All Facts Are Based in Faith

[Naama]

Have you read the thread?

Here is an encapsulation of the argument, and the challenge for anyone who wishes to contest it.

The claim is made that all facts (things that we can know) are based in faith (the acceptance of propositions as being true in the absence of proof).

The three ways that we are able to know facts are:
1) By personal experience.
2) By the experience of others.
3) By the manipulation of symbols in formal systems of reasoning.

Each of these ways of identifying facts is based in faith:
1) Any knowledge from personal experience is based in the faith that a "real world" exists outside of our own heads, and that at least some of our perceptions and sensations are reflective of that reality.
2) Any knowledge from second-hand experience is based in the faith that the testimony of others having those experiences is reliable.
3) Any knowledge from formal systems of reasoning is based in the faith one has in the axioms underlying those formal systems.

So, to contradict the original claim that all facts are based in faith, one must do one of the following three things:
1) Demonstrate conclusively that the "real world" actually exists, and further, that there is a way to apprehend it directly, without the prerequisite faith in one's own nervous system to approximate the real world.
2) Demonstrate conclusively that we can know for sure when other people are testifying accurately about their own experiences and when they are not (without of course resorting to personal experience or the experience of others to resolve the issue, since that would be begging the question).
3) Demonstrate that the axioms of formal systems of reasoning can be proven to be true.

Umm you think you need faith to believe information about the world we observe?

Yeah this world could be an illusion or whatever, but that wouldn't make the information about the illusion untrue.

I know that Ebberon, Grey Hawk, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, and Golarion are all fake worlds as they are fantasy game settings, but I can still have true facts about them that I don't need to have faith to believe.

Why do you feel the need to try to make others think they are relying on faith who are not?

I have faith and you have faith. A lot of these people don't.

 

[Axe Elf]

Umm you think you need faith to believe information about the world we observe?

Yes.

Yeah this world could be an illusion or whatever, but that wouldn't make the information about the illusion untrue.

But then it would be information about an illusion, and not information about the real world, i.e., a fact.

I know that Ebberon, Grey Hawk, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, and Golarion are all fake worlds as they are fantasy game settings, but I can still have true facts about them that I don't need to have faith to believe.

No, you still need faith to know those facts as well. For those facts you have determined yourself, you still need to have faith that a real world exists outside of your own head (the real world in which facts about those fantasy locations exist), and that at least some of your perceptions and sensations reflect that reality. For those facts which you have learned from others, you still need to have faith that their testimony is accurate.

Why do you feel the need to try to make others think they are relying on faith who are not?

Since there is no one who is not, the question is kind of moot--but in general, I don't feel the need to "make" others think anything at all, but I do enjoy educating seekers.

 

[Naama]

But then it would be information about an illusion, and not information about the real world, i.e., a fact

Since when could you not have facts about fictional worlds?

Since there is no one who is not, the question is kind of moot--but in general, I don't feel the need to "make" others think anything at all, but I do enjoy educating seekers.

Yeah, I don't like that kind of arrogance and assumption I think I'm going to leave this conversation.

Have a good day.

 

[Axe Elf]

Since when could you not have facts about fictional worlds?

Nobody is saying you can't. But facts about fictional worlds exist in the real world, and so you're back to the same problem that you have when you want to know ANYTHING about the real world--i.e., you have to have faith that the real world exists outside of your own head, and that at least some of your perceptions and sensations are reflective of that reality.

Yeah, I don't like that kind of arrogance and assumption I think I'm going to leave this conversation.

I don't know what "assumption" you are referring to, but the idea that all facts are based in faith is a general epistemological tenet that has been accepted since Descartes.

But yeah, I understand the way you feel. That's the problem with actually being the best; sometimes simple self-esteem can take on the illusion of arrogance. Fortunately, it's only my great humility that makes me better than everyone else.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, I'm not going to pretend that I didn't misread it, because I didn't. I did, however, make two errors in illustrating my point with the example of parallel lines (neither of which affect the point I was making, though). First of all, I oversimplified it for the sake of brevity, without realizing how finely toothed the combs would be dissecting it, and I ended up being caught in my own inexactitude. The second error was giving you a reference with too much to digest at once, so you read a part of the article that I wasn't referring you to, then assumed that I was talking about THAT, and if I was, then I must have misunderstood what it was saying--when in fact I wasn't talking about THAT at all.

I tried to correct my first error in post #85, which I will copy and paste for your convenience:


Unfortunately, I tried to illustrate this in a casual way, and that has led us all astray. There really is no axiom in ANY geometry that says, "two parallel lines never intersect." So here's an idea. Let's scrap all the confusion that has resulted from my inexactitude, and go back to the actual parallel postulate in Euclidean geometry, which can be expressed as...

"Given any straight line and a point not on it, there exists one and only one straight line which passes through that point and never intersectsthe first line, no matter how far they are extended."

Now, if you take out the phrase "exists one and only one straight line which passes" and replace it with "exists no line which passes," then you will be doing elliptic geometry. If you take out that phrase and replace it with "exist at least two lines which pass," then you will be doing hyperbolic geometry.

