Please use thread "SOLVED! The old battle..."

[Ralph]

Skyler: A lie is intentional misinformation. If the misinformation is not intentional, it's just incorrect. It's not lying."

My persoal opinion is that "A lie is an untruth that is intended to produce harm in others, or to produce gain to the issuer of the untruth, at the expense of others", which, I dare say, is almost the same as what you state. Except that I add the condition of "intended to produce harm...or gain...".

However, back to Webster, that guy writes,
"lie: n. 1 An untruth; falsehood. 2 Anything that deceives or creates a false impression. " (others follow).

So, Webster doesn't condition the untruth to subjective conditions (your "intentional", my "intended"), only to the condition of being true or not (and, who is to be the judge of "true"?). I guess we both disagree with Mr. Webster, don't we? As I like to paraphrase, "truth is in the mind of the beholder".
===============================================

Reasoning should be based on logic. Just because some people misuse it doesn't mean it has to conform to their standards.[quote] Well, we disagree, there. I still hold that logic may be used in reasoning, but, it is not a necessary part of reasoning. For example, if a person has used a reason to express an opinion, I would call that "reasoning"; but, it may be illogical to others.
===============================================
[quote] And like I said, the database should have facts- not theories. For example, it would have fossils, but not the theory of evolution. Everybody has seen fossils, but nobody has seen dinosaurs evolving into birds.

Ahh..., "facts". The late Alfred Kosybski said it very well, in his statement, "Whatever one says something is, it is not." By that statement, he was trying to demonstrate that, no matter how much we talk about something, we will never manage to say everything there is about that thing. Consider that all our "facts" are called so by humans, that is, by subjective beings. "Facts" are nothing more than what and how we perceive existence. As Omar Kayam said (the quote is not accurate), "I have gone in and out of many places, heard many wise men talking about many things, yet no two of them agree totally on any one thing. How, then, can I be expected to know truth?" Or something like that. And on, and on, and on.
===============================================
In trying to form a rational explanation for things, I have read that, when two or more theories (read, "explanations") are validly applicable to the "facts", the simplest one is to be preferred. Also called Occams (spelling?) Razor. So, our scientific talk on "facts" is nothing more than our reasoned beliefs, of which more than one may be valid, but which we reject, in favor of the simplest. Why not?

So, to end this search for the "truth", I state that "Every person has his own truth."

But, my own best striving for peace declares, "Hey, guy, if that's what you believe (or think, or know), that must be the truth!"

Peace to you, Skyler!