… would you still want to know?

Here we are picking scabs off some easily accessed epistemological horrors, but there are much nastier ontological horrors waiting for our arrival.

Your call.

Yes, but remember that those who have problems connecting with reality (apparently half of all Americans) argue exclusively about semantics.

They honestly believe that by changing the words, they can literally change reality. That the word itself IS the reality. If they change the definition of the word 'bear' to mean a placid, vegetarian, friendly pile of fur, that the reality of 'bear' actually becomes that.

That's why I claim that the language itself is fiction even if it completely describes fact… because changing it does not have any effect upon the facts that it represents, any more than a story about magic-using werewolves makes those creatures become reality.

a hypothesis, competing or otherwise, is not a fact.

We attach multiple meanings to symbols or words so that we don't go crazy. Life is much easier when you don't have to redefine the chair every morning.

So in a way, scientists who want to keep uncovering the 'truth' are always fighting a losing game. However, I am interested in natural law. I strongly believe that there are some undeniable truths, which governments like to paint as subjective so they can suit their interests and keep people in confusion.

But then, lefty lunatics and righty anarchists have been shaving the wrong way with Occam's razor for a long, long time… and most of that shaving was with the wrong blade.

they claim that Occam's razor is "The simplest thing must be the truth". The actual phrase, however, is 'among competing hypothesis' (meaning the absence of supporting evidence) 'the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected'

Occam's razor, therefore, strongly supports deism as opposed to atheism… because the random creation of the universe requires, literally, MILLIONS of assumptions, from the 'random' creation of the law of gravity to whatever happenstance created the first life, and of course the millions of unproven assumptions that are required to move from 'first life' to 'scratching your balls as you wake up in the morning and make yourself toast.'

the theory that is the simplest, however, is 'something more powerful than we can understand created the universe and the laws by which it functions'.

'rational skeptics' are basically cargo cultist. It is much more rational to live your life as if it matters, even if that is an unproven 'truth', because evidence supports it.

this definition of 'Lie' is so broad as to be meaningless. is anyone pretending that the word 'bear' is an actual bear?

using the language in this way would render communication, even thought itself, impossible.

i thought of a bear in my head, which means that i'm lying to myself, because my mental engram of a bear can't eat honey.

i told you about the bear in my head, now i'm lying to you.

*shrugs*