I think i will call alternative facts, fiction.
What about you?
Sarah palin...ugh. what a peice of work
Conway never did answer Chuck Todd's question, because she couldn't. I used to have respect for her, but not anymore. Alternative facts....are LIES.
She's a liar. She whored herself out to Ted Cruz, and spoke quite passionately AGAINST Trump and everything he stands for. Now she's whoring herself out to the one she bashed. She's a political whore. Plain and simple. Just the way Tiny-hands McGee prefers them.
Yes she is. She's lost her integrity, and will do and say anything Trump wants her to say. Sad.
I don't think she has ever possessed one ounce of integrity. She whores herself out to the highest (or lowest) bidder. A ho is a ho is a ho. Man, she looks like about 50 miles of bad road.
lol I love your description of her. I do know she never knows when to shut up. Mrs. Motor Mouth!!!!!
She lies at the drop of a hat. She, like her pimp, is a compulsive liar. And the folks that voted for The Great Orange Lump are being made fools of as we speak. I'm gonna grab a martini and watch the shitTRUMPshow!
Yes they are, and it's only gonna get worse. A lawsuit is already in the works against the orange one, and he's still whining because Hillery beat him the popular vote....and by 3 million. I'm sure he's losing sleep over it, I saw another big bag under his eye this morning.
I think she got herself caught upon a pirate ship. She either has to walk the plank or follow orders. She is in deep enough that she has no other alternative. Too late for an alternate course. She likely will have nothing after this.
I reckon we should feel bad for her.
We all make bad decisions. This one snowballed to an avalanche. And is being televised worldwide.
You can actually see her decline over just a few months......
On one newscast, she looked like she had been crying, with dark streaks running down her face. Sad.
And she will have to stick to the "alternative facts" - lies that she's been spewing for her boss.
She is in deep. Bet she signed a non disclosre. It will take a court to get to.what she knows
I agree, the same with his ex wives. It would be very interesting to hear what they have to say about the jerk.
It's all lies. There are no "facts". There are only interpretation based on faulty senosory input.
Nothing can be known - nothing. Only based guess. And the more information available the better the guess, but never -ever- is there 'fact'.
I cant wrap my head around that, vic.
Ive seen you write that before.
Unless you question our existance, there are basics truths.
Throw a stone in a lake, it sinks.
The earth rotates and turns night
I also have a feeling that Vic knows for a fact that if he jumped off the top of the Eiffel Tower without equipment, he would in all probability not survive his collision with the ground.
Only if there tower is there. If he hasnt seen it, he has to trust that its there at all.
You wont wun the arguement
Its a trust thing.
I tried, i failed
I can give Vic detailed instructions on how to find the Eiffel Tower and see it for himself. Then he can go ahead and jump off to test his theory of facts.
Nooo, i like vic.
No jumping please
Oh, he won't jump, never fear.
He knows a fact perfectly well, when he sees one that would affect him adversely.
Like most armchair philosophers.
Are you sure?
If yes, why? How? because you read it in a book? because someone said so? Have you been in space and seen it rotate?
How do you know it is the same stone at the bottom, that you threw?
Every see a magic act? They can make it seem like the card you signed ended up inside an apple or across the room in your mother pocket?
I am not saying the stone does not sink, I am saying we can't be sure. We do know for a 'fact' that it did. It seems like it did. It might have. But I (you, we) don't 'know' it did. We think it did.
So I cannot trust any news to be true. I cannot trust any 'fact' - I can make an assumption and I can make decisions based on my assumption, but I don't/can't/will never know if it is true.
I have experienced the sun rise, felt the heat on my skin, had to shade my eyes. I see the sun set and darkness blanket my world.
Ive skipped stones watched them bounce, stop and disappear.
Its a fact that i was born of my mother and father. I know my body will quit.
I reckon those are some of my truths.
I will absolutely be happy to have this debate if you wish. It's been done a thousand times. I can take Socrates' position that nothing can be true, or Zeno's position than nothing can be known or Sartre position that nothing exists.
I don't want to come across as a know-it-all (or as a know-nothing-at-all).
If you want to it I would love to, perhaps you could convince me, or I you. You certainly have some well respected minds in your corner as well, Descartes, Bacon and Aristotle to name but a few.
For my part I argue:
If that is the case, then we are only components of a dream.
If i burn my skin, i feel pain
The skin is damaged, heals and leaves a scar. Proof of the burn.
