No, jack black. Those definitions are copy and paste from the dictionary.
No, jack black. That is not what I'm saying. Subjective is not the same as fictitious. Subjective is based on personal feelings, while fictitious is made up.
No, Hamzah.
Solar wind, I think you're done here.
tl;dr: I don't think there is really an answer to be found for Solar's question.
I might be getting hung up on usage here, but I think whatever version of the word 'know' that is in play to get at Solar's question is not the adj definition; The
showing or suggesting that one has knowledge or awareness that is secret or known to only a few people. We're not talking about the wink and a nudge, the "knowing smile". I mean the secret, known to a few bit has no relevance.
I think what Solar is talking about is "to know". As in you 'know' something to be true based upon information gained through study, experimentation, observation, evidence, that kind of
know. And I think that kind of
know is a little tricky.
Because someone could say "I know God exists because of my study of religious texts and the observations and accounts captured therein." And I would say that's still just a subjective belief, you don't really
know, because I don't find your evidence or observations rigorous enough to truly be considered evidence supporting a statement of "I know..."
It really comes down to veracity of the evidence and how it reaches or exceeds the bar passing up and through belief and into know.
Solar said something interesting, "If flat Earth theory was scientifically based then all evidence would be admissible." I think that strikes at the core of the issue. Or perhaps muddies it and adds yet another layer. Idk
In my example, I don't feel that scripture is evidence to know God exists. Whereas someone else does. I have ostensibly dismissed what someone feels is evidence to know.
In my world, all space exploration evidence is proof positive for me to know that the earth rotates and is round. Whereas FE completely dismisses all my evidence as inadmissible. In their eyes, my globe earth is a belief just like in my eyes, someones existence of God is just a belief. The dividing line is what each accepts as the "know" type of evidence. And I'm not sure you can ever reach an agreement on that for a variety of subjects.
Going back to Solar's point maybe one way to tease it out at least for an FE v RE subject is what is the RE evidence that allows RE to
know that is dismissed by FE and what is the FE evidence that allows FE to
know that is dismissed by RE. As discussed, FE dismisses RE space exploration evidence. What FE evidence does RE dismiss that's as comparably massive as something like space exploration?