(July 21, 2016 at 8:22 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: So, basically anything which I don't assume as true, and they cannot or will not demonstrate to me personally is likely fiction?  Would you say this is accurate of what you are proclaiming?

Nobody said "assume" except you. It's pretty simple-- if something doesn't accord with what I know to be true, and I cannot verify it to be true, I will believe it to be untrue.

There at least has to be the sense that I COULD verify something, even though I haven't yet.

In the case of parrot-owning Mr. Smith, I could theoretically just go to his house and knock on his door. Unless I have reason to believe someone is making him up, however, I probably won't bother. In the case of water-walking Mr. Smith, who lived 2000 years ago, I cannot go back in time and verify that he really walked on water-- there's no "could" anymore. I will need to see evidence that a person can walk on water. Without this, then I have two pieces of evidence: 1) I've never seen anyone walk on water; 2) people make shit up all the time, and will conclude that water-walking Mr. Smith most likely didn't walk on water, or didn't exist at all.

When someone says, "Mr. Smith was real, believe me, you have to have faith that Mr. Smith really existed and walked on water," then that's fine-- so long as the water-walking-Smith believe is willing to accept the fact that there is a magical fairy masturbating on my desk right now on faith.

(July 21, 2016 at 9:51 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Yeah, nature documentaries that imagine what the alligator is thinking, and then voice it in american english.  Fiction.  Journalists who guess, as best they can, the thoughts of others.  Fiction.  I don't know if anyone ever told you this...but we often use fiction to explore or convey fact.  

The problem will come in 2000 years from now, when assholes like us will refuse to believe Alligatorists when they insist alligators thought and spoke in English. They will accuse my descendants of bias when they say, "But. . . alligators CAN'T talk."

Confess you gatorless heathen swine, confess and repent and your death will be swift!

(July 21, 2016 at 9:51 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 21, 2016 at 9:45 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Ok... I was doing some research.   What I found, is that the point of view of the narrator is not discussed as much concerning non-fiction, as it is fiction.   I did find some that referenced third person omniscient non-fiction and called in the Journalist or professional  point of view.  Come to think about it, I've seen nature documentaries given in this point of view. 

Yeah, nature documentaries that imagine what the alligator is thinking, and then voice it in american english.  Fiction.  Journalists who guess, as best they can, the thoughts of others.  Fiction.  I don't know if anyone ever told you this...but we often use fiction to explore or convey fact.  

Yeah... I hate those, and normally turn the channel.... I was talking about ones, that just describe what they are doing.....

(July 21, 2016 at 10:22 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 21, 2016 at 8:22 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: So, basically anything which I don't assume as true, and they cannot or will not demonstrate to me personally is likely fiction?  Would you say this is accurate of what you are proclaiming?

Nobody said "assume" except you.  It's pretty simple-- if something doesn't accord with what I know to be true, and I cannot verify it to be true, I will believe it to be untrue.  

There at least has to be the sense that I COULD verify something, even though I haven't yet.

In the case of parrot-owning Mr. Smith, I could theoretically just go to his house and knock on his door.  Unless I have reason to believe someone is making him up, however, I probably won't bother.  In the case of water-walking Mr. Smith, who lived 2000 years ago, I cannot go back in time and verify that he really walked on water-- there's no "could" anymore.  I will need to see evidence that a person can walk on water.  Without this, then I have two pieces of evidence: 1) I've never seen anyone walk on water; 2) people make shit up all the time, and will conclude that water-walking Mr. Smith most likely didn't walk on water, or didn't exist at all.

When someone says, "Mr. Smith was real, believe me, you have to have faith that Mr. Smith really existed and walked on water," then that's fine-- so long as the water-walking-Smith believe is willing to accept the fact that there is a magical fairy masturbating on my desk right now on faith.

Yes, so you need to see something first hand at least once in order to be able to believe that it is possible.   I don't see where a potential to go see it, makes a difference in if it is fiction or not.   But anyways, I now feel justified, in not just being skeptical of evolution, Sweden, and your post, but in calling them fiction.

(July 22, 2016 at 6:56 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 21, 2016 at 9:51 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Yeah, nature documentaries that imagine what the alligator is thinking, and then voice it in american english.  Fiction.  Journalists who guess, as best they can, the thoughts of others.  Fiction.  I don't know if anyone ever told you this...but we often use fiction to explore or convey fact.  

Yeah... I hate those, and normally turn the channel.... I was talking about ones, that just describe what they are doing.....