The only way to question the truth of the burn, is to question my existance. But i know im here, i felt the pain
How do you know it's not a dream?
Let's say you have a burn, how did you get it? How do I know it really happened the way you said it did?
Let's say you believe you got the burn from grabbing a hot skillet handle: what temperature was it? What metal was it made of? How much carbon was in the steel? Did you check before the pain was felt to see if the welt was already there? Is it possible the welt was caused by some previous (painless) event? Is it possible the welt was there from a radiation burn from a solar flare and you didn't notice it until you grabbed the pan, which was warm, not hot - but because you grabbed it on the existing welt it triggered a nerve to signal your brain to react to pain? Now you think the burn was from a pan and it was really from another source?
The scar - probably from a burn, was it 'the burn'? What is the truth about the physiological chemical interactions that take place in a body to turn a wound into a scar? Does it work the same in a humans, all species? Can you explain how a scar is formed? Can anyone?
Let's say you know the answer to all these questions for a 'fact' - can you ever convince me that you do know? Can you ever explain it to me so I will have the same level of understanding that you have? Can you then do the same for another human? All humans? Share your knowledge of burns, and pain and scars and the healing process?
What is the nature of truth?
Is is good enough to say:
"I have a burn and that is the truth"?
or do you need to prove it to me, show me the scar, tell me your story so I believe it was the hot skillet that burned you and not the exhaust pipe from a motorcycle that you rode when your mom told you not to?
What is the truth?
Is it the scar? The burn? The story of the burn? The nature of skin damage and biological repair of tissue? Is it just the memory of the burn or is it just the scar itself?
I have a scar and that's the truth?
If it was a solar flare i would remember it as so. If it burned my skin, i would have felt the pain during rhe flare.
I would not grab a pan with an injured hand.
But may, absentmindedly, with a healthy hand.
Either way, there is a burn, pain, scab and scar
Its my experience, my truth. It is up to me to share that experience. Up to you whether you exept my truth.
The memory may fade, but the scar remains. No matter the cause, just the truth of a burn
So the 'truth' is defined as personal belief in a single datum?
"I have a scar" is true for me because I believe it to be true. I don't need to prove it to myself because I believe it, I don't need to prove it to others because I don't care if they believe it.
Let's try this in the context of OP.
A news article says "Trump is human' . Do I accept that as a 'fact', an 'alternative fact', 'fake news'?
I should believe it because its reasonable?
Let's say I doubt it is a fact,
I doubt the 'Trump is human'.
I demand proof.
So a DNA test is conducted...yep! he is a human.
How am I supposed to believe that?
I did not conduct the test.
I don't know the doctor who did.
I don't understand genetics enough to verify that 'fact'.
It might all be made up 'propaganda'.
Is it reasonable to assume he is a human? Sure!
Do I really thing trump is human? of course I do.
Is it a Fact the he is a human? No.
It can never be verified 100% that trump is a human. Anyone who conducts the test of 'humanness' might be a liar. I am not qualified, or even allowed to conduct the test. Do I think it is probably that he is human? Yes. Do I know he is human? of course not, how could I?
It is simply not provable -
and neither is anything else.
No one can 'prove' to anyone else anything at all,
Unless we are willing to take each other at their word, which is not facts it is only our agreeing on definitions, it is only us agreeing on assumptions about our environment and about our observations.
I dont know if anything else is true
But i know my own experiences are
And if your theory is true, it comes down to trust .What and who you choose to trust
I trust pretty much everyone I meet.
I trust pretty much nothing I see on the internet.
That is likely the smartest approach
But of course i cannot prove that it is not a dream. My dream, or anothers
A useless quibble, and a useless definition of a fact, Vic.
There are many things we know with 99.9999999% certainty, which is good enough for most any practical purpose.
So you agree with me. Perfect.
You're dodging again, Vic.
The more information available the better the guess. It is still, and always will be a guess.
I guess if I jump of the tower it will hurt if I hit the ground.
Go ahead and 'believe' things. I am content not to.
Oh, I don't believe certain things either, Vic.
For example, I don't believe you would survive jumping off the Eiffel Tower without equipment.
I don't believe that either. I don't believe anything.
Your definition of what would be required for belief (i.e., 100% certainty, or infinite information) is akin to the impossibility of making a perfectly precise and accurate measurement of some physical quantity.
And just as useless.
But to make you happy, I will say I believe with 99.99999% certainty that you would not survive a jump from the Eiffel Tower.
