Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,584
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
It's not the truth until the "hard evidence" is in?
So a false belief is just as good as a true belief?
And without the hard evidence, they are not true?
So then, when some people believed that smoking was unhealthy, but it was not yet proved with evidence, that belief held by those people was NOT true? Their belief that smoking was unhealthy was a false belief?
I was raised on that "false belief" which was preached at me in Sunday School, while there was yet no "hard evidence" that smoking was unhealthy. I'm glad I was taught that "false belief" and did not believe the scientific "facts" from the tobacco company scientists who assured us that there was no harm to health from smoking because they had the "hard evidence" to prove it.
That belief that smoking was unhealthy was based on some "common sense" and some reasoning about the likely harmful effects on the lungs, but there was NO HARD EVIDENCE yet of the harmful effects.
There are plenty of other examples of this principle.
E.g., the benefits or non-benefits of vitamins, or vitamin supplements, or megadoses of some vitamins.
Didn't Linus Pauling provide "hard evidence" of the benefits of megadoses of vitamin C as a cure or prevention of cancer? Didn't this Nobel-Prize-winning scientist have scientific proof, based on experiments and tests in which he verified the results?
What about the environment and the "facts" about global warming and CO2 emissions?
There is no "hard evidence" yet that CO2 emissions are causing some of the current bad weather conditions, but most environmentalists believe this is causing those bad weather conditions. So then this belief of most environmentalists is not true? Only when the "hard evidence" is produced will that belief become a fact? But for now, that belief is not true?
So the truth changes when "hard evidence" is produced? Before the "hard evidence," it's not true, but when that evidence is produced, then it becomes true?
So we should not act on any danger of global warming or excess CO2 emissions until the "hard evidence" is in? Until then, there is no danger, because it is not true that the danger exists until after the "hard evidence" is in, and all the "soft evidence" and common sense and good reasons for the fear should be ignored?
So at a certain point the "hard evidence" is in and the truth changes. Those "beliefs" which before were not "facts" were not the truth, but then those beliefs turned into "facts" when the "hard evidence" was produced. Prior to the "hard evidence" that smoking was harmful, the truth was that it was not harmful. But then, at that point that the "hard evidence" was found, then the truth changed and smoking became harmful, whereas before then it did no harm -- right?
And likewise, with CO2 emissions, until the "hard evidence" is in, there is no harm from those CO2 emissions. None of these hurricanes and floods etc. are caused by global warming until the "hard evidence" is in that proves it, so we need not do anything about it, because it's only belief and not "facts" until we have the hard evidence.
I'm glad I cared about those beliefs they preached at me in Sunday School about the harmful effects of smoking. And that I doubted the "hard evidence" or "facts" presented by the tobacco companies. Sometimes it's good to "care about" what is true, even if the "hard evidence" is not yet in.
I was tempted to take up smoking, and possibly would have, but I was afraid because of those "beliefs" they kept pounding into my head. I saw some of my heros, like Joe Friday and Perry Mason, who smoked heavily, and I wanted to be like them.
Right, you have to accept the real "facts" that were proved by the tobacco company scientists because they had "hard evidence."
So it was "at your peril" to believe those warnings against the dangers of smoking and ignore the "facts" from the tobacco company scientists? How many died of lung cancer because they trusted those "facts"? And how many are alive today because they did not wait until the "hard evidence" was in but believed the warnings and ignored those tobacco company "facts"?
Belief IS trivial; All beliefs ARE as good as each other; Beliefs that are true are only able to claim the status of 'true' in the presence of hard evidence - at which point they cease to be 'beliefs' and become 'facts'.
You are entitled to your own beliefs, but nobody else need care about them.
You are not entitled to your own facts; facts are universal. Ignore them at your peril.
Belief IS trivial; All beliefs ARE as good as each other;
So a false belief is just as good as a true belief?
Beliefs that are true are only able to claim the status of 'true' in the presence of hard evidence --
And without the hard evidence, they are not true?
So then, when some people believed that smoking was unhealthy, but it was not yet proved with evidence, that belief held by those people was NOT true? Their belief that smoking was unhealthy was a false belief?
I was raised on that "false belief" which was preached at me in Sunday School, while there was yet no "hard evidence" that smoking was unhealthy. I'm glad I was taught that "false belief" and did not believe the scientific "facts" from the tobacco company scientists who assured us that there was no harm to health from smoking because they had the "hard evidence" to prove it.
That belief that smoking was unhealthy was based on some "common sense" and some reasoning about the likely harmful effects on the lungs, but there was NO HARD EVIDENCE yet of the harmful effects.
There are plenty of other examples of this principle.
E.g., the benefits or non-benefits of vitamins, or vitamin supplements, or megadoses of some vitamins.
Didn't Linus Pauling provide "hard evidence" of the benefits of megadoses of vitamin C as a cure or prevention of cancer? Didn't this Nobel-Prize-winning scientist have scientific proof, based on experiments and tests in which he verified the results?
What about the environment and the "facts" about global warming and CO2 emissions?
There is no "hard evidence" yet that CO2 emissions are causing some of the current bad weather conditions, but most environmentalists believe this is causing those bad weather conditions. So then this belief of most environmentalists is not true? Only when the "hard evidence" is produced will that belief become a fact? But for now, that belief is not true?
So the truth changes when "hard evidence" is produced? Before the "hard evidence," it's not true, but when that evidence is produced, then it becomes true?
So we should not act on any danger of global warming or excess CO2 emissions until the "hard evidence" is in? Until then, there is no danger, because it is not true that the danger exists until after the "hard evidence" is in, and all the "soft evidence" and common sense and good reasons for the fear should be ignored?
. . . at which point they cease to be 'beliefs' and become 'facts'.
So at a certain point the "hard evidence" is in and the truth changes. Those "beliefs" which before were not "facts" were not the truth, but then those beliefs turned into "facts" when the "hard evidence" was produced. Prior to the "hard evidence" that smoking was harmful, the truth was that it was not harmful. But then, at that point that the "hard evidence" was found, then the truth changed and smoking became harmful, whereas before then it did no harm -- right?
And likewise, with CO2 emissions, until the "hard evidence" is in, there is no harm from those CO2 emissions. None of these hurricanes and floods etc. are caused by global warming until the "hard evidence" is in that proves it, so we need not do anything about it, because it's only belief and not "facts" until we have the hard evidence.
You are entitled to your own beliefs, but nobody else need care about them.
I'm glad I cared about those beliefs they preached at me in Sunday School about the harmful effects of smoking. And that I doubted the "hard evidence" or "facts" presented by the tobacco companies. Sometimes it's good to "care about" what is true, even if the "hard evidence" is not yet in.
I was tempted to take up smoking, and possibly would have, but I was afraid because of those "beliefs" they kept pounding into my head. I saw some of my heros, like Joe Friday and Perry Mason, who smoked heavily, and I wanted to be like them.
You are not entitled to your own facts;
Right, you have to accept the real "facts" that were proved by the tobacco company scientists because they had "hard evidence."
facts are universal. Ignore them at your peril.
So it was "at your peril" to believe those warnings against the dangers of smoking and ignore the "facts" from the tobacco company scientists? How many died of lung cancer because they trusted those "facts"? And how many are alive today because they did not wait until the "hard evidence" was in but believed the warnings and ignored those tobacco company "facts"?