- information gained or acquired from another; not part of one's direct knowledge
For most of the time humans have been on Earth, if they wished to observe something, they had to be physically present. Stories told around campfires would create images, some more fantasized than others, but beyond that, ancient man was fairly firmly rooted to the reality as interpreted by its own senses. As painting developed, but more importantly, as photography developed; first still, then moving, people could be exposed to images of things they had not seen themselves.
Today, we are even exposed to images of things that are, in fact, deliberate fakes. The conscious part of our brain knows when we see a movie, we are seeing actors, in costumes, on a set, being filmed. On the other hand, these images are stored in our brains without a label that reads: false image.
Our six senses; vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch and intuition are our only contact with the world outside our bodies. These senses send data to the brain, which processes it and stores it in a memory bank.
This is important when you realize that, during a lifetime, literally millions and millions of false images are stored in our brains. The further we get from the moment we first saw the false image, the more difficult it is to sort out what is a true image and what is a false image.
For example, if the Civil War comes up, most of us will pull up images from the movie 'Gone With The Wind' or images from the public services about the war. None of us experienced the actual event. Our only visual images of it are from photographs, artwork and Hollywood sets. None of these captures the reality of the event in its wholeness. Bear in mind then, that we know nothing about the past except what we have been told in words, artwork, photographs and film - produced by others.
Consider something that we have been told happened, in fact, did not happen? Consider that all the words we've read and heard about it and all the images we have seen in artwork, photographs and film, were, in fact, deliberately chosen to deceive us?
It's stunning, when you think about it, that 100 percent of our knowledge of the past is created in our own minds by words and images produced by other people. The same goes for much of our knowledge of the present.
We can be in only one place at one time and directly experience what is within range of our senses. Beyond that, we rely on words and images transmitted to us by others. Whether these words and images are indeed accurate reflections of the real things is difficult for us to know.
Yet, the most sure way to establish truth is by facts which are determined by the properties that define them.
However, in order to discern fact from fiction; true from false, one must know what fact is. In order to know what fact is - to establish it; to be able to recognize fact for what it is, especially when not directly obvious - one must know what the properties are that define fact - and it helps to know what fallacies are too; we discern the one by the other.
Here's the clincher:
When you are asked to cite the properties that define fact, chances are - although it is very likely that you think you have a pretty good beat on what 'fact' entails - you'll discover you can't. Go ahead, take it to the test, and amaze yourself ....................
Took the test? Interesting, no?
But if you are unable to recognize; and therefore fail to name, the elementary properties of fact, how then can you trust yourself to discern fact from fiction and true from false?
But .... we have a wonderful tool to bypass this oddity: logic.
Logic demands explicit entails implicit. So, if what is explicitly posed is true, then what it necessarily infers or implies must logically be true as well - if not, then it is incontrovertibly axiomatic there is something amiss with the explicitly posed.
On 9-11-01, '19 fanatical, fundamentalistic, Arab, Muslim, 'terrist', I'll-killya hijackers', masterminded by an evil Muslim genius, in a cave, boarded 4 separate planes on American airports, took control, simultaniously, while in flight, armed with boxcutters, and flew those planes, including crews, passengers, and themselves to their doom, with no other motive than 'they hate our freedoms', in the process causing considerable loss of life, totally destroying 3 buildings, 2 of them sky-scrapers hundred-and-something stories high and seriously damaging a 4th building: the pentagon, off all places.
However, 'them terrists' did not carry signs, did not wear t-shirts, had no stamps on their foreheads etc., saying :
"Hi, I am a 'terrist' ..... about to blow up stuff!"
So, how are we .. you, me, anyone .. based upon what is actually known, going to establish, after the events, since 'them terrists' were not known as such before the events - because if they were known as 'terrists' they wouldn't have made it on the planes in the first place - and without parroting hearsay as truth, of course, who is who and who did what?
We can't. No one can. Why not? Simple. It is due to the elusive nature of the main players. The thing this whole story centers around is missing; remains invisible: 'the hijackers'. Well, not really - at leasts 7 of the purported 'terrists' seemed to have turned up alive and well after the fact.
Anyway, the bottom line is The Chain:
In order to produce C: '19 fanatical, fundamentalistic, Arab, Muslim, 'terrist', I'll-killya hijackers', we need to do so
A : in an unbroken chain of establised facts/events
B : by eliminating all other possibilities
When not A and B, no C.
-propositions of a transcendent, immaterial nature equal incoherency as such connotations have no ontological status-
Brought to you by:
**And I still feel the content of my posts should be scrutinized on their own merits and nothing else (mumble .. grumble .. mutter)**
- fallacious, abductive, inductive, deductive
are the basic modes of reasoning -- when we
fail to discern between them, we are destined
to act accordingly ......
... after all, logic demands explicit contains implicit
so, iff what is explicitly posed is true, then what it
necessarily infers or implies must logically be true
as well - if not, then it is incontrovertibly axiomatic
there is something amiss with the explicitly posed ...
... and such is the excruciating irony of incomprehensibility
& self-refutation; those oblivious of it are indispensably
the experts in applying it, in effect, revealing the exact
opposite of apparent intent thereby granting the courtesy
of instant clarification.
Mice In A Maze-Going In Circles
Ardent believers turn out to be quite useful creatures
because they seem to be some sort of omniscient.
You can therefore always depend on them to tell you
exactly what your thoughts and feelings are
and what your opinions and conduct should be.
It is as it is - It goes as it goes
New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!
If it doesn't go, that's how it goes
If it isn't, then that's how it is
There is forgiveness. Unfortunately, forgiveness doesn't mean a thing
..... when not applied that is. Therefore, it is I who forgive, publically
those who either dare or will not - for, as it seems, they are not ready
yet, to do so by themselves; out of themselves. I hereby thus, plow
the road; leading the way, for those eager to walk that walk as well.
JVH, July 20, 2010, 2:22