Alright, since it seems my interlocutor has abandoned the conversation, his statement deserves some attention.

"This is a suck topic" <----there it is.

Ok. First, we need to ask ourselves if this is the sort of thing that can be true? Well, it is a statement of belief; however, it is one which is not truth-apt in the same way that "The sun is hot" is. What I mean by that is that the statement in question is a statement of personal preference. The problem is that what is implicit in the claim need be made explicit so that we can properly assess it.

A topic is not the sort of thing that can "suck" in the same way that it can be... say, about tigers. The difference here is key. The former is about personal preferences, whereas the latter is about matters of fact. The speaker evidently doesn't find the topic interesting nor worthy of discussion, which is fine of course, because it need not be found interesting by everyone in order to be interesting to some and useful to all.

So, if we make the implicit explicit we would arrive at something like this...

"I think that this topic sucks."

Now, if it is the case that the speaker believe his own words then the statement above would be true.

Yeah, I dunno.

It's rather curious to me that some folk seem to have no interest in what makes things true, or in what sorts of things can be so. I mean, these sorts of things pervade our everyday lives on a very real level. We all assume that what we believe is true. We take these things for granted... constantly. The consequences of not knowing what it is that makes belief true could be quite severe, for if one does not know that much, how could they be possibly expected to be able to tell the difference between what's true and what's not.

This lack in awareness is apparent if one just looks at what American society has accepted with regard to politics, and the like. Ah, but I digress...

I personally think that knowing these sorts of things to the best of our ability is crucial to having a good grasp on the way things are.

I suppose some folk don't see it that way...

Oh, now you've gone and shown that you don't understand what truth us nor how it works. And I was so hopeful.

What does "the truth of the matter" mean?

I mean... define truth as it is used in that phrase.

Not at all. Our agreement(I assume) is what it would take for that particular statement to be true, not that it is so.

You do understand the difference, right?

So, reformulated we would have something like...

'This is a suck topic' is true if, and only if, this is a suck topic.

Yeah, I'd go with that formulation.

Well, I can't say that I'd disagree with the 'formulation', but the conclusion, I do.

This thread seeks to discuss what sorts of things can be true. Now, I want to say here that I'm not talking about every common use of the term "true". Rather I'm talking about being true in the sense of corresponding to and/or agreeing with fact; reality; the way things are.

I propose the candidate of beliefs, which entails statements thereof. It seems to me that belief and the statements thereof are true or not.

So, if this is accepted, then what makes a statement true/false? If it is not accepted, then put forth a counterargument.



Hopefully this thread will do something. Although, it seems that those who are philosophically inclined do not venture into here much anymore...

There's a bit of irony here. Kepler was one of the first observation based scientists... you know, evidence based?

Still no better than you were years ago, I see...

We are all entitled to our own opinions. We are not entitled to our own facts. The fact is that "science is all about positing things that are based upon the evidence we have" is not an attitude at all. It is a statement about science, and it's true.



That would all depend upon the kind of boundary we're talking about. Other than that, I don't see an argument here. I see, once again, the peddling of mere opinion. Got an argument?

Ya think so, huh?



This is funny. After you charge me with "overthinking", you then proceed to delve even deeper into thought than I, all-the-while never once addressing what I did say...

Ho hum...

Bah.

While I agree with the sentiment above... I think. Much of your verbage seems to be quite tainted. I mean, I'm not sure of willing's motives, and I already know that he and I do not agree on politics, however, it seems to me that many of the comments you've been making are a bit snide and unless you know him personally, I think that your letting your own past color your current experience to such an extant that you may be projecting a bit...

Just sayin'. I could be wrong, too... so...

Oh no you don't. Being me isn't all it's cracked up to be.

The original poster of this thread is quite a special soul... May her world be bright and her face smiling.



Love and light to you Jess.

Science is both, based upon current knowledge - which is based upon and verified with observation(evidence), and it relies on verification(observational evidence)...

Again, imagination plays a role, perhaps even a key role, Einstein's thought experiments immediately come to mind. But...

The issue was posed towards looking for planets capable of sutaining life as we know it. I simply stating that life as we know it, in all of it's forms, requires water.

We could imagine all sorts of life that doesn't require what life as we know it does. One of those imaginings may indeed reflect a life form that exists unbeknownst to us. However, there is limited funding, effort, and time to invest in looking for things like planets that would sustain life. It makes no sense whatsoever for us to spend, time, effort, and limited funding seeking planets that would would support some imagined(perhaps possible, perhaps not) life form, that we have absolutely no knowledge of.

Rubbish. Gratuitous and irrelevant assertion anyone?

It's always easiest to attack a position by first misconstruing it.

Well done.

I' not sure how much "imagination" science consists of. Rather, it seems to me that that statement is untenable and/or unjustifiable. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that imagination isn't sometimes key, if by "imagination" I mean the ability to infer, deduce, and/or envision something novel, something new. Nothing you've said here contradicts anything I've said. I fail to see the counterargument or point which applies to my own.

What is the following supposed to mean?



"...just because we don't know something doesn't mean it can't exist."

That sounds like nonsense to me. I mean, things that exist aren't the sort of things that can be known. It doesn't make much sense to talk about knowing my car, or the sun, or some such. Knowing "something", when talking about knowing about the world and/or ourselves as opposed to knowing how to breathe or walk or some such, usually refers to knowing something about something. I know my car in the sense of I know what my car looks like, how it drives, etc.

To know something is to know something about something. One cannot know something about that which does not exist, real, imagined, or otherwsise.

Of course things exist which we are unaware of. At least, that's the only reasonable inference I can make based upon the history of human knowledge.

Sorry funky, but you're ill-informed. All life as we know it requires water. There is no life that we're aware of that does not require water. Every bit of evidence suggests that, and there is no evidence that doesn't. "Evidence" here being every instance of life that we know of. We know of no life form which doesn't require water.

That's just the way it is.

That sad, we can imagie all sorts of things, however, those things exist only by means of our imagination.

The reason why we use life as we know it as a model in order to establish what other planets are capable of sustaining life is because it is life as we know it. It's the only way we know that it exists. Saying that life may not require water is saying that life may not be as we know it. That is fine to say, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support positing such life. Science is all about positing thngs that are based upon the evidence we have...

Religion involves believing in a supernatural entity of some sort or other. Atheism denies the existence of any and all supernatural entities. It is the lack of such belief. Therefore, atheism is - by definition alone - NOT a religion.

The OP has committed the error of confusing every kind of thought/belief with religious thought/belief.