We have exploding gas clouds, though. 
Sure, one can have discussions with elements based on perceptions, beliefs, etc. I already said so earlier. Any discussion e.g. on society had better included those elements. But there is this very strange tension zone where facts meet emotions/beliefs/etc, where knowledge clashes with belief and rationality goes out of the door. That’s the one where compromise for the sake of peace is pursued. That is not wrong, of course, it’s even vital, but only up to a certain level. We can all think of real life examples where emotions/beliefs stand in the way of important things like mutual safety (like adjusting one’s behavior to avoid spreading disease, to name a current one). But more to your point, if one chooses a rational approach (with its strict rules) it follows that one will object to unverifiable facts and viewpoints obtained via obscure, unverifiable methods. That is a given.
But on the point of scientific progress, knowledge and understanding ? No. The rules do not accept compromises there. If I can’t at least take a picture of that putative flying pig there is no proof. Even a picture will not be sufficient to be acceptable to my peers. If I am a good scientist I will continue to doubt it was really there (which does not prevent me from trying to find solid evidence afterwards, although it may be a wild goose chase instead of a flying pig chase). There could be a variety of reasons why I think I saw that creature - without it ever being there. Thinking you saw something doesn’t make that something a fact. It only becomes one when I can measure it. Maybe my coffee was laced with something, maybe I’m going gaga, maybe there is a rare visual phenomenon. No proof, no knowledge, and certainly no point in discussing it unless as a form of entertainment (although caution would suggest to be discrete about flying pig sightings). Or the observer should stop drinking, urgently. End of story.
My final edit: look up James Randi, quite an interesting person who started out as a successful conjurer but became famous as a debunker of wild theories. There’s a few talks from him available on youtube. They are entertaining but also eye opening.
Cant I dismiss it via the fact that its subjective?
Now Im just trying to follow this.
Are you saying that there is no way to have a discussion here because all points of view are mutually exclusive to both parties because a fact that has been screencaped directly from a third party is inadmissable because the person providing it may be doing so on emotive/subjective grounds?
It’s time to start disagreeing 
. For scientific discussions the rules are quite clear, and make the distinction between a good scientist and a bad scientist. Yes, I already said what the challenge is in incorporating factors and variables, but good scientists will agree on the grey zone, the edge of current knowledge and understanding. In science “correctness” only applies to the way a method is used and the confidence level in the outcome of the calculation and on predictive power. Science does not pursue truth - truth is not measurable. Science pursues understanding. Instead it challenges its own results. Any current theory is relentlessly verified until a new factor enters the field (see the video link in my yesterday’s post - gravitational quantum theory is the next step and not even the final one).
Now on covid. How many victims is anyone willing to create to satisfy one’s sense of freedom ? Now we enter the ethical side, a very different animal, one where emotions are certainly going to play a significant and decisive role, where collective consciousness will determine the outcome.
Back on the flying pig. “You know something is true”. How ? You don’t “know” anything at that point. You didn’t catch it, you didn’t weight it, you weren’t able to show it to your friends and colleagues. Tread lightly. On the contrary. You “believe” you saw something. Now it’s your choice to push that belief into the area of knowledge, following methods and obtaining results that can be verified by other people. That is the very obvious and necessary step which anyone owes to him- or herself, knowledge instead of belief at best, delusion at worst. Nothing is a fact unless it is measurable and other people can measure it, using your sound method and obtaining the same outcome. Oink. 
Oh ok cool, thats what I try to do, though Im not great at it.
I dont have mercy for ideas so stupid or instantly flawed though. Perhaps I could be nicer about it.
But Im the first to say theres people a lot smarter than me around here. Just perhaps not in ways I expected when I first started…
1 Like
That only suffices when one lives in one’s own universe. In the real world the proof lies in the verification by third parties - which implies repeatability (more flying oink sightings, capturing, dissecting, animal behavior studies, etc etc etc). An entire paper about a single flying pig sighting will, rightfully, not carry any weight. If the observer thinks that is enough proof to convince himself, so be it. But to expect acceptance by others on that basis is just a bridge or two too far for a rational audience. Again, that is not a measure of what you refer to as superiority, but one of reliability.