If you would rather say you 'guess' with 99.99999% certainty, then suit yourself, Soc.
Actually my definition of believe requires no certainty at all. Lots of people believe stuff that is highly unlikely.
My definition of certainty is certainty.
I don't believe anything and I am not certain of anything either.
More to the point a doubt anything is knowable with certainty, but I am not certain about that.
I believe vic, if you were a line, you would be a circle.....
Oh, but Carla, there is no such thing as a line, or a circle, for that matter; they are just geometrical abstractions, so anything you draw will only be an approximation, NEVER 100% perfect, which is akin to what Vic requires for him to believe something.
And yes, his argument is circular as well as useless. We can never rule out 100% that we aren't just characters in some hyperdimensional video game, for example.
I think that is his arguement.
We aren't talking about what other people believe, but what YOU would require to believe something.
"It can never be verified 100% that trump is a human. "
I take that to mean that if it could be verified 100%, you WOULD believe it, just as I said above.
I don't know. Maybe someday, something will be verified 100%, if you are around I let you know if I believe it or not.
Knowing you, in that case you would probably say you want 101%.
Noooooo, i believe my eyes and trust my mind.
No need for an insult, nothing typical bout me, my dear.
I believe my eyes and mind also.
The 'insult' wasn't directed at you, Carla, nor was it an insult. It was just descriptive of Vic's argument. \
Apology to you. I did not scroll up.
I must be twitchy
Nothing is as it seems.
Ahhh, but seems to whom?
You, this is your dream.
Burning to death was EXACTLY as it seemed to this former resident of Dresden, Vic.
You assume you might have an idea as to how that seemed to her, and you assume that how it actually seemed to her was exactly how it was.
You are living in a fantasy world.
It seemed to her she was burning to death, and indeed she was. That is/was no fantasy.
This is a silly discussion.
Were you there in WWII when the bombs dropped. I wasn't so it didn't 'seem' like anything to me.
What this victim saw, heard, and felt is a matter of pure speculation. Perhaps she was in shock and felt nothing. I don't know.
Is war bad? It seems so to me. Do I know that it is bad? How could I, I have never been in a war, I imagine it is horrific. Do I know it is horrific? Of course I do not know, how could I, I have never experienced it.
Do I want to burn to death? No thank you. Do I image it would suck to burn to death? I do indeed imagine that.
Do I know for a fact it would be horrible? No.
I don't have any idea what it would be like to burn to death, and neither do you.
Am I going to use these powerful images to try to pretend I know something I do not know? Nope.
Are you going to use them? It seems that way.
This is my dream, no jumping, no burning, no war.
Everyone is his/her own keeper.
He/she has their own truth/imagination/belief.
We may not appreciate it but we should respect it...
Well, since you don't want to define first-hand knowledge as anything less than (impossibly) 100% perfect, it's not surprising that you wouldn't accept second-hand information, no matter how reliable.
And since you seem not to like powerful images, let's try something a little less searing:
Do you believe Napoleon Bonaparte existed? Of course you would say you don't, since you said up above that you don't believe anything, using your definition of belief.
And I would say I believe with 99.9999999% certainty that Napoleon did exist. You might prefer to say you 'guess' with 99.9999999% certainty, a distinction without a significant difference, merely an argument over definitions, as so many silly arguments are.
So again we seem to agree: words are meaningless until defined. And definitions are pointless because any attempt at true communication is futile due to the likelihood of misunderstanding.
Definitions are not pointless; scientists and mathematicians make and use them all the time, and with great success. What is important to communication is that they agree on their definitions.
But with your absolutist position on truth and knowledge (assuming you are not simply pulling our collective legs), even elementary arithmetic would be impossible, because you would say, "How do you know 2+2 = 4, and how do I know I didn't hallucinate that you even said that? And besides, I don't agree with what I imagine you said your definitions of 2 and 4 are, not to mention your definitions of addition and equality."
Of course, philosophy is in much such a chaotic state of affairs, with the definitions of such fundamentals as truth, knowledge, belief, etc. being the subject of endless disagreement. It's as if physicists could not agree on definitions of momentum and energy.
Your insistence that we cannot know anything because we cannot know anything perfectly is like claiming we cannot measure anything because we cannot measure anything perfectly.
I prefer to think in terms of approximations to perfection, Vic, rather than perfection itself. The gods are jealous of the latter.
