Debate: Does it Proof you are a fool, or just a smart-***?

[Stevicus]

It never is... but verifiable evidence is far more accurate than using any other method.

The question was regarding the need for direct experience for verification of a claim. It's like making a bet on a sporting event. You'd have access to all kinds of statistics and information to make a prediction, even to the point of putting money down to support your claim. But it's impossible to verify until the sporting event actually takes place and there's a definite result.

 

[stvdv]

@QuestioningMind "Please provide an example of a claim that can only be verified by direct experience"
@stvdv "If 2 people have sex, a baby will be born"
@QuestioningMind "Sorry, but you don't have to have sex that results in a baby to know that it takes sex between two people to have a baby."

Some people say we "take a baby"
Some people say we "are given a baby"
Some people can't get a baby at all
Some people use condom or ...

I gave an example of a claim that can only be verified by direct experience

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's in general debates. Give it a go! *Grin*

I believe in priorities - and natural selection of course - that is, in being selective.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Some people say we "take a baby"
Some people say we "are given a baby"
Some people can't get a baby at all
Some people use condom or ...

I gave an example of a claim that can only be verified by direct experience

Still don't need direct experience in order to know that some people can't have children or that some people use contraceptives or that some people call having a baby by different terminology.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The question was regarding the need for direct experience for verification of a claim. It's like making a bet on a sporting event. You'd have access to all kinds of statistics and information to make a prediction, even to the point of putting money down to support your claim. But it's impossible to verify until the sporting event actually takes place and there's a definite result.

No, one does not have to directly experience a horse race in order to have verifiable evidence for what the results were. I have verifiable evidence for who won the Kentucky Derby ten years ago, even though I wasn't at the race to directly experience it.

 

[Stevicus]

No, one does not have to directly experience a horse race in order to have verifiable evidence for what the results were.

No, but the race still has to happen first. You can't say that you can prove who's going to win next year based on past race results.

 

[stvdv]

Still don't need direct experience in order to know that some people can't have children or that some people use contraceptives or that some people call having a baby by different terminology.

I agree to disagree on this one

 

[QuestioningMind]

No, but the race still has to happen first. You can't say that you can prove who's going to win next year based on past race results.

We're not talking about being able to predict the future. The question was give an example of when direct experience is required n order to verify a claim. One does NOT need to directly experience a horse race in order to verify who the winner is.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I agree to disagree on this one

Well, is the ONLY reason you know that some people can't have children because you yourself can't have children?

 

[Stevicus]

We're not talking about being able to predict the future. The question was give an example of when direct experience is required n order to verify a claim. One does NOT need to directly experience a horse race in order to verify who the winner is.

I think you're missing the point. Not all claims are about things that already happened. Some claims do involve predicting future events or possible outcomes. Those are the type of claim that would have to be tested before anyone can say it is proven to be true.

Depending on what you mean by "direct experience," it doesn't actually mean one would have to participate in the race itself. Nor would it even mean having to watch it in person or even on TV. If you read the results in the newspaper the day after, that could also be considered "direct experience" in verifying a claim.

 

[stvdv]

Well, is the ONLY reason you know that some people can't have children because you yourself can't have children?

What kind of deduction you are using. Did God whisper in your ears that I can't have children. You better pray to another God, because this one is highly mistaken.

 

[QuestioningMind]

What kind of deduction you are using. Did God whisper in your ears that I can't have children. You better pray to another God, because this one is highly mistaken.

I never claimed that you can't have children... I ASKED you. The statement I was replying to was your claim that one MUST have DIRECT experience of something in order to know that it's true. IF that's the case, THEN then ONLY way you could know that SOME people can't have children is because YOU can't have children.

Kind of a silly claim, isn't it?

 

[stvdv]

I never claimed that you can't have children... I ASKED you. The statement I was replying to was your claim that one MUST have DIRECT experience of something in order to know that it's true. IF that's the case, THEN then ONLY way you could know that SOME people can't have children is because YOU can't have children.

Kind of a silly claim, isn't it?

Not at all silly. The original claim I made was very simple and clear. Then the claims changed.
That is why I said "Let's agree to disagree on this one"

 

[QuestioningMind]

Not at all silly. The original claim I made was very simple and clear. Then the claims changed.
That is why I said "Let's agree to disagree on this one"

IF that's the case, THEN then ONLY way you could know that SOME people can't have children is because YOU can't have children.

