NationStates Jolt Archive


If a statement cannot be demonstrated to be true...

Hydesland
02-04-2009, 00:58
...do you assume it is false?

Or more specifically, if someone makes a proposition, and he fails to demonstrate it to be correct (and you don't have any significant reason or experience to believe it either, other than 'his word'), do you then assume that it is false (assuming you haven't had it demonstrated to you anywhere else at that time)?

Because I feel that a good portion of people on NSG do.

*poll coming*
Conserative Morality
02-04-2009, 01:02
Yes.
Pope Lando II
02-04-2009, 01:02
Of course not.

There are degrees of certainty and degrees of doubt. A belief has to reach a sort of critical mass before I would employ it in making an assertion (defined as a wager). Absent any evidence, I might be pushed toward belief or doubt depending on the reliability of the source, but never toward assertion. Does that make sense? :p
The Romulan Republic
02-04-2009, 01:04
No. I don't nessissarily presume it to be false.

Imagine, for example, that five thousand years ago some one had claimed that light was the fastest thing in the universe. I doubt they could have demonstrated it to be true. That doesn't mean it would have been false.

I tend to take things that can't be proven either way and just file them under the "more information/investigation required" catagory.
Hydesland
02-04-2009, 01:08
Does that make sense? :p

Indeed. Although, some people on NSG believe it is irrational to believe... anything. Which I find to be an odd remark.


Imagine, for example, that five thousand years ago some one had claimed that light was the fastest thing in the universe. I doubt they could have demonstrated it to be true. That doesn't mean it would have been false.


Indeed, the idea that something that fails to have its truth demonstrated is false, is funnily enough, demonstrably false. However, I think the issue has more to do with 'rules', useful methods of verification that lead to and perhaps require necessary assumptions, but almost for pragmatic purposes, but somehow get mixed with actual opinions on a subject matter, if you catch my drift.
Neesika
02-04-2009, 01:10
It also depends on the poster. I wouldn't belived TAI, for example, if he said water was wet. For obvious reasons.
Conserative Morality
02-04-2009, 01:12
It also depends on the poster. I wouldn't belived TAI, for example, if he said water was wet. For obvious reasons.

Because he's teh ebil Conservativez, right?:rolleyes:
Hydesland
02-04-2009, 01:18
It also depends on the poster. I wouldn't belived TAI, for example, if he said water was wet. For obvious reasons.

I'm assuming this is on the particular topics that there is tension on (things like Pinochet), or do you assume it to be false, whatever the topic he is talking about?
Ashmoria
02-04-2009, 01:23
no

if it SEEMS right i might hold it as a possibility. if it SEEMS wrong i will discount it. if i have no feeling one way or the other ill disregard it.
Gendara
02-04-2009, 01:24
I base my conclusion on a preponderance of evidence versus whatever evidence supports alternative conclusions. I then decide that the statement MAY be true, or it MAY be false, but that it is FUNCTIONALLY one or the other to me.

I do not, however, make a decision and then categorically deny that any other possibility exists, and judge others based solely on whether or not their interpretation of the evidence agrees with mine. Especially in cases where the amount of evidence is slim.
Efelmoren
02-04-2009, 02:06
If I have no prior knowledge about the subject, then I assume it to be true.

If I have any prior knowledge whatsoever, I weigh it against that knowledge and judge accordingly.
King Arthur the Great
02-04-2009, 02:10
It depends. Generally, no, unless I have other independent knowledge.

However, since this is what politicians will always do, I try to avoid them as much as possible. Not too effective, however.
Bodies Without Organs
02-04-2009, 02:40
If a statement cannot be demonstrated to be true...

...do you assume it is false?

Of course, the statement 'any statement which cannot be demonstrated to be true should be assumed to be false' should be assumed to be false if one is to apply it to itself.
Trve
02-04-2009, 02:43
It also depends on the poster.

This.


Or if its in real life, the person.
Copiosa Scotia
02-04-2009, 02:43
...do you assume it is false?

Or more specifically, if someone makes a proposition, and he fails to demonstrate it to be correct (and you don't have any significant reason or experience to believe it either, other than 'his word'), do you then assume that it is false (assuming you haven't had it demonstrated to you anywhere else at that time)?

Of course not. He'd have to fail to demonstrate that it was likely to be true for me to assume it was false.
Shotagon
02-04-2009, 02:47
...do you assume it is false?

Or more specifically, if someone makes a proposition, and he fails to demonstrate it to be correct (and you don't have any significant reason or experience to believe it either, other than 'his word'), do you then assume that it is false (assuming you haven't had it demonstrated to you anywhere else at that time)?

Because I feel that a good portion of people on NSG do.

