Search results

that's not strictly true if I make a statement like "the index of refraction in a standard atmosphere is 1.3", then you need to interpret "standard atmosphere" to know what I mean that's just how language works now, if your interpretation of key words depends on your opinion....

I didn't recognize you meant for the universe to be that example because I don't consider the universe to be intelligent. That you thought of it as such was my best guess after you gave me the clue that there was an example in that post; I did not know that when I first read it. (Note to self...

I had problems with Q4 and Q7 on the survey titled "Fact or Opinion? "The Dog Newspaper"" at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/3BXPYYL

About this survey: Source: https://medium.com/trust-media-and-democracy/fact-or-opinion-new-research-finds-who-best-tells-the-difference-a2d1cd5aa7fc Overall, Republicans and Democrats were more likely to classify both factual and opinion statements as factual when they appealed most to their...

what, "the universe"? I asked you a simple question. I'd like to accuse you of depriving me of a simple answer, which means we get this unnecessary exchange detracting from the point you were making

you're still not getting what to look for this is not about right and wrong

A Michigan man’s obsession with the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory culminated in a Sunday incident in which he murdered his wife and badly injured one of his children, his daughter told The Daily Beast. Rebecca Lanis told The Daily Beast that her father became obsessed with QAnon and other...

could you give an example of something that is intelligent (wabbit's claim), yet not an entity?

it's hard to uphold the claim that an expenditure is "wasteful" when the alternatives cost more that you can do so anyway proves that "wasteful" is an opinion word here, not a fact

Well, you wrote that "all scientific claims require sound objective evidence to back them up", and that's an entirely different criterium not rooted in reality. "No" to both. Obviously it happens, but I feel it's more often that a revolutionary theory is not just, say, predicting something more...

well you won't, because that's an opinion and not a fact it's stated in such fuzzy terms that you couldn't cite evidence without getting into an argument about whether it applies

Yes. Can you predict rainbows from the deaths of a particular set of people? or predict deaths from rainbows? if you can't, your explanation is useless

a straw effigy is what you set up when you find it difficult to burn the real thing Both parts of this statement are false. Scientific claims are merely required to be falsifiable (by 'sound objective evidence') to be "scientific". For a scientific theory be convincing, I'd say it is...

got to reply somewhere to get out of moderation ;)

Well, whether some method is a valid way to compare this, that is a matter of opinion; but once an accepted method is used, the statement becomes factual (or if the implied "using method X" is explicitly stated)

would still be a factual statement even if it was incorrect that's actually one of the ways to tell factual statements: if they could be easily disproven with evidence, they're factual

the easy way to tag a spoiler: the common fallacy is probably to consider an opinion you agree with strongly to be a statement of fact (I'm 5/5, no ambiguity at all)

this is the power of denial the only people I know of who beat FE are those who got off their asses and worked through something themselves

in 10 km of open water, the currents will destroy the straightness of your cable and even if you could get it to be straight (e.g. by submerging it in the Bedford canal), the FEers would simply say tbe cable sags and the water level is straight when you show them the sagitta

aka undeclared war for some reason (?), it seems to be in everyone's interest to keep it that way and that's why they don't cross the border