Why Do Some People Reject Empirical Facts?

[m00st]

First off I just want to let everyone know I'm an extreme skeptic; I skepticize everything. Science is just something I find great pleasure in... With that being stated there is something I just cannot understand...

Many people will question empirical facts; one example I can give is the fact man has been on the moon; the extremely obvious fact is that we left mirrors to reflect laser light; there is no other possible way we could have got these mirrors on the moon. It is in my opinion stupidity to argue with empirical facts, another example is that many think the Mars missions are somehow faked...

Can someone please explain to me this kind of thinking? I do not get it one bit and it saddens me when I see this kind of stupidity... Is this because the person is stupid? Illiterate, brainwashed or just in denial?

Can someone please give me their response to someone who questions these empirical facts?

 

[magpies]

So who decides what is an empirical fact? I could say it's an empirical fact that the mind is not contained inside the brain. Would you agree? Why not? It's clearly an empirical fact isn't it?

 

[Mu naught]

So who decides what is an empirical fact? I could say it's an empirical fact that the mind is not contained inside the brain. Would you agree? Why not? It's clearly an empirical fact isn't it?

I would disagree because people with brain injuries are always effected in the mind. A claim is just a claim, a fact is a claim supported by empirical evidence.

As to the OP: I would say stupid, illiterate, brainwashed, are all good ways to describe that way of thinking.

 

[magpies]

So again I ask who decides what empirical evidence is? Do we have an empirical evidence committee or something?

 

[JoeDawg]

Many people will question empirical facts; one example I can give is the fact man has been on the moon; the extremely obvious fact...

I'd say the problem here is that you are equating 'empirical fact' with 'extremely obvious'.

An empirical fact, is a fact that is measurable... and repeatable. Most people who deny scientific facts, see science as a kind of magic.

They can't do the experiment themselves, so they are left with deciding who to believe. For them, science is all about an 'argument from authority', and they simply chose to believe someone they trust.

'Extremely obvious' is an argument from common sense, and is not the same as an empirical fact.

From your example, we can reflect laser light off a mirror on the moon. The empirical fact is that you can do this. The 'reason', or explanation for why you can do this, is not an empirical fact.

The 'reason' is common-sense based on experience... different people have different experiences to draw on.

 

[Mu naught]

So again I ask who decides what empirical evidence is? Do we have an empirical evidence committee or something?

If I claim the sky is blue, you can go outside and check if you agree. If we agree, then we call it fact. Empirical fact is observable - so all you have to do is go look for yourself if you won't take someone's word for it.

 

[magpies]

So if two people agree on something it becomes fact?

 

[JoeDawg]

So if two people agree on something it becomes fact?

No. Empirical facts are about 'observation'.

 

[DaveC426913]

Many people will question empirical facts; one example I can give is the fact man has been on the moon; the extremely obvious fact is that we left mirrors to reflect laser light;

As a way of showing you the difference between "fact" and "extremely obvious beyond all reasonable doubt", MoonHoaxers claim that, yes we have sent spacecarft to the Moon and dropped reflectors there, but no human has set foot on the Moon.

i.e. the fact that there are reflectors on the Moon (this is an irrefutable fact that can be verified by anyone with the inclination), does not lead to it being fact that Man has landed on the Moon (which, while extremely obvious due to an absolutely overwhelming preponderance of evidence and testimony, could by some, be considered merely extremely obvious).

 

[m00st]

So who decides what is an empirical fact? I could say it's an empirical fact that the mind is not contained inside the brain. Would you agree? Why not? It's clearly an empirical fact isn't it?

Real science is published in journals such as Nature and Science for peer review. Empirical fact is determined by accuracy of claims and hypothesis... This thread is taking into account empirical facts that are no longer questioned in the science field because the evidence for accuracy is already abundantly high.

 

[m00st]

So again I ask who decides what empirical evidence is? Do we have an empirical evidence committee or something?

Empirical facts are determined by peer review. The biggest peer review journals are Science and Nature.

 

[m00st]

I'd say the problem here is that you are equating 'empirical fact' with 'extremely obvious'.

An empirical fact, is a fact that is measurable... and repeatable. Most people who deny scientific facts, see science as a kind of magic.

They can't do the experiment themselves, so they are left with deciding who to believe. For them, science is all about an 'argument from authority', and they simply chose to believe someone they trust.

'Extremely obvious' is an argument from common sense, and is not the same as an empirical fact.

From your example, we can reflect laser light off a mirror on the moon. The empirical fact is that you can do this. The 'reason', or explanation for why you can do this, is not an empirical fact.

The 'reason' is common-sense based on experience... different people have different experiences to draw on.

Misread your reply... I agree but the evidence for the moon landing is abundant. It's not about authority; fortunately. It's about questioning discoveries, and making breakthroughs, not following like a sheep.

 

[m00st]

If I claim the sky is blue, you can go outside and check if you agree. If we agree, then we call it fact. Empirical fact is observable - so all you have to do is go look for yourself if you won't take someone's word for it.

Yes but that doesn't answer my question. Why do some out right deny these facts after seeing them?

 

[DaveC426913]

Empirical fact is determined by accuracy of claims and hypothesis... This thread is taking into account empirical facts that are no longer questioned in the science field because the evidence for accuracy is already abundantly high.

No, these are not empirical facts.

For example, the atomic theory of matter is no longer questioned by science, yet it was not empirical fact until about 20 years ago, when we were able to actually image atoms.