I will inerject that i, too, believe perfection is an illusion. Unattainable, no absolute.
Well attempts at communication are helpful, so thank you for attempting. As I said, attempts at true communication are futile. So I won't attempt to communicate any truth only suppositions.
I suspect that by your use of the word true, you mean absolutely and exhaustively true, which, as I have already pointed out, is not a useful definition; at best it is a (useless) truism.
For example, we don't know what an electron "really" is (in your sense), and we may never know, but we have learned enough true things (in my sense) about electrons to make PCs, high-definition TV sets, etc., possible.
That, I submit, is a highly successful truth (in my sense), and a much better one than philosophical speculations that have accomplished little since the days of the Allegory of the Cave.
Bottom line words do matter. Don't say 'true' when you mean 'likely', it only leads to dogma.
I personally, will keep that in mind.
Another interjection into my dream....
"It only leads to dogma"?
ONLY? As if it were categorically true?
Vic, you just violated your own principle!
You should have said something like, "I imagine it is likely to lead to dogma."
See. I proved my own point.
No you didn't.
You merely proved that you can make a statement that can easily be proved false in practice. No shortage of those, especially in politics.
I'll be impressed if and when you can do the same (for example) with Galileo's experiment of dropping lead balls from the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa... they fell to the ground every time he tried, without exception. And if you don't believe that (and of course you don't, because you don't believe anything), try it yourself. Let me know when you get tired.
You have already impressed me with your tenacious adherence to the belief that just because something is not falsifiable it must be true.
Sorry, but you're wrong again, Vic.
Falsifiable means that it is is POSSIBLE in principle to observe a result that proves the assertion false.
Galileo's experiment is easily falsifiable... just observe a case when the dropped lead ball does NOT fall to the ground, with all prior conditions of the experiment being met (no tornadoes, etc.).
An unfalsifiable assertion would be, for example, "God wears green socks," because you can't even in principle test it.
So you don't believe anything that is not falsifiable? And you believe everything the is falsifiable but has not yet been disproved. Such a simple mind.
I didn’t say anything about what I didn’t believe, Vic. I merely explained what falsifiability means, since you seemed not to know. You should be praising me for casting such edifying pearls in your direction.
But now that you ask, yes I DO believe (in my sense, not yours) some things that are not falsifiable. I already gave you an example of one a few comments back: I believe with 99.9999999% certainty that Napoleon Bonaparte existed. I’ll save the 0.0000001% for the possibility that he was a collective hallucination, or part of a video game, and suchlike.
And yes, I DO believe (in my sense, not yours) in the results of falsifiable experiments that have been verified countless times and never once disproved (like Galileo’s experiment), with 99.9999999999% certainty. I’ll leave the other 0.0000000001% for you to quibble over.
you said,"You merely proved that you can make a statement that can easily be proved false in practice. No shortage of those, especially in politics. "
I said, "you have already impressed me with your tenacious adherence to the belief that just because something is not falsifiable it must be true."
then you said, "Falsifiable means that it is is POSSIBLE in principle to observe a result that proves the assertion false."
I thought back to: //you merely proved that you can make a statement that can easily be proved false in practice. // which aligns with your definition of //Falsifiable means that it is is POSSIBLE in principle to observe a result that proves the assertion false. //
So then you claim, what?
That - just because something has never been proved false it should be considered 6 or 7 sigma 'true'?
From now on in this discussion I want the word false to mean any 'thing' that cannot be proved 99.999999999999999999999999
Or at least has been tested 45 quintillion times, with no failures.
If you agree then I submit, everything we know is false.
If you disagree then - well I guess we agree to disagree.
Because franking I don't agree with your definition of 'truth' or 'belief'.
Nothing is true. If something is not falsifiable I assume it is not a real thing. If it is falsifiable I hold out the possibility that someday it will be falsified.
Many things are verifiable through repeated trials.Those are useful for progress and understanding of our world.
Some things are probably not true, but might be.
Like I might fall off the tower and not get hurt, or I might drop lead and it will go up.
I 'might.' I don't know if I will, but I might.
Would I bet on it? no.
Would I stomp me feet and shout 'true-true-true' until I am blue in the face? um, no.
Astrology might be able to predict events before they happen. Would I bet on it? No.
I am starting to awake from this dream. It has gotten repetitious.
As you wish
Oh, but you can't know that absolutely, Carla.
Vic said so himself.
