##################
UFO PING LIST PING LEVEL C
Do I believe that extraterrestrials have visited Earth? Yes I do.
Do I know that extraterrestrials have visited this planet? No, I do not.
One of these things is superior to the other. I think we both know which one it is.
#######################
How do we know if something is
superior/inferior;
good/bad;
beautiful/ugly;
useful/worthless;
holy;profane;
evil;righteous;
############
USUALLY, in order to answer such a question, it’s
BEST
to KNOW
the answers to the following questions:
1. WHAT IS THE RELATED GOAL?
2. WHAT IS THE CRITERIA/STANDARD OF MEASURE THAT LETS YOU KNOW WHEN THE GOAL HAS BEEN REACHED?
3. WHAT IS THE CONTEXT?
BELIEVE ET’s have visited earth vs KNOW they have.
IF the goal is to be as wisely prepared for probable contingencies . . .
IF the criteria or standard of measure is to avoid a TYPE II error say 98% of the time . . .
IF the context is this current era, 2009, November . . .
THEN, . . . believing WOULD BE SUPERIOR TO KNOWING.
KNOWING would leave one far too vulnerable to a potentially—even HIGHLY PROBABLE TO VIRTUALLY CERTAIN deadly TYPE II ERROR.
####################
IF the goal is to never make any decision or take any action or risk any embarrassment by being less than 100% CERTAIN about anything . . . then, for that person, KNOWING would probably be superior—until REALITY bit them in the rear real hard because of their stubborn ignoring of rather obvious facts just short of certainty.
Do you not see the irrationality in what you just posted?
There's no such thing as an "almost" fact. There is fact, and there is speculation and theory. There is nothing else.
Even the most weighty preponderance of circumstantial evidence does not add up to one solitary FACT.
I spelled it out for you in my last post. There is only what we know, and what we do not know. Between those two things there is only the misty grey limbo of belief.
My personal integrity compels me to live with the truth. The truth in my world are those things which I can sense or measure in some way.
George has a dog. His dog continually gets into Sam's yard and terrorizes his cats and his children. Sam has repeatedly asked George to put some control in on his dog, and has finally told him that he'll "put a bullet in that dog if he crosses the fence again", but George just can't seem to keep his dog out of Sam's yard.
One day George comes home and finds Fido cold and lifeless in his back yard with some sort of hole in his head. He immediately "knows" that Sam shot his dog. But does George really "know" this - or is this just his theory, based on all of the circumstantial evidence to hand?
What George really knows, is that his dog is dead, and that there's a hole in his head. Nothing more. He didn't personally witness Sam shoot him, but he's convinced, nonetheless, of the truth of his conclusion.
You see where this is going?
You cannot know what you yourself do not see or sense in some manner. You can accept as true, something that has a great deal of testimony, historical precedent, circumstantial evidence, etc., as true, but you are simply supplanting belief for direct knowledge and indisputable facts.
Having said all that, I admit to having a few of my own beliefs, that is, things that I choose to accept, based on the strength of the subjective reality of others.
By the way, your last post raised both of my eyebrows. I'm not quite sure what to make of it.