How do we free the ignorant?, page 2

Originally posted by chissler
I've never stated that there are indisputable facts. You have. My point is merely to indicate that an indisputable fact to you, may not be indisputable to another. So facts that we consider indisputable, may not be indisputable at all.

I did state there are indisputable facts, but never did I say which ones they were... hence, my next statement... "The only one to decide if the facts out there are "indisputable" would be yourself. No one can make that decision for you. You research for the truth, with facts, and make that decision."

I think we can both agree, that everyone can and probably will disagree. However, how can someone(s) disagree when a point is to be proven with no other way to construe it?

For example, Why is the sky blue? People can debate that all day long, but the end result would be that the sky "appears" blue due to the polarization of light. The ozone is filtering out all other colors of light, only allowing the blue color to show through. Now, we could have people arguing it's because of the smog, or global warming, or whatever hair brained idea they can come up with, because they feel that to be true. But physics, in this case, would prove otherwise... an indisputable fact.

Originally posted by chissler
I'll use Nature versus Nurture. Where do you come down? Do you believe in maturation or interaction? I believe in interaction, and I can fully support my claims with actual facts. However, maturationists can fully support their claims with actual facts. Who is wrong?

If I can provide facts to undermine your facts, where does that leave us? What I am saying is, sometimes we do not always see the flaw in the facts we base our opinion on. I consider it slightly naive to think we would not miss a flaw here or there. We all make mistakes, and it would be just that, a mistake.

But like I said, what of the scenario's with the facts contradict themselves? What about when the facts don't give a clear cut answer?

I believe I would go along with interaction as well. Believing in maturation or interaction doesn't appear to follow this topic/discussion. Regardless, neither would be wrong, if in fact they could "prove" their claims with fact.

I guess that leaves us in a dispute. I agree it would be naive to say we don't miss flaws. Depending on how badly you want to get to the bottom of a discussion, you keep digging, right? Otherwise, one of the two would simply give up and not actually prove a point with fact. But then the one that left the discussion would end up calling the other one "bullheaded".

In the case of facts contradicting themselves, I wouldn't buy that as being a definite answer. I would keep digging to find the answer, since after all, I am bullheaded.