Empirical facts are: Water vaporizes into steam. Planets orbit stars in elliptical orbits. These are simply observations of reality; they cannot be refuted in any sane way.

 

[m00st]

As a way of showing you the difference between "fact" and "extremely obvious beyond all reasonable doubt", MoonHoaxers claim that, yes we have sent spacecarft to the Moon and dropped reflectors there, but no human has set foot on the Moon.

i.e. the fact that there are reflectors on the Moon (this is an irrefutable fact that can be verified by anyone with the inclination), does not lead to it being fact that Man has landed on the Moon (which, while extremely obvious due to an absolutely overwhelming preponderance of evidence and testimony, could by some, be considered merely extremely obvious).

We are not discussing if man has landed on the moon. The evidence for man doing so is abundant from NASA, JPL, etc. We are discussing why people take the superstitious alternative; the way to spread disinformation or make a conspiracy out of such achievements in history.

 

[DaveC426913]

We are not discussing if man has landed on the moon. The evidence for man doing so is abundant from NASA, JPL, etc. We are discussing why people take the superstitious alternative; the way to spread disinformation or make a conspiracy out of such achievements in history.

Well, first we are getting our terminology straight. i.e what constitutes an empirical fact.

 

[m00st]

Well, first we are getting our terminology straight. i.e what constitutes an empirical fact.

Although not all the time; empirical facts answer our questions on objective reality. One example is the heliocentric model vs. geocentric model. The abundance of facts for the heliocentric model makes heliocentrism an empirical fact. The evidence is so great as I stated before that questioning the facts is "stupidity".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method"

 

[magpies]

So does an empirical fact have to be true? How true does it have to be?

 

[DaveC426913]

Although not all the time; empirical facts answer our questions on objective reality. One example is the heliocentric model vs. geocentric model. The abundance of facts for the heliocentric model makes heliocentrism an empirical fact. The evidence is so great as I stated before that questioning the facts is "stupidity".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method"

Note your own words: they are models; proposed methods for how something seems to be. i.e. not an empirical fact.

 

[m00st]

So does an empirical fact have to be true? How true does it have to be?

Empirical facts are things such as evolution, heliocentric model, moon landing, etc.

 

[magpies]

Or it could be I know something about reality you don't...

 

[m00st]

Note your own words: they are models; proposed methods for how something seems to be. i.e. not an empirical fact.

They are models that aren't 100% accurate as nothing in science can ever be 100% accurate (that is what math is for). However, is the heliocentric model less accurate than the geocentric model? No. How much more accurate is the model? Considering the Heliocentric model has brought GPS, satellites, moon landing, spirit/opportunity...

 

[m00st]

Or it could be I know something about reality you don't...

Such as? If it cannot be tested then the reality is only in your head. As cynical as that sounds it is the truth; that is the strength science brings.

 

[m00st]

To bring this back on topic... What do others feel who are extremely scientific/skeptical when science is questioned for it's accuracy in certain facts that are discovered through science?

No I am not saying that science cannot be questioned, nor am I saying that sciences job is to discover facts.

This question is probably better understood from someone who is an atheist...

 

[magpies]

Stuff you think up in your head can be tested in your head and proven true in your head. Some people don't like the use of the muscle that counts tho so...

 

[DaveC426913]

They are models that aren't 100% accurate as nothing in science can ever be 100% accurate (that is what math is for). However, is the heliocentric model less accurate than the geocentric model? No. How much more accurate is the model? Considering the Heliocentric model has brought GPS, satellites, moon landing, spirit/opportunity...

It is not about "accuracy". Models are models, not facts. Never will be. Models describe how something works. And they can always (in principle) be proven wrong.

Starlight does shine on the Earth at night. That is an empirical fact; it cannot be disproven by any means.

Getting back to the point, that there were humans on the Moon is not an empirical fact. It is simply accepted as a fact.

 

[m00st]

Stuff you think up in your head can be tested in your head and proven true in your head. Some people don't like the use of the muscle that counts tho so...

We are not discussion that; we are discussing science which uses peer review to validate objective reality. Obviously whatever you think up in your head or believe cannot be tested unless you give lab results among the many other requirements for what is defined as non-pseudoscience.

 

[magpies]

Why the need for lab results? Why not just figure it out in your head and be sure about it?

 

[DaveC426913]

To bring this back on topic... What do others feel who are extremely scientific/skeptical when science is questioned for it's accuracy in certain facts that are discovered through science?

No I am not saying that science cannot be questioned, nor am I saying that sciences job is to discover facts.

This question is probably better understood from someone who is an atheist...

Atheism? What does that have to do with it?

I'm sensing your agenda is yet to be revealed. I'll sit back and wait till the other shoe drops.



Meanwhile, call another member an idiot and your questions will be taking a little vacation.

 

[m00st]

It is not about "accuracy". Models are models, not facts. Never will be. Models describe how something works. And they can always (in principle) be proven wrong.

Starlight does shine on the Earth at night. That is an empirical fact; it cannot be disproven by any means.

Getting back to the point, that there were humans on the Moon is not an empirical fact. It is simply accepted as a fact.

Wrong; the evidence is abundant. Assuming it was faked without any evidence why it was faked especially when the evidence points otherwise only shows ignorance. One example of evidence is universities test on the lunar rocks from the Apollo program, saying it is fake means a world wide conspiracy...

And no you did not get back on topic... We are not discussing accuracy of the moon landing. We are discussing why people deny these facts.