*poll coming*Only if the proposition makes sense. Why should I suppose the 'proposition' is meaningful in the first place? For example, the classic: "The king of France is bald." Yet there is no king of France. I am hardly locked into saying that either it is true (It can't be) and it's false (which seems to imply that there is a king of France). Rather: that proposition cannot be used to denote a particular person's hair style. It has other uses, however, like I just demonstrated-- as an example of a proposition which is neither true nor false, or perhaps there is a king of France in a book or movie or something who is bald. You might also think of the liar paradox, which has no true/false resolution (unnatural and arbitrary limits on possible resolutions create paradoxes, apparently).
Indri
02-04-2009, 02:52
If a statement cannot be demonstrated to be true it's ambiguously gay and so is the person who made it.
Ashmoria
02-04-2009, 02:54
This.


Or if its in real life, the person.
yes.

except that you have to keep in mind that even a psycholiar tells the truth now and then. even a complete fool can be right on occasion.

so if the source is unreliable but you want to use the "fact" for some reason, you dont discount it, you verify it yourself.
Vetalia
02-04-2009, 02:55
Nah, I just disregard it.
New Mitanni
02-04-2009, 04:40
According to Goedel's first Incompleteness Theorem, there are true statements that cannot be proven. So, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem#Meaning_of_the_first_incompleteness_theorem
Skallvia
02-04-2009, 05:03
Yes, although, as a good friend once told me after losing an argument, "Facts are Just Opinions"
Indri
02-04-2009, 08:12
Nothing unreal exists.
Neo Bretonnia
02-04-2009, 15:27
...do you assume it is false?

Or more specifically, if someone makes a proposition, and he fails to demonstrate it to be correct (and you don't have any significant reason or experience to believe it either, other than 'his word'), do you then assume that it is false (assuming you haven't had it demonstrated to you anywhere else at that time)?

Because I feel that a good portion of people on NSG do.

*poll coming*

Around here, the answer is "yes, if it's a conservative saying it. Otherwise the answer is no."
Free Soviets
02-04-2009, 15:32
Nothing unreal exists.

http://www.bagpipes.net/ut/UnrealTournamentLogo.jpg
Free Soviets
02-04-2009, 15:34
Of course, the statement 'any statement which cannot be demonstrated to be true should be assumed to be false' should be assumed to be false if one is to apply it to itself.

unless it calls no backsies
Dyakovo
02-04-2009, 15:44
Yes
The Parkus Empire
02-04-2009, 15:46
a good portion of people on NSG do.

Source?
Gift-of-god
02-04-2009, 15:58
It would depend on the statement. Some things can't be considered true or false. Some are impossible to verify. Some are extremely difficult to verify with current technology. Some I don't care about and ignore. Sometimes I just hold it to be false so that I can get a debate going.
No Names Left Damn It
02-04-2009, 16:25
Not always, but if it's a ridiculous claim, or you can't even back it up the tiniest amount, then I will presume it to be false.
Hydesland
02-04-2009, 16:37
Source?

Mah poll
Hydesland
02-04-2009, 16:38
Does anyone who says 'yes' want to elaborate a bit further?
Gift-of-god
02-04-2009, 16:39
Not always, but if it's a ridiculous claim, or you can't even back it up the tiniest amount, then I will presume it to be false.

I have absolutely no objective evidence for the following statement: My dancing is more enjoyable when no one's looking.

Do you presume that is false?

Why?
No Names Left Damn It
02-04-2009, 16:50
I have absolutely no objective evidence for the following statement: My dancing is more enjoyable when no one's looking.

Do you presume that is false?

Why?

No I don't, because in you opinion it is, and I can't prove or disprove an opinion.
Gift-of-god
02-04-2009, 16:58
No I don't, because in you opinion it is, and I can't prove or disprove an opinion.

Okay. So you don't presume opinions to be false.

What about the statement (for which, again, I have no evidence) that I went out drinking on Tuesday night.

Do you presume that to be false?

Why?
Neesika
02-04-2009, 17:00
I'm assuming this is on the particular topics that there is tension on (things like Pinochet), or do you assume it to be false, whatever the topic he is talking about? Na, let me modify that. Let me say that I would be highly suspicious of certain people if I have had experience with them being intellectually dishonest before. I would demand more evidence from those kinds of people than I might from people who don't equivocate as much.
The Parkus Empire
02-04-2009, 17:31
Mah poll

Your study is not viable; those who answer could be puppets.
Hydesland
02-04-2009, 17:50
Na, let me modify that. Let me say that I would be highly suspicious of certain people if I have had experience with them being intellectually dishonest before. I would demand more evidence from those kinds of people than I might from people who don't equivocate as much.

Fair enough.

Your study is not viable; those who answer could be puppets.

Mah poll is publc, you can check to see if the people are puppets or not.
Dyakovo
02-04-2009, 17:56
Does anyone who says 'yes' want to elaborate a bit further?

Not really.
Hydesland
02-04-2009, 19:25
Not really.

Could you elaborate or explain as to why you do not wish to elaborate or explain? :p
Dyakovo
02-04-2009, 19:27
Could you elaborate or explain as to why you do not wish to elaborate or explain? :p

Yes, because I do not want to.
Hydesland
02-04-2009, 19:27
Yes, because I do not want to.

Explain.
Dyakovo
02-04-2009, 19:29
Lol