On the necessity of verifying claims.

...why should anybody ever bother to read your posts?

Only "consumers" think it is reasonable to pick up philosophical and factual positions as one picks up food items from a buffet line.

The rest of us want to know what's IN that food before we put it on our plates.

And if you think you don't "have the time" for that, the rest of us who do have the time will still be at it long after you're dead from consuming what was put forth for you.

Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...

I certainly can verify evolution with personal observation, have been doing it for decades. But Rev says you shouldn't believe me, or all of the other stuff that you read that with just a little common sense mixed with a smidge of education, you'd see to, despite your arrogance, that evolution happens!

--------
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
'Cause there's a monster on the loose

were you to Venn diagram faith, "religion" would be a subset of it, and too a portion of scientific "theory" and hypothesis would be a subset. Faith is a large aspect of everyone's life, indivisible from almost all decisions one makes in a day, or night.

Assert Your Authority

I did not say that only fact and logic are open to debate. I said that only fact and logic are the makings of an argument.....that only fact and logic should be USED in a debate....for nothing else has any rational force.

Even if someone wants to debate faith, he should still only endeavor to employ fact and logic in his arguments. His adamancy about his faith simply does not constitute a valid argument. Nor does adamancy constitute evidence.

And the same is true of science. It does not matter how much one personally likes a theory; the only thing that matters is whether logic and fact support that theory. As with religion, I've had far too many science fans tell me that this or that theory is "proven", when nothing of the sort is true. This shows that what they really mean is, "I've seen enough evidence to be comfortable drawing a firm conclusion on the matter." And what it does NOT mean is "I have examined the evidence and the arguments on both sides, and I can find no valid reason to conclude anything other than _________."

I, for one, do not care to believe a thing that is either nonfactual or illogical. Nor do I care to engage in the business of winning over ignorant people by use of nonfactual or illogical manipulations.

I fully understand that a great number of people have no qualms about either of the above. And it is because this is such a widespread practice that the corruption of our Republic (as well as of religion) has been able to fester with such great success.

When a person makes a sincere and unlimited commitment to fact and to logic, he necessarily separates himself from the rampant consumerism that is flourishing in the world today. (That is, he doesn't "buy" just any old argument that is put forth for his consumption.) This does not mean he can't have hunches in areas he has not yet researched, but it does mean that he will cease to put forth mere hunches as if they are fact. Further, he will cease from putting forth illogical arguments to support his preferred conclusions.

Generally speaking, our culture, and most of the sub-cultures that comprise it, are what I call "cults of predetermined conclusions". That is, the conclusions are what's really important, and whatever method of rationalization that is required to "support" those conclusions is completely acceptable to most adherents thereunto.

(And in case anybody is wondering, I do NOT think that this is a good thing.)

This happens in church, in science, in education, in law, in politics, in business, in interpersonal relationships, etc. And few are those who will commit to rising above it.

Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...