[coolhand2120]

> there is a huge difference between a belief and a fact.

What if a fact is disputed? Do you not have to choose which fact to believe?

Gestalting between two disputed facts is the basis for scientific revolutions.

Ptolemaic astronomers certainly had a belief that epicycles were "fact" and made every non-scientific attempt to destroy heliocentrism. Only when enough people didn't _believe_ in that "fact" did we evolve to better understanding.

You can say "these were not facts and were just flawed observations", but you'll ignore that Ptolemaics _said_ these ideas were facts and had strong evidence and a belief that it really was.

This model can be applied over and over again to many domains. This isn't my idea, rather it comes from the seminal work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by TS Kuhn.

So, no, there is not a bold line between belief and fact. We choose what facts to believe.

[bdangubic]

we choose what facts to believe.

this just might be the craziest thing I’ve read recently but given the current state of affairs not all that surprising…

[coolhand2120]

I cited a major academic work to back up my position and gave a real world example to demonstrate the concept. What about Khun is crazy? You should attempt to engage in the topic and avoid ad hominem attacks. Or are you of the opinion that “we don’t believe in facts”?