posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 02:36 PM
On the topic of facts. Well, to be fair. A fact is a fact until it's disproven by a greater understanding of the fact. A thing can be observed and
measured, and reasons extrapolated to explain the consistently demonstrable observation, however, that doesn't necessitate the full and total
understanding of what's being observed and measured. Kind of like how correlation does not equal causation. We've been wrong before about things
we thought were facts, or at the very least, were lacking some of the mechanics, or misunderstanding the mechanics. Let's look at evolution for
example. With quantum physics, the discovery of smaller and smaller particles, and big physics questions still lacking answers. Is hard to call
anything a true hard fact, since really we don't understand the mechanics in full that cause the universal rules we observe in full detail. Which
means quite possibly that the mechanics of things we observe might be alterable through artificial means we simply do not understand, because
ultimately a lot of fact is determined through observation and testing which demonstrates consistency without truly understanding the mechanics at the
levels we still cannot truly measure yet.
So I ask, what is a "fact" other than a really consistent observation? A true fact is something that is true, irregardless of opinion. It is
simply true. The problem is, without knowing all things about something, it is difficult to state a "rule" is a fact if you don't really know the
complete mechanics of the game or what makes the rule true or work. Speed of light for example is observable and measurable, but until we completely
understand the physics of it at the most fundamental level, it is really difficult to say unequivocally that it cannot be altered, or worked around or
that what seems to be true may not true because what we assume are accurate correlations are in fact not as related as we think.