.... indeed, as long you peeps refuse to take the test (as suggested).
In order to discern fact from fiction, true from false, one must know what fact is. In order to know what fact is - to be able to recognize fact for what it is; to establish it, 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 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.....................
Which begs the question, why is it that those asked to take it to the test appear reluctent to do so...... what is it you peeps are so afraid of?
Failure no doubt. What if those asked took it to the test ... and failed, then what?
But y'all already failed, didn't ya? How come those spouting all kinds of objections haven't actually shown the proposition they appear to be in disagreement with to be false?
If false, it should be a breeze showing so, provided one knows how to.
But dismissal, of course, is way more easier than refutal.
Not a pretty picture, no sirree, not a pretty picture at all.
But let's insert a happier note and look on the bright side of it by highlighting the positive side of this ... as long as the proposition hasn't been shown false, it stands, as correct. Cool, no?
rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -
New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
CD: short for inevitability