XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies   
      
   In message    
     John  wrote:   
      
   > "Lewis"  wrote in message   
   > news:slrnloqgbm.dp.g.kreme@amelia.local...   
   >> In message    
   >>  Paul S  Person  wrote:   
   >>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 10:51:08 +0000 (UTC), Lewis   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>In message    
   >>>>  Paul S  Person  wrote:   
   >>>>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 13:38:56 +0200, Taemon  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>It is not a fact, no. It just isn't something to take into account, and   
   >>>>>>there are very good reasons for that. Like the Celestial Teapot, the   
   >>>>>>Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, you MUST have had this   
   >>>>>>discussion before.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> I have had similar discussions before and, if one of them was with   
   >>>>> you, feel free to drop out of this one. No point in rehashing the   
   >>>>> past.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> I think a bit of concreteness might help: all I am really trying to   
   >>>>> say is that your prior statement that you "know that magic doesn't   
   >>>>> exist" would, given its nature as a non-falsifiable statement, have   
   >>>>> been more clearly (and so arguably better) put as "believe that magic   
   >>>>> doesn't exist" (modifying "believe" with whatever adverbs, such as   
   >>>>> "strongly", "definitely", "deeply", and so on you feel appropriate).   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Nope. 100% wrong. He does not *believe* that magic doesn't exist, just   
   >>>>as I don't *believe* that it doesn't exist. It does not exist. Period.   
   >>>>That is a simple fact, no belief necessary.   
   >>   
   >>> He (Taemon) has, in fact, clearly stated that, for him, "magic does   
   >>> not exist" is a non-falsifiable statement. He was offered a choice of   
   >>> four categories, the first of which is the one you have picked -- and   
   >>> he did not. I think Taemon knows what his position on this statement   
   >>> is far better than you do.   
   >>   
   >> It doesn't matter what his position is, facts are facts and belief is   
   >> meaningless.   
   >>   
   >>>>Now, if someone were to come along and prove that magic *did* exist,   
   >>>>then I would no longer know that magic does not exist, I would know that   
   >>>>magic *does* exist.   
   >>   
   >>> That is not how facts work. A fact is a fact is a fact. It can neither   
   >>> be proven nor falsified, but is simply known to be true.   
   >>   
   >> That is so completely absurd I don't know where to begin.   
   >>   
   >>> Another way to look at it: factual statements cannot be proven,   
   >>> falsified, or believed. They are the statements that everybody accepts   
   >>> and so nobody cares to debate. The pool of facts is subject to   
   >>> fluctuation over time, although with the movement from handwritten   
   >>> records to printed records to computers the longevity of a fact is   
   >>> likely to improve.   
   >>   
   >> Utter crap. "God does not exist" is a factual statement that most people   
   >> would not accept; it's still a fact.   
   >>   
   > But that is also utter crap, because I can state as a fact that "God does   
   > exist" just as easily as you can, and it's still a fact   
      
   You can call it Daisy if you want, doesn't make it true.   
      
   --   
   I've got Mathematica 2.2 on my Quadra   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)