I am honestly attempting to determine why you fail to see the consequence of your original words.
Let’s aim to unravel this conundrum.
You originally said “We [ need beliefs ] to interact with reality.” (As I quote you here)
A simple question: Can we conduct science without interacting with that same reality?
Good points.
However, I did link to some definitions clearly in the 3rd comment, from an online dictionary.
Is it possible for you to answer the simple question below?
Objective reality is not affected by our beliefs about it. Nor did I ever remotely suggest it was, as you lied I had in your thread OP.
Where did I supposedly lie or claim you said objective reality is affected by human belief?
Can you point to even (1) example where I had supposedly done that?
Odd. 
Where did I supposedly lie or claim you said objective reality is affected by human belief?
GodBennett some people (several on these forums) think people need to believe in Science for science to hold true.
Also @Sheldon , taking “true” to mean “valid”, can you answer the question below?
I notice you switched from use of the word “true”, to the word “valid”.
6/7/2020 (1 day ago): Sheldon uses the word true.
6/7/2020 (1 day ago): Sheldon uses the word true again.
6/7/2020 (1 day ago): Sheldon uses the word true again.
6/7/2020 (1 day ago): Sheldon uses the word true again
7/7/2020 (suddenly today): Sheldon starts to use the word valid instead of true
Either word works by definition.
God you’re a ‘tard. PERHAPS if you had defined the word “belief” in your own words so we clearly understood WHAT you mean when YOU use it you could clearly SEE the uses of the word and (get this) MEANING…
First instance of Sheldon’s use - self explanatory.
Second instance of Sheldon’s use - equates with “confidence” (eg, “I believe I’ll eat supper tonight” “I believe the sun will rise in the morning” (from our perspective ie a sunrise) BASED on evidence of past experience and confidence that most likely those events will repeat themselves [even though there is a minute chance that it may not occur - one obviously more likely than the other missing a meal vs catastrophic solar event)
Jesus fuckin’Christ!!!
I said you essentially expressed that belief is required to do science, not that belief affects how objective reality is.
Definition was provided in OP, as well as comment 2, about 50 comments before yours.
I already answered this once already, We need to form beliefs about the world or we would not be able to interact with reality, but your claim this means objective reality is only true if we believe it is an absurdly dishonest misrepresentation.
I have no idea what new duplicity you’re attempting with the rest of that verbiage, but scientific facts are both true and valid. More semantics to avoid addressing your OP lie?
What are you talking about?
Please point out where I supposedly said that about objective reality in this thread.
Again, I said Science is true regardless of belief initially, then I said people here thought Science required belief to hold true.
I did not say that beliefs changed how objective reality operates.
NOT IN your own words…
You link and click and pat your back -
get your panties in a knot over Sheldon and something dumb - ANYTHING but actually engage -
discuss-
talk-
AND express yourself.
Stick with you’re AI stuff ‘cause you’re a self-serving robot 
Not worth anymore “time” BECAUSE you (not you’re fucking “papers”) ADD no value!!!
for me anyway 
@Sheldon just stop. You are only digging a larger and larger “grave”, for yourself.
GodBennett "I said you essentially expressed that belief is required to do science, not that belief affects how objective reality is.
Oh dear, I am wondering again now if English really is your first language?
Or are you trying to claim that scientific truths are not part of reality?
One more time then:
**WE NEED TO FORM BELIEFS ABOUT REALITY IN ORDER TO INTERACT WITH IT, AND A BELIEF IS THE AFFIRMATION OF A CLAIM. THE CLAIM DOES NEED US TO BELIEVE IT IN ORDER FOR IT TO HOLD TRUE, AS YOU LIED I HAD CLAIMED IN YOUR OP. **
Do you believe that?
Okay next person. @Sheldon you may continue to argue on this particular topic, but I shall ignore such going forward, due to the following:
@Sheldon has now changed his accusations of me from essentially (1) to (2) below, perhaps because @Sheldon felt cornered by my recent question.
@Sheldon’s accusations since mostly yesterday:
(1) “You lied by saying people here think belief is required for science to hold true”.
to essentially:
@Sheldon’s accusations of me have transformed, just today/recently:
(2) “You lied by saying people here think belief changes how objective reality works”.
You don’t think scientific facts are part of objective reality? Really? You lied in the OP, and misrepresented what I had said, and have relentlessly repeated the lie throughout this thread.
I said we can’t interact with reality without forming beliefs aboout it, you the claimed this mean since we interact with science this meant I was claiming we needed to believe in it (your words) in order for science to hold true.
I will try bullet points.
Christ almighty I could have made a gerbil understand this by now.
Of course you fucking did, you said, and this is a verbatim quote:
Ipso fact you claimed I thought scinetific facts would not hold true unless we believed them, scientific facts are part of objective reality…
I can only hope this is a puerile windup and you’re being deliberately obtuse.