If it's just describing what's going on in front of the camera, what's in front of the camera being an alligator, it's probably 1st person limited, objective narration.  Commentary.  Without fact checking the contents of the narrative, this one is fairly mundane.  It, at least..... -can be- completely factual, and only has a single flow of information to concern itself with.

If I was given two narratives..and told that one was fictional and one was factual. One being 1st person limited objective, and the other 3rd person omni...it'd be a no brainer as to which was which. Hopefully, this exploration of pov has been useful for you, and you get the gist of both how and why it can help separate fact from fiction, or even fact from fiction -about- fact.

From here, still avoiding any fact finding expeditions regarding the contents, I'd check for narrative devices. This one's a broader subject, but the means to infer fact or fiction is actually much simpler. The greater the concentration of narrative devices present....the more likely the author is telling a story, which, at best..would be a heavily stylized -version- of fact..if it were fact. This is due to the fact that life, real life, doesn't contain alot of narrative device. They're all ways to move a story along, to steer a narrative, to be economical with words, to engage a reader and make the payout, the catharsis at the end, bigger.

As to the above...you both could and -do- see evolution and the effects of evolution, even in your daily life. Probably more an issue of you not realizing it. I assume that flowers grow in your vicinity...and that you eat vegetables? That you've seen a child and been a child...that you're aware of their parents and the differences, and similarities... between them and the child, your parents and yourself? That you've been in a crowd? I'm guessing that you think it's "more" than this, but it's not, and that's the brilliance of it. Change, variation over time... is easily the singlemost ubiquitous and and imminently observable trait of life. It requires no special knowledge, no complicated equipment.

It probably would, in your situation...be more reasonable to be skeptical of sweden.....and isn't that saying something....?

(July 22, 2016 at 7:03 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Yes, so you need to see something first hand at least once in order to be able to believe that it is possible.   I don't see where a potential to go see it, makes a difference in if it is fiction or not.   But anyways, I now feel justified, in not just being skeptical of evolution, Sweden, and your post, but in calling them fiction.

Why? You can study fossils yourself. You can go to Sweden yourself, and you can read my post yourself. All these things are within either your frame of reference or within your potential frame of reference, and covering your ears and chanting "La la la" just means you don't want to confirm that which you would not like to see confirmed. The thing about evolution is that if there's a BETTER explanation of how species change over time, evolution will either be updated or dropped. There's no "thou shalt believe in evolution, or face an eternity of torment."

The potential to go see something very much matters. If a scientist says something I disbelieve, I can follow his tracks-- potentially. It is up to ME to confirm whether he's truthful or not. If a religious person (or text) says something I disbelieve, I cannot follow their tracks, no matter how much I would like to. I cannot go out and watch a man walk on water, or turn water into wine-- unless it's a Las Vegas performer.

Let me say one last thing about this. Disbelief in science is probably the most anti-theist thing you can do. If you believe that God has laid out the world, then refusing to learn about the world means denying part of the mind of God. If you believe that God has created the creatures of the Earth, then refusing to learn about evolution means that you'd rather dwell on the ideas of 1st-century Man than on the actual word of God as revealed in his creations, and as generously allowed for us to learn through the existence of fossils on His Earth.

Scientists, in their honest pursuit for understanding, are far closer to any God that exists than those who see science as the enemy. So to any Christian who has no interest in learning about the natural world, I can only ask-- how have you come to hate the Truth, and the God that created this Truth, so much?

I'm starting to suspect that theists don't have this talk with their children. That they don't work through examples of different types of stories, to help them understand the difference between plausible reality and fantasy. Instead it seems I'm being told this is an impractical or impossible task to undertake with a child. It really isn't. There have been several sensible, practical methods described in this thread. I'd love some theists to rush in here and explain sometime soon, I have a low sample size so far.

How can theists have this talk/method, without making huge unjustified exceptions to their own magical obviously (partly) fictional stories? And they certainly can't have such a talk with the child first. Can you imagine?

"Let's see if anyone else saw the dragon. Let's examine how credible they are as eye witnesses. They can't all be lying." No fuck off, it's talking about a dragon.

I hope I'm wrong. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd be relieved to hear it.

(July 22, 2016 at 10:25 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 22, 2016 at 7:03 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Yes, so you need to see something first hand at least once in order to be able to believe that it is possible.   I don't see where a potential to go see it, makes a difference in if it is fiction or not.   But anyways, I now feel justified, in not just being skeptical of evolution, Sweden, and your post, but in calling them fiction.