The POINT, of course, is that none of these axioms are objectively "true"; each can be assumed to be true depending on if one wants to calculate the area of a rectangle, plot a Great Circle route, or decribe the flight path of an object in space. The FACTS one can determine from the system of geometry one is using are based on the axiom in which one places their FAITH.

Actually, the point you were originally making was that we take it on "faith" than parallel lines do not intersect, which is a suggestion that makes no sense considering parallel lines are defined as lines that do not intersect.

 

[Axe Elf]

Actually, the point you were originally making was that we take it on "faith" than parallel lines do not intersect, which is a suggestion that makes no sense considering parallel lines are defined as lines that do not intersect.

Actually, the point I was originally making is that we take axioms on faith, and as such, even contradictory axioms can be assumed to be true, depending on the kind of work you want to do. One example of that is the Parallel Postulate of Euclidean geometry, and the negations of the Parallel Postulate that we see in non-Euclidean geometries. Unfortunately, I tried to simplify the Parallel Postulate into terms that I thought everyone would be familiar with, like "Two parallel lines never intersect," instead of the more formal, "Given any straight line and a point not on it, there exists one and only one straight line which passes through that point and never intersects the first line, no matter how far they are extended."

Obviously, my mistake was in underestimating the ability of my audience to quibble over minutiae.

A more accurate way to phrase my original point would have been to say that two lines that would be defined as being parallel if one has faith in the axioms of Euclidean geometry would never intersect, but would intersect at least twice if one has faith in the axioms of elliptic geometry. But you see how much more clumsy that is, so I went the easy route, and I paid the price.

So now that we are all on the same page about the ACTUAL Parallel Postulate of Euclidean geometry, and how contradictory axioms can also be assumed to be true, depending on the kind of work one wants to do, hopefully that original point can shine through.

 

[Curious George]

Discuss.

Is not a fact that "something exists?"

This is indisputably true.

 

[Curious George]

Is [it] not a fact that "something exists?"

This is indisputably true.

@Axe Elf

Thought I would elaborate a little.

You say all facts must be based on faith. You define fact as something that is indisputably true. Given this we can see that it must be a fact something exists. For in order to dispute this fact, something would have to exist.

Therefore, the notion--all facts are based on faith and facts are thone which are indisputably true--is wrong.

 

[Axe Elf]

@Axe Elf

Thought I would elaborate a little.

You say all facts must be based on faith. You define fact as something that is indisputably true. Given this we can see that it must be a fact something exists. For in order to dispute this fact, something would have to exist.

Therefore, the notion--all facts are based on faith and facts are thone which are indisputably true--is wrong.

Only in the most strictly pedantic sense is it wrong--yes, granted, the fact of one's own existence is the sole fact that can be known directly, and as such, is not based in faith. Cogito, ergo sum (or at least I think I think, therefore, I think I am). Thank you, Rene Descartes.

I hereby amend my claim to "All OTHER facts, you know, stuff about the real world outside of my own head, are based in faith."

It wasn't really meant to be taken as a principle in dispute--it's an established epistemological principle--I was just expecting for people to discuss the IMPLICATIONS of it more than anything. But then it turned into Philosophy 101, and then even THAT got derailed by my careless paraphrase of the Parallel Postulate in Euclidean geometry, and once everything got straightened out, I think everyone was tired of chasing their own tails. I know I was.

 

[Curious George]

Only in the most strictly pedantic sense is it wrong--yes, granted, the fact of one's own existence is the sole fact that can be known directly, and as such, is not based in faith. Cogito, ergo sum (or at least I think I think, therefore, I think I am). Thank you, Rene Descartes.

I hereby amend my claim to "All OTHER facts, you know, stuff about the real world outside of my own head, are based in faith."

It wasn't really meant to be taken as a principle in dispute--it's an established epistemological principle--I was just expecting for people to discuss the IMPLICATIONS of it more than anything.

And that was supposed to be evident by posting a technically wrong generalization with an OP that read only "discuss."

Come on now. Let us think through this a little bit. You are on a site with plenty of people who often try to push the argument that evolution is just a theory the same way creationism is a theory therefore they are the same.

But then it turned into Philosophy 101, and then even THAT got derailed by my careless paraphrase of the Parallel Postulate in Euclidean geometry, and once everything got straightened out, I think everyone was tired of chasing their own tails. I know I was.

You did post it in the philosophy section...starting from solipsism isn't really the best place to move people towards discussions about the implications. People are left trying to sort through basic philosophical concepts in order to move the conversation. Solipsism usually kills conversations not inspires them.

 

[Axe Elf]

Solipsism usually kills conversations not inspires them.

That's only in your own little world.

 

[Curious George]

That's only in your own little world.

Lol, was that your take-away?

How do you know that?

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

Nothing can be 100% proven but that is a red-herring to what a fact is - which is an observation that has been proven to pass repetitive testing in the material world and will not contradict it's conclusions (gravity anyone?)