The solitaire question. Unless it was on your pc, and you can show that “last time accessed” at least shows a time stamp of the day before, you will not be able to satisfy the burden of proof. It is not important enough to worry about, right ? And no one has any reason to doubt you because many people play solitaire once in a while, so it is probable hence sufficiently acceptable instead of doubtful. It is not a fact, because there is no proof. You are the only point of reference.
However, while you were playing solitaire, a violent crime took place in your street somewhere. For some unknown reason the police have you as a possible suspect and ask you about your alibi. Your card deck doesn’t show a time stamp, of course, and you remain a suspect. Now the question becomes, who has the burden of proof, and how ?
Me and most all of us:
This has been an interesting thread, thanks for making it OP.
3 Likes
What about people that I convinced that I am right? 
One for the road 
3 Likes
I know you disagree. You say it’s enough that you yourself think it’s a fact (or “know” it’s a fact). That viewpoint will not carry any weight unless there is evidence that it does exist objectively, so that it becomes a fact or viewpoint to other people without them having to go through the same experience. Only then does it become a validated fact, upheld by evidence, verified, etc.
And forget “paper”, use “talk”. You can talk at length about your flying pig (a flyg?) sighting with other people. Without evidence some will believe you (without knowing if it is factual, but hey, facts be damned and who cares about checking as long as we fill an emotional need), others will remain skeptical and demand proof. Yes, of course you have to prove it. Not only that, you have to enable others to experience, deduce and conclude the same. Confirmation gives it a degree of reliability and legitimacy.
And again, I’m not here with the ambitious goal of convincing you (Sol would have to pay a bonus prize, lol). You set your own standards, and hopefully they will intersect with other people’s standards. We’ve taken up quite enough real estate on this thread already.
1 Like
1 Like
How dare you call me smart. 
As much as I have enjoyed the exercise, when I start receiving arguments bordering on the ad hominem the fun and the respect goes byebye. Rather than letting emotions getting into the mix I will simply pull out of a conversation that had little progress.
I disagree, respectfully, with your notion that it is irrelevant if your self-defined fact is confirmed by others, unless you live isolated from the rest of the world - in which case it does not carry any relevance except to you. But just as a matter of simple courtesy I will give you my view on why facts are facts only when third parties confirm them. Take my question about the solitaire card game from a few hours ago - which you did not respond to. First of all, I admit it is an extreme example, but it serves to demonstrate the importance. You don’t have a verifiable alibi. If facts do not matter then you have a high chance of going to prison. That is the consequence in the case where “others” don’t need evidence. When facts are not important where there is no burden of proof, when evidence does not matter you end up in an environment that is unjust, with all the dire consequences. In a just world (since we’re not talking about simple science here, with papers on flying pigs) you will not go to prison unless the police finds independently verifiable evidence of your presence at the crime scene (and cards be damned, the absence of an alibi is not a proof, albeit a complicating factor). Can we at least agree on this ?
It is of course not that I do not understand your viewpoint because I disagree with it. I simply do not accept your premise because it is not reliable. That does not make you a mere mortal nor me super rational. And it’s up to other people to decide which approach adds what value, especially if they are in a decision making capacity.
1 Like
“inhuman level of rationality”, “missing the point”, “incredibly literally”, “irrelevant”, “don’t really understand”, “narrow lens”. Let’s call it a day, shall we ? Compliment indeed. Let’s leave it in the middle as to who understands what, lest we end up being completely irrational.
I do feel a bit sorry it came to this (emotion, yay). I enjoy discussing, obviously, and I enjoy mutual agreements and conclusions even more. Alas.
You keep saying you are done posting, yet you keep posting. I’m sensing an aversion to not having the last word.
Mr Epeen 
1 Like
Everyone wants to have the last word.
That has to have been the most ironic discussion of rationality as applied to conversation ever.
1 Like