RE: How we determine facts.
January 6, 2015 at 9:46 pm
(This post was last modified: January 6, 2015 at 9:49 pm by Heywood.)
(January 6, 2015 at 9:26 pm)Rhythm Wrote: But you ability to claim knowledge is, understand? Just as explained before, the probability changes even though the color of the marbles does not. Because we're actually talking about two separate things here. The status of the marbles in the bag, and the status of our knowledge about the marbles in the bag.
also, I was going to suggest you read some Karl Popper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
You -are- describing one of the ways that human beings arrive at "facts", (whether those facts are true or false)- but there are other ways with greater degrees of provisional assurance. Your example, for example (the speed of light), wasn't arrived at solely through the process you are describing.
I agree that the speed of light is technically a bad example because it can be derived. However the equations use to derive the speed of light depend on constants which are not derived but are simply observed. Most people know what you are talking about when you say "speed of light". I doubt most people would know what I am talking about if I used "permeability of free space" instead. It is a technically wrong dumbed down example....but it makes the point.
Derived facts always end up being dependent on observations and one can never be 100% certain of their observations.
(January 6, 2015 at 9:34 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Now suppose your bag has an infinite number of marbles. You start pulling out marbles and they are all white for hundreds and thousands of marbles. Can you ever prove that all of the marbles are white? No. But you do begin to have reason to be confident don't you? Now do you see why in the case of any well tested proposition, the burden of proof is on the person showing the contrary idea. In other words, if after 100,000 marbles had all come out of the bag white, the burden of proof would be on anyone claiming that there are black marbles in there somewhere.
Kinda like the burden of proof is on the people who claim evolutionary systems can come into existence sans intellect when none has ever been observed to come into existence sans intellect....right?
