(July 18, 2016 at 12:55 am)robvalue Wrote: I think some people are making this more complicated than I intended it to be.

Maybe I should simplify the scenario.

It's you giving your own personal advice to your own kid, say. The kid is getting to the stage of reading things, and you're helping it look for indicators that what they are reading is probably fictional. So the question you'd ask them is, "Do you think this story could really happen?". I'm not asking for you to help them fact check and differentiate plausible from factual.

Yes, the answer will probably be quite obvious for most people. But it's your kid. You're helping them. Can you give them any pointers? Just telling them it's obvious isn't going to help. If they asked you for help with this, what would you say? If you'd say nothing, fair enough. You don't have to, it's your kid. If you wouldn't give them any principles, that's up to you. I'm talking about very general rules of thumb here, to aid your kid's development.

I assumed people would talk to their kids about this stuff. Do they not?

What I did with my son on several issues is ask questions. "Do you see a problem with this?" "I wonder why Santa didn't eat the cookies and drink the milk?" "How could a dragon breathe fire?"

That sounds good The Socratic method. I think it's one of the ultimate learning tools. Good job!

(July 16, 2016 at 3:07 am)robvalue Wrote: This is mainly aimed at theists, although atheists are welcome to chime in.

Imagine this scenario. You have been brought into a school as a special speaker. You are to run a class about how to tell fact from fiction. These children are approaching this stage in their cognitive development. I'm using fiction to mean "didn't happen as written". This may be due to it being totally made up, or it could be because the account is very inaccurate.

The children will be handed out some random stories/accounts to read. You have to give them a rough guide as to how they should analyze each part of the story. I'm not saying they need to decide if the whole thing is factual or else it's fiction; they will deal with each section of the story in turn. This is meant to be a first pass, a smell test. A way to look for obvious fiction. It's not meant to validate the accounts any further than that. We're just comparing believable to non-believable.

What principles would you teach them?

I'll start off then by giving my principles:

(1) Are the events being described consistent with what we know? Do they contain things we don't even know are possible? If they contain such things, it is probably fiction.

(2) How consistent is it? Does it make sense within itself? If it contains a lot of contradictions, then it is probably at least partly fictional due to inaccuracy.

Do people agree with these principles, and what others would you add?

EDIT: Alternate scenario below, for anyone who doesn't feel the above is a good question.

---

I think some people are making this more complicated than I intended it to be.

Maybe I should simplify the scenario.

It's you giving your own personal advice to your own kid, say. The kid is getting to the stage of reading things, and you're helping it look for indicators that what they are reading is probably fictional. So the question you'd ask them is, "Do you think this story could really happen?". I'm not asking for you to help them fact check and differentiate plausible from factual.

Yes, the answer will probably be quite obvious for most people. But it's your kid. You're helping them. Can you give them any pointers? Just telling them it's obvious isn't going to help. If they asked you for help with this, what would you say? If you'd say nothing, fair enough. You don't have to, it's your kid. If you wouldn't give them any principles, that's up to you. I'm talking about very general rules of thumb here, to aid your kid's development.

I assumed people would talk to their kids about this stuff. Do they not?

---

I don't think that these are good epistemological principles.   Whether or not something is true or not is independent to your or anyone elses subjective knowledge. It doesn't follow, that because you do not know that it is possible, that it is probably fiction.  How consistent it is, can vary, but I don't think that this follows either as an indication of fiction.  I would agree, that contradictory claims cannot both be true, in the same time; in the same way.  However, you may have inconsistent reports, that are given from different perspectives about an entirely true event.  Likewise, a fictional account, may be completely consistent within itself, because there was only one author.  A fictional story, can be whatever the author wants, and can therefore break any rules that you make.  Real life, is often not so clean.

As to what I would recommend to look for, is details, and possibly even details, that do not pertain to the objective.  This could indicate, that they are recounting events, rather than just telling what is needed for their objective (this could also be done by someone telling fiction though).  I think that you need to look at the context and history of the story going back to the original.  How has it been perceived, and how was it originally received. Any rule based on the story itself, can be mimicked in fiction, this takes us outside of the story.     Lastly, in most things, I recommend multiple lines of evidence.   What other evidence backs up the claim? This could be other peoples independent testimony, collaborating evidence, depending on the significance of the story, it may be a change in ones life and practice.  You also need to weigh the evidence against as well.

You can have guidelines, and indicators; but, I don't know that there is a formula you can enter, and just produce a conclusion.

(July 16, 2016 at 3:07 am)robvalue Wrote: (1) Are the events being described consistent with what we know? Do they contain things we don't even know are possible? If they contain such things, it is probably fiction.

This appears to allow little room for discovery.

Fact: Religion is fiction.

a) I think a good start would be to tell children that anyone, anything, or any book that claims to have the answer for everything is almost certainly fiction ....

b) A good follow on is to inform them that anyone, anything, or any book that claims that if you don't blindly believe in its conclusions for everything you will suffer eternally and if you do you will have pleasure eternally it is almost certainly religion ....

c) when confronted with b) refer to a)

Yeah, I think people are making this too complicated. When it comes to stories, if it relates events that violate principles universally applicable to all known historical events, then it's fiction. You can throw in a "probably" caveat, but in the age of epistemic fallibilism, that's redundant. We know the story is false. 

Having a six-year-old and an eight-year-old myself, I think that's an excellent heuristic to use in distinguishing fact from fiction. Which comes up all the time. "Are zombies real? Are ponies real?" These are the actual questions I get. Our brains don't come equipped with software that automatically distinguishes between fictional and nonfictional entities, so this is an educational obligation on adults.

(July 19, 2016 at 5:41 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't think that these are good epistemological principles.   Whether or not something is true or not is independent to your or anyone elses subjective knowledge. It doesn't follow, that because you do not know that it is possible, that it is probably fiction.

No, but it follows that if people claim something is possible, but cannot demonstrate it or give examples of it, it is probably fiction. Or if they give far-fetched causes for mundane events, it's probably fiction.

So: Jesus was in a tomb but is now missing. People come and say, "Holy shit! The stone has been rolled away!" Claimed cause-- resurrection, because Jesus is the beloved Son of God and of Man, and the angels must have moved the stone. Probable cause: some people came and moved the stone, and removed the body.

So: Jesus starts breaking bread and fish, and a whole crowd is fed, with many baskets full of fish and bread left over. Claimed cause-- miracle! Probably cause-- people aren't fucking dumb, and when they went out to listen to him, they brought food.

So: Bush burns, talks to Moses. Claimed cause-- God is communicating with Moses. Probable cause-- Moses was dehydrated, tired from walking too far, and may have eaten mushrooms he found along the side of the road.


So yeah, the truth is what it is. But whether we think YOUR idea represents truth is based on the quality of information you provide us-- which in the case of Christianity, is very poor.

(July 19, 2016 at 9:04 pm)bennyboy Wrote: No, but it follows that if people claim something is possible, but cannot demonstrate it or give examples of it, it is probably fiction.

That's religion.

(July 19, 2016 at 9:09 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(July 19, 2016 at 9:04 pm)bennyboy Wrote: No, but it follows that if people claim something is possible, but cannot demonstrate it or give examples of it, it is probably fiction.

That's religion.

That's right.  And that's why any religious argument has to tap-dance around the burden of proof-- because they cannot prove anything they say, but nevertheless want you to believe it's not fiction.