Not at all silly? Please DO explain how you think the above statement makes logical sense.

 

[stvdv]

IF that's the case, THEN then ONLY way you could know that SOME people can't have children is because YOU can't have children.
Not at all silly? Please DO explain how you think the above statement makes logical sense.

What is the purpose that you "create such a statement?"
What is the purpose that you "ask me to explain about it?"

If the purpose is to prove that my original example is wrong
Then I have to disappoint you, I am not interested to prove myself

I know we are on the "everything but the kitchen sink" General Debate
But I did not give my example to make a debate out of it
If I thought my example was incorrect I just would admit that
I am very simple in that way. Saying sorry is easy for me
And I could not even sleep if I knew I made a wrong statement
Then I had to reply on RF stating "Okay I was wrong here"
That serious I am about what I say.

Sometimes certain statements can be seen from different perspectives
Then both statements are right, seen from their own perspective
Probably that is the case here.

If it were a matter of live and death of course I would continue
But this was just an insignificant example I gave, just because you asked
I did not give it to start a whole debate on it, to prove all kind of things.

That is why I said "Let's agree to disagree on this"

I explained in detail now, because already 3 times I said
"Let's agree to disagree on this"
Which means to me "this subject is closed"
I hope with the additional information you understand why I said this

Wish you a good evening (at least in Europe it's evening)

 

[QuestioningMind]

What is the purpose that you "create such a statement?"
What is the purpose that you "ask me to explain about it?"

If the purpose is to prove that my original example is wrong
Then I have to disappoint you, I am not interested to prove myself

I know we are on the "everything but the kitchen sink" General Debate
But I did not give my example to make a debate out of it
If I thought my example was incorrect I just would admit that
I am very simple in that way. Saying sorry is easy for me
And I could not even sleep if I knew I made a wrong statement
Then I had to reply on RF stating "Okay I was wrong here"
That serious I am about what I say.

Sometimes certain statements can be seen from different perspectives
Then both statements are right, seen from their own perspective
Probably that is the case here.

If it were a matter of live and death of course I would continue
But this was just an insignificant example I gave, just because you asked
I did not give it to start a whole debate on it, to prove all kind of things.

That is why I said "Let's agree to disagree on this"

I explained in detail now, because already 3 times I said
"Let's agree to disagree on this"
Which means to me "this subject is closed"
I hope with the additional information you understand why I said this

Wish you a good evening (at least in Europe it's evening)

YOU made a blanket statement that a person has to experience something in order to know that it's true. I then pointed out how this is NOT the case... or as you put it, to prove that your claim is wrong. That you are not interested in backing up your claims with evidence that would prove them true has become quite obvious. IF you thought your example was correct then you'd have no problem pointing out the flaw in my question about having children.

I suppose that it's POSSIBLE that there's two perspectives to this and that we are both right... but until or unless you can elaborate on your 'perspective' it's impossible to say. You are more than welcome to make unsubstantiated claims on this forum and refuse to back them up, but you really shouldn't be surprised when people ask and expect you to validate yourself. If being asked to do so bothers you, perhaps this isn't the forum for you.

 

[stvdv]

YOU made a blanket statement that a person has to experience something in order to know that it's true. I then pointed out how this is NOT the case... or as you put it, to prove that your claim is wrong. That you are not interested in backing up your claims with evidence that would prove them true has become quite obvious. IF you thought your example was correct then you'd have no problem pointing out the flaw in my question about having children.

I suppose that it's POSSIBLE that there's two perspectives to this and that we are both right... but until or unless you can elaborate on your 'perspective' it's impossible to say. You are more than welcome to make unsubstantiated claims on this forum and refuse to back them up, but you really shouldn't be surprised when people ask and expect you to validate yourself. If being asked to do so bothers you, perhaps this isn't the forum for you.

YOU made a blanket statement that a person has to experience something in order to know that it's true.
I did not make this statement at all. And stop accusing me of that.

I am not bothered if people ask to prove my example
But you seem to be bothered if I politely say "not interested in debating on this"
I said it already 5 or 6 times now

And now you accusing me "perhaps not your forum if you have a problem if people force you to reply into debate"

Please respect my opinion: I am not interested to have a debate with you on this

I never agreed to have a debate with you