Why?  You can study fossils yourself.  You can go to Sweden yourself, and you can read my post yourself.  All these things are within either your frame of reference or within your potential frame of reference, and covering your ears and chanting "La la la" just means you don't want to confirm that which you would not like to see confirmed.  The thing about evolution is that if there's a BETTER explanation of how species change over time, evolution will either be updated or dropped.  There's no "thou shalt believe in evolution, or face an eternity of torment."

I could potentially see those things, but I think there are some problems with your hypothesis.   The list of things, that I haven't experienced for myself is large.   I could go to Sweden, but what about all the other odd and different cultural differences.   Not to mention all the unique and odd creatures I see on Nat Geo and Discovery Channel.   I could go back to school to learn about evolution, but would I actually see evolution occur?   And what about the other subjects I'm interested in (physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, archeology, and geology.   I may be able to see fossils, that some say you can infer evolution, but I can't see many of the claims in evolution demonstrated.   Perhaps you are independently wealthy, and have a lot of free time.   But, I have a business to run, and not enough money to do all those things; not to mention the other things I would be neglecting.  Perhaps you can fund me!

Quote:The potential to go see something very much matters.  If a scientist says something I disbelieve, I can follow his tracks-- potentially.  It is up to ME to confirm whether he's truthful or not.  If a religious person (or text) says something I disbelieve, I cannot follow their tracks, no matter how much I would like to.  I cannot go out and watch a man walk on water, or turn water into wine-- unless it's a Las Vegas performer.

So then the reproducibility problem I cited a while ago (from the journal nature), is a very large problem, in science, and a good deal of science is fiction.  This also brings up another problem that history is largely unrepeatable.   I need to gather all the facts, and determine how they go together to figure out what the best explanation of the evidence is.   This is largely what I was proposing, and you seem to disagree with.   I cannot repeat history, and I don't think that I need to understand how the pyramids where built (without modern machinery), to know that they where.   It may be unbelievable, that they could do this, at this time, but the pyramids being there, is evidence.  And I haven't even seen the great pyramids of Egypt for myself.  Even many of these fossils , while I may be able to see the fossils ( if they exist )  I may not have seen them removed, and much of the evidence that is used for dating them.

Quote:Let me say one last thing about this.  Disbelief in science is probably the most anti-theist thing you can do.  If you believe that God has laid out the world, then refusing to learn about the world means denying part of the mind of God.  If you believe that God has created the creatures of the Earth, then refusing to learn about evolution means that you'd rather dwell on the ideas of 1st-century Man than on the actual word of God as revealed in his creations, and as generously allowed for us to learn through the existence of fossils on His Earth.

Scientists, in their honest pursuit for understanding, are far closer to any God that exists than those who see science as the enemy.  So to any Christian who has no interest in learning about the natural world, I can only ask-- how have you come to hate the Truth, and the God that created this Truth, so much?

I don't have disbelief in science, although I don't believe every claim of scientists just based on authority.  I have come to question some of the evidence of evolution, just because I have found out, that their evidence wasn't quite what they alluded to.   When someone is making all sorts of claims about how a creature walked, and daily life, and then I find that this is based on the evidence of a partial jaw bone, then I think that is questionable.  Therefore I question what the claims are based on.    But I don't feel the need to see for myself every fossil, and piece of evidence, I just ask what they are basing their claim on.  I do tend to believe what they say they have seen, and others have confirmed, or there is other independent evidence supporting.

(July 23, 2016 at 2:14 am)robvalue Wrote: I'm starting to suspect that theists don't have this talk with their children. That they don't work through examples of different types of stories, to help them understand the difference between plausible reality and fantasy. Instead it seems I'm being told this is an impractical or impossible task to undertake with a child. It really isn't. There have been several sensible, practical methods described in this thread. I'd love some theists to rush in here and explain sometime soon, I have a low sample size so far.

How can theists have this talk/method, without making huge unjustified exceptions to their own magical obviously (partly) fictional stories? And they certainly can't have such a talk with the child first. Can you imagine?

"Let's see if anyone else saw the dragon. Let's examine how credible they are as eye witnesses. They can't all be lying." No fuck off, it's talking about a dragon.

I hope I'm wrong. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd be relieved to hear it.

It would seem that your general principle, is going to come with a lot of rules, that you need to indoctrinate them with!