Facts, evidence, reason and logic.

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here is a simple reductio ad absurdum in the broad sense of it.
Someone*: I have no beliefs, in that I use facts, evidence, reason and logic all the time.
Me: I don't.
Someone: Then you are doing something, which is without those as mentioned as above.
Me: Is that a fact?

The problem is that either are people, who don't use facts, evidence, reason and logic all the time, in fact doing that or it is not a fact, that they are doing it. But as far as I can tell, for the group of someone as per above it is fact of the everyday world of how it works in part, that there are other people, who sometimes don't use facts, evidence, reason and logic all the time. So it would seems that it is not universal for how the everyday world works.

For all humans it is falsifiable that some people don't use facts, evidence, reason and logic all the time and thus it is not a fact of how the everyday world works for facts, evidence, reason and logic all the time. Simple.

I have yet to come across someone* who can explain as a part of the everyday world how it actually works without referring to how it 1st person makes sense to them without taking for granted that is so for all of us.
To me that is no different how some religious people take for granted that their religion must make sense to us all.

To me, those are in effect the same and a form of special pleading in both cases.
I.e. all other cases don't make sense to me universally, but mine is special, because it is universal for all humans.

 

[paradox]

I have yet to come across someone* who can explain as a part of the everyday world how it actually works without referring to how it 1st person makes sense to them without taking for granted that is so for all of us.
To me that is no different how some religious people take for granted that their religion must make sense to us all.

You made a good point, but the truth is that none of those 2 extrems of people exist in reality.

No person uses facts, reason, evidence and logic all the time, and no person uses belief instead of the 4 all the time.

belief or faith is however common to both naturally all the time, for example:
if you ask someone where is the train station and he tells you, you'll believe him and take the route to the train station as if that's for granted.
if a doctor tells you you need to stop this or drink that you will believe him.
countless such examples could be assembled in real life where belief is required and the only thing by routine.

Belief in God is no different because the message is spread by people, but people have natural tendency to believe other people.

It is impossible to imagine society where there is absolutely no belief between people because society requires belief, belief makes life easy.

When it comes to disbelief, such as this or that religion, it's rather about other belief that

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You made a good point, but the truth is that none of those 2 extrems of people exist in reality.

No person uses facts, reason, evidence and logic all the time, and no person uses belief instead of the 4 all the time.

belief or faith is however common to both naturally all the time, for example:
if you ask someone where is the train station and he tells you, you'll believe him and take the route to the train station as if that's for granted.
if a doctor tells you you need to stop this or drink that you will believe him.
countless such examples could be assembled in real life where belief is required and the only thing by routine.

Belief in God is no different because the message is spread by people, but people have natural tendency to believe other people.

It is impossible to imagine society where there is absolutely no belief between people because society requires belief, belief makes life easy.

When it comes to disbelief, such as this or that religion, it's rather about other belief that

Well, belief in God is not that, because there is no one belief in one God. But that is no different than the positive beliefs non-theists hold. They all vary.

 

[wellwisher]

Here is a simple reductio ad absurdum in the broad sense of it.
Someone*: I have no beliefs, in that I use facts, evidence, reason and logic all the time.
Me: I don't.
Someone: Then you are doing something, which is without those as mentioned as above.
Me: Is that a fact?

The problem is that either are people, who don't use facts, evidence, reason and logic all the time, in fact doing that or it is not a fact, that they are doing it. But as far as I can tell, for the group of someone as per above it is fact of the everyday world of how it works in part, that there are other people, who sometimes don't use facts, evidence, reason and logic all the time. So it would seems that it is not universal for how the everyday world works.

For all humans it is falsifiable that some people don't use facts, evidence, reason and logic all the time and thus it is not a fact of how the everyday world works for facts, evidence, reason and logic all the time. Simple.

I have yet to come across someone* who can explain as a part of the everyday world how it actually works without referring to how it 1st person makes sense to them without taking for granted that is so for all of us.
To me that is no different how some religious people take for granted that their religion must make sense to us all.

To me, those are in effect the same and a form of special pleading in both cases.
I.e. all other cases don't make sense to me universally, but mine is special, because it is universal for all humans.

There is another variable that you left out ,which can undermine even the best use of facts, reason, logic and evidence. This variable is connected to the time scale of the data being used.

For example, a new person comes to work who is a mystery to the others. Since that person is quiet and is not volunteering any data from their past job or from their personal life, we can only use real time data, evidence, logic and reason to figure them out.

This may not be enough data to get it right, since what many people are, today, is often connected to their past. Their full story will require a larger data field that extends over a longer period of time, and not just the best reasoning skills using data over a short time.

The Russian Collusion Hoax fooled many people, at first, because it made sense with logic, data, evidence, and reason that was restricted to only short term circumstantial evidence. After the deep dive investigation, that looked back further back into time; wider range of data, the best conclusions changed.

This data time affect plays a role in the consensus science of climate change. The consensus of climate change science uses data from about 1880 to present, as the main time period for evidence. This timing is about when science started to make an effort to document real time data in a scientific way. Before that evidence was less consistent in approach.

However, this chosen time scale ignores the last billion years of geological data. The consensus conclusions may be consistent with the shorter data set. However, it may not be correct if we also use the data that goes back a billion years. When politics takes sides with science, there is a magic trick. There is no political side taking when we say water is H2O. That would be a tougher trick than a data time illusion.

If we look at the billion year data the earth naturally goes though warming and cooling cycles. These are not Smooth curves, as they go up and down but show even shorter term cycles of up and down along the way. We are on a curve within a curve based on longer term data.

In terms of geological data, from say 1 million years ago, we are still warming from the last ice age. You will not see this, if we restrict the data to 1880. We would need to know the childhood of the earth to see why it is how it is, today.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is another variable that you left out ,which can undermine even the best use of facts, reason, logic and evidence. This variable is connected to the time scale of the data being used.

...

Yeah, you know the right one, right?

Well, I still believe differently. And you can't understand that whatever variable you choose someone can choose another and neither is right or wrong. They are just different.