sun? No oxygen...

If everybody had to test every fact themself, it would be a massive waste of time. By establishing a scientific process and scientific credentials, we can at least decrease the chance that a fact is erroneous, and hopefully increase the chance of refining the facts until we have a close approximation of the truth. Will we ever have perfect understanding? Perhaps not. But what we have is quite decent, considering the tools we are working with.

If everybody had to test every fact themself, it would be a massive waste of time. By establishing a scientific process and scientific credentials, we can at least decrease the chance that a fact is erroneous, and hopefully increase the chance of refining the facts until we have a close approximation of the truth. Will we ever have perfect understanding? Perhaps not. But what we have is quite decent, considering the tools we are working with.

I think the idea that other people's use of the scientific process is not as good as testing the thing yourself misses the point. Ok, so I wanna test so-and-so. It's a scientific matter. Will I, a humanities worker, be as equipped to prove this as Abbott Laboratories or the University of Chicago department of chemistry? The idea is ludicrous in my opinion.

I think if there's been testing and re-testing by people with the proper credentials, and the item's association with the rest of the world backs the conclusions of these teams, we can rest assured that things are as they have been said to be.

We do not live in the Renaissance, where a good education meant that a person could know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING, from art to politics to history to physics. There is so much knowledge out there and so many fields of knowledge that we HAVE to rely on other people -- lots of other people -- or that knowledge can never be used properly.

I don't mean to throw you to the ground more than the next guy but the theory itself is kind of uneducated.

Facts are presented not to just say it is fact but for you to test it out yourself, to use the resources that deemed it fact. In a court case you don't say 'fingerprints' are facts and they take you for granted for it. It's because they are imprints of a person. You can test for yourself a fingerprint is different from you or I which is a fact. Thing support it as every human is different, is that not a fact?

The sun is hot, it burns us a billion miles away, are you going to say that if we do not get closer it won't?

Actually theres nothing more to say. A fact is simply starts out as a hypothesis that is tested thoroughly before being thrown around as a fact. Misconstruing a fact can be corrected by simply going to the original source.

Ermm..
I think I lead you guys astray of my point.
..
I don't really doubt facts as being throughly tested.
...
My point is that all of your information/opinions/ideals/societal values are based on things that other people tell you.
Even your sensory perception is influenced by those thoughts others have told you.
...
The thought process is closer to- The thoughts and values you have cannot be independent from the information your receive because of the reiteration of information

And not, Chompy hates facts and retarded