“So then you claim, what? That - just because something has never been proved false it should be considered 6 or 7 sigma 'true'?”
Vic, Vic, Vic… is there NO limit to your muddleheadedness?
I said never proved false AND verified countless times, not JUST ‘never proved false.’
“If something is not falsifiable I assume it is not a real thing.”
Really? I can’t think of a practical test that could falsify the claim that Napoleon existed, can you?
“Because franking I don't agree with your definition of 'truth' or 'belief'.”
Sorry, Vic, but you already HAVE agreed, perhaps unwittingly. For example, I believe the odds of your surviving a fall from the top of the Eiffel Tower are low, and you agreed that they are indeed low. We might disagree as to exactly what those odds are – one in a thousand, one in a million, or one in a billion, but low nevertheless. And you would say, “Ah, but I (Vic) am not ABSOLUTELY certain the odds are low,” to which I would respond, “But you are certain enough that you won’t try it.”
And I have agreed with you from the beginning that there are no absolutes, because obviously we cannot conduct infinite numbers of trials to verify something or to disprove it. We can never draw a perfect circle either, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do geometry.
So we can agree to disagree on our definitions of truth and belief. You can stick with your unattainable Socratic absolute truths and I will stick with my attainable practical approximate truths.
And you stick with your Platonic dialectic, it suits you well.
Yeah, well, I argued with a lot of those those ancient Greek dudes. Loads of fun.
J/K! You're cool too... um... more or less.
This is why i like you, vic.
You stand firm in your convictions.
And those convictions are so well defended.
Eh... I'd say Vic's 'defense' is philosophical (sophistical?)
quibbling over obvious trifles.
That's not to say philosophers haven't been arguing over them for thousands of years, but with practically nothing to show for it by way of results.
If astronomers and physicists had made no more progress than philosophers since Socrates' time, they would still be arguing over whether the Earth is a flat disk or a sphere.
True, but the questions, i think, inspire those to question percieved limitations
Oh I always say lies while others say "alternative facts" but that's just me
real facts that don't align with MSM lies
Stay in your fishbowl. You will be fed daily
says the one who is spoon fed by the MSM
I look at many different sources and come to my own conclusions.
Go listen to rush, he will stroke you.
Alternative truths exist... I call them truths...not fact.
They are something you bring up when ever you are arguing with science-guy.
Carla I believe there can be facts that prove something is great or deadly - let me use water as an example water is good for you drink plenty all day, but if you drink too much too fast orpour it down the wrong place then you might die. So it is a fact water could kill you.
I reckon all the non scientific types can do is to read as many studies as possible. Decide which ones have an agenda and which ones do not and make our own itellegent deductions.
Rescended regulation wont only effect the atmosphere though.
There is the air, water, and ground to be concerned about also.
I will reengage when i have more information
Didnt expect it to. I downvoted it because i totally disagree with what you say. You can very well do the same
I think if he did she would bow down and ask for him to do it again.
Please sir, may i have some more?
She must love it or she would quit her job and walk out on him. She's a hypocrite.
Unfortunately, some have come forward and expressed that he made unwanted advances. So there is that.
And his dressing room visits to his beauty contestants were not invited, there is that
But......to those who allowed it, well im sure many have. Unbeknownst to his wives.
Victims is the correct word.
No one knows the truth behind the jones case.
No doubt bill clinton is a dog. But not a predator.
On the other hand, there are witnesses to some of trumps "transgressions" unwanted assaults and voyeurism.
But, i agree victims do need everyones support
As he explained it himself - not the ugly ones
Yes he did.
And there are questiobs to why women were protesting
Of course he grabbed her! How do you think she paid for that ridiculous getup she wore to the inauguration?? Pimps ALWAYS buy their "ho's" fancy go to meeting clothes. God, she's as pathetic as he is.
Rode hard and put up wet......
that outfit made me wanna order a burger and some fries.
lol When I saw it I thought it was a Halloween costume.... That was NOT an outfit to wear to that occasion. That shows she has no class, just like her boss. Two of a kind. Wonder how long before she gets tossed out on her butt..... Please Kellyanne, do something about your stringy hair....
I know. She's beginning to look like some old barfly.
Or she has a hangover!
Who knows? But she's looking pretty rough these days. Must be all the damage control and lying she does. What a fool.
I heard there's some dissention in Trump's group about her, evidently his son-in-law isn't too happy with her....so I look for her to get the boot soon.
See below. She will be their scapegoat