General Question

flo's avatar

What does the term demonstrably real mean? See detail.

Asked by flo (13313points) February 12th, 2019

If someone conned me, (let’s say I believed it is gold when it’s fake), it’s demonstrably real that I was conned, and that the fake thing is demonstrably real according to me. If no one else was conned that’s demonstrably real too, right?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

11 Answers

Zaku's avatar

No.

Demonstably means it can be demonstrated.

So you can show me some fake gold and tell me about it, but to demonstrate you were conned, I’d need some more evidence. After all, I have some fool’s gold, but is was sold to me as such. I wasn’t conned. I can sort of demonstrate I wasn’t conned because there’s a label on it saying what it is, but I whether I was conned or not is likely impossible to demonstrate conclusively because being conned is about the communication and understanding, so there’s rarely a lot of evidence unless there was a recording of the conversations.

It’s even harder to prove the absence of something, so for your second question – it’s almost impossible demonstrate no one else was conned unless you specify what context (certain people, during a certain time period) and then provide some evidence that it didn’t happen (like you have evidence they were locked in a cell or didn’t have physical access to the other potential victims, or something).

Tropical_Willie's avatar

When you see water on the stove heated and there are bubbles coming off the water.
It is demonstrably real that the water is boiling.

stanleybmanly's avatar

If “the fake thing” is demonstrably real according to you, then it is assumed that you are claiming the ability to either prove it through demonstration, or point to such a proof.

flo's avatar

@Zaku What about the key word “if” in my OP?

flo's avatar

@stanleybmanly That Many people believed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping is demonstrably real. Polio is/was real, and the vaccination against it is also real. To say x and y are demonstrably real to answer the question how they (x and y) are similar is saying nothing.

stanleybmanly's avatar

It’s saying that x and y are genuine and I can demonstrate their existence. To drive home the point, consider the imaginary rapture claims of that quack Camp.

flo's avatar

@stanleybmanly What if your child’s teacher showed you that?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Showed me what?

Zaku's avatar

@flo I just saw your follow-up question. I don’t think it’s been entirely clear to us what you’re getting at with the question. I’ll try again, but I think I’m still confused what you’re asking.

“If someone conned me, (let’s say I believed it is gold when it’s fake), it’s demonstrably real that I was conned, and that the fake thing is demonstrably real according to me.”
– I don’t really follow what you mean by the specific wording here. I don’t think I would choose those words.
– I would tend to say that if someone conned you, and we’re still talking about the fram of reference where “the fake thing is ‘demonstrably real’ according to you”, then I would rather use other words, for example, “someone gave you a demonstration that seemed to indicate that the gold was real gold.” In that context, I think I would not tend to also write “it’s demonstrably real that I was conned”.
– My reaction tends to be along the lines of, “maybe flo is saying that the con artist gave a demonstration that convinced me the gold was real, but in hindsight, it was a con and a more compelling demonstration can be made that the gold is in fact false.”
– But again, I’m not sure if that’s what you’re looking for for an answer, or not.

“If no one else was conned that’s demonstrably real too, right?”
– Again, I’m confused about what you are asking here.
– You seem to be wondering what “demonstrably real” means, and so I think the answer to your question is something like:
“Demonstrably real” is a subjective expression used by someone asserting and hoping to be convincing that a convincing demonstration can be made that something is really true. It seems to me it is often used in a disagreement about facts where someone may be a bit exasperated that someone still disagrees with them, so they are asserting that there are ready demonstrations that should convince reasonable people that they are correct. Such arguments are IME fairly often met with counter-claims that the opposite is “demonstrably true”. (i.e. it can be a sign that people don’t understand that they’re talking with incompatible contexts in mind.)

flo's avatar

@Zaku Thank you. I’m still reading it.

flo's avatar

@Zaku I think we wasted a ton of time this time. But it’s my OP, my fault.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther