Let me begin with a confession: I honestly don’t know what to make of the “miracle of the sun” that occurred in Fatima, Portugal, on October 13, 1917, and that was witnessed by a crowd of 70,000 people (although a few people in the crowd saw nothing) and also by people who were more than 10 kilometers away from Fatima at the time, as well as by sailors on a British ship off the coast of Portugal. On the other hand, no astronomical observatory recorded anything unusual at the time.
Rather than endorsing a particular point of view, I have decided to lay the facts before my readers, and let them draw their own conclusions.
Here are some good links, to get you started.
Neutral accounts of the visions and the “solar miracle” at Fatima:
Our Lady of Fatima (Wikipedia article: describes the visions leading up to the solar miracle). Generally balanced.
Miracle of the Sun (Wikipedia article). Discusses critical explanations of the miracle, and points out that people both in Fatima and the nearby town of Alburitel were expecting some kind of solar phenomenon to occur on October 13, 1917: some had even brought along special viewing glasses. Also, the solar miracle on October 13 was preceded by some bizarre celestial phenomena witnessed by bystanders at the preceding vision on September 13, including “a dimming of the sun to the point where the stars could be seen, and a rain resembling iridescent petals or snowflakes that disappeared before touching the ground.” In short: the “solar miracle” of October 13, 1917 didn’t come entirely as a bolt from the blue.
The Fatima Prophecies by Stephen Wagner, Paranormal Phenomena Expert. Updated April 10, 2016.
Catholic, pro-miracle accounts:
Meet the Witnesses of the Miracle of the Sun by John Haffert. Spring Grove, Pennsylvania: The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, 1961. John M. Haffert is a co-founder of the Blue Army of Fatima. He interviewed dozens of witnesses of the solar miracle at Fatima, and carefully records their testimonies in his book.
The True Story of Fatima by Fr. John de Marchi. St. Paul, Minnesota: Catechetical Guild Educational Society, 1956. Fr. de Marchi is an acknowledged expert on Fatima, whose account is based on the testimony of the seers, members of their families, and other acquaintances.
The Sixth Apparition of Our Lady. A short article containing eyewitness recollections, from the EWTN Website Celebrating 100 years of Fatima. (Very well-produced and easy to navigate.)
The Apparitions at Fatima. A short account of the visions and the solar miracle.
Catholic attempts to rebut skeptical debunkings of the solar miracle at Fatima:
Debunking the Sun Miracle Skeptics by Mark Mallett, a Canadian Catholic evangelist and former TV reporter. The author’s tone is irenic, and he evaluates the evidence fairly. His blog is well worth having a look at.
Ten Greatest (And Hilarious) Scientific Explanations for Miracle at Fatima by Matthew Archbold. National Catholic Register. Blog article. March 27, 2011. Rather polemical and sarcastic in tone.
Why the solar miracle couldn’t have been a hallucination:
Richard Dawkins And The Miracle Of Sun by Donal Anthony Foley. The Wanderer, Saturday, November 5, 2016. Makes the telling point that it was seen by sailors on a passing ship, who knew nothing about the visions.
A Catholic account by a scientist-priest who thinks that the “miracle” was a natural meteorological phenomenon, but that the coincidence between the timing of this natural event and the vision can only have a supernatural explanation:
Miracle of the Sun and an Air Lens (Theory of Father Jaki) by Dr. Taylor Marshall. Blog article. “Fr Jaki suggests that an ‘air lens’ of ice crystals formed above the Cova in Portugual. This lens would explain how the sun ‘danced’ at Fatima, but not over the whole earth. Thus, it was a local phenomenon that was seen at the Cova, and by others who were not present with the three children of Fatima within a 40 mile radius.” An air lens would also explain how the muddy and wet ground at the site of the apparitions suddenly dried up, after the miracle.
God and the Sun at Fatima by Fr. Stanley Jaki. Real View Books, 1999. Reviewed by Martin Kottmeyer. See also the attached footnote by Joaquim Fernandes, Center for Transdisciplinary Study on Consciousness, University Fernando Pessoa, Porto, Portugal, who argues that on the contrary, it was a UFO.
A Catholic, “anti-miracle” account by a scientist who thinks it was an optical illusion:
Apparitions and Miracles of the Sun by Professor Auguste Meessen, Institute of Physics, Catholic Univeristy of Louvain, Belgium. Paper given at the International Forum in Porto, “Science, Religion and Conscience,” October 23-25, 2003. Excerpt:
“So-called “miracles of the sun” were observed, for instance, in Tilly-sur-Seuilles (France, 1901), Fatima (Portugal, 1917), Onkerzeele (Belgium, 1933), Bonate (Italy, 1944), Espis (France, 1946), Acquaviva Platani (Italy, 1950), Heroldsbach (Germany, 1949), Fehrbach (Germany, 1950), Kerezinen (France, 1953), San Damiano (Italy, 1965), Tre Fontane (Italy, 1982) and Kibeho (Rwanda, 1983). They have been described by many witnesses and from their reports we can extract the following characteristic features, appearing successively.
“· A grey disc seems to be placed between the sun and the observer, but a brilliant rim of the solar disc is still apparent…
· Beautiful colours appear after a few minutes on the whole surface of the solar disc, at its rim and in the surrounding sky. These colours are different, however, and they change in the course of time…
· The sun begins to ‘dance’. First, the solar disk rotates about its centre at a uniform and rather high velocity (about 1 turn/s). Then the rotation stops and starts again, but now it is opposite to the initial one. Suddenly, the solar disk seems to detach itself from the sky. It comes rapidly closer, with increasing size and brilliancy. This causes great panic, since people think that the end of the world has come, but the sun retreats. It moves backwards until it has again its initial appearance…
· Finally, after 10 or 15 minutes, the sun is ‘normal’ again: its luminosity is too strong to continue gazing at it. But after about another quarter of an hour, the prodigy can be repeated in the same way…
“…It is shown that the hypothesis of an extraterrestrial intervention is not sufficient to explain all observed facts, while this is possible in terms of natural, but very peculiar physiological processes. The proof results from personal experiments and reasoning, based on relevant scientific literature.
“…Dr. J.B. Walz, a university professor of theology, collected over 70 eye-witness reports of the ‘miracle of the sun’ that occurred in Heroldsbach [an ecclesiastically condemned apparition – VJT] on December 8, 1949. These documents disclose some individual differences in perception, including the fact that one person saw the sun approaching and receding three times, while most witnesses saw this only two times! The ‘coloured spheres’ that were usually perceived after the breathtaking ‘dance of the sun’ are simply after-images, but they were not recognized as such, since the context of these observations suggested a prodigious interpretation.
“…The general conclusion is that apparitions and miracles of the sun cannot be taken at face value. There are natural mechanisms that can explain them, but they are so unusual that we were not aware of them. Miracles of the sun result from neurophysiological processes in our eyes and visual cortex, while apparitions involve more complex processes in our mind’s brain. The seers are honest, but unconsciously, they put themselves in an altered state of consciousness. This is possible, since our brain allows for ‘dissociation’ and for ‘switching’ from one type of behaviour to another.”
Meessen’s own explanation of the miracle as an optical illusion is based on experiments which he performed on himself, while looking at the sun under carefully controlled conditions (so as not to damage his eyes). However, I should point out that Meessen’s exposure to the sun’s optical effects was fairly short in duration (30 seconds), whereas the solar miracle at Fatima lasted far longer (over 10 minutes) and didn’t damage any of the spectators’ eyes.
Catholic blogger Mark Mallett also points out: “Professor Meesen’s logic further falls apart by stating that the dancing effects of the sun were merely the result of retinal after-images. If that were the case, then the miracle of the sun witnessed at Fatima should be easily duplicated in your own backyard.”
However, Meessen does a good job of debunking the “UFO hypothesis”: he points out that had it been a UFO covering the sun, it could not have been seen 40 kilometers away. Also, at least some witnesses would have reported seeing a “partial eclipse,” but none ever did.
A paranormal explanation of the solar miracle at Fatima:
The First Alien Contact And UFO Sighting Of The 20th Century by Tob Williams. Blog article. April 10, 2011. Updated June 18, 2016.
The Fatima UFO hypothesis by Lon Strickler. February 11, 2012.
https://www.paranormalnews.com/article.aspx?id=1562
“Live Science” debunking of the solar miracle:
The Lady of Fátima & the Miracle of the Sun by Benjamin Radford. May 2, 2013. Ascribes the miracle to “an optical illusion caused by thousands of people looking up at the sky, hoping, expecting, and even praying for some sign from God,” which, “if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.” Also suggests that mass hysteria and pareidolia can explain some features of the visions.
Skeptic Benjamin Radford on the Fátima Miracle by Dr. Stacy Trasancos. A response to Radford’s debunking. Points out that plenty of dispassionate observers at Fatima also reported seeing the sun move. Promotes Fr. Stanley L. Jaki’s carefully researched book on Fatima. Acknowledges that there may be a scientific explanation for what happened with the sun that day, but argues that this doesn’t explain the timing of the event, and why it coincided with the visions.
Virulently anti-Fatima accounts:
Solar Miracle of Fatima and
Fraud at Fatima. The author places too much reliance on discredited sources, such as Celestial Secrets: The Hidden History of the Fatima Incident by Portuguese UFOlogist Joachim Fernandes (critically reviewed here by Edmund Grant). The author also tries to argue, unconvincingly, that only half the people at Fatima actually witnessed the miracle, whereas in fact there were only a few people who saw nothing. See Jaki, Stanley L. (1999). God and the Sun at Fátima, Real View Books, pp. 170–171, 232, 272. The author is right in pointing out, however, that Lucia’s own published account of her visions at Fatima is highly retrospective (being written over 20 years after the event) and contains a lot of added material. Also, the seers didn’t all see the same thing: Lucia, for instance, saw Our Lady’s lips move while she was speaking, while Francisco (who saw Our Lady but never heard her speak), didn’t see Our Lady’s lips moving – a point acknowledged by Fr. de Marchi (see above). Finally, some of the prophecies associated with Fatima turned out to be false.
My own take:
Given the evidence that the solar miracle was witnessed by passing sailors and also seen at several different locations within a 40-kilometer radius of Fatima, I cannot simply dismiss it as a hallucination. Professor Meessen’s arguments (discussed above) appear to rule out the possibility that it was a UFO. The theory that it was an optical illusion founders on the fact that nobody reported any damage to their eyes, subsequent to the miracle. The hypothesis that it was a natural, local meteorological phenomenon sounds promising, but the fortuitous timing of the “miracle” (which coincided with the seers’ visions) would still point to supernatural intervention of some sort. Finally, if it was really a miracle, then one has to ask: what, exactly, was the miracle? After all, no law of Nature was broken: no-one seriously suggests that the Sun actually hurtled towards the Earth, as witnesses reported. The notion of God messing with people’s senses sounds pretty strange, too: why would He do that? On the other hand, the testimony of 70,000 witnesses is very impressive, and the event clearly meant something … but what? Beats me.
Over to you.
It’s nothing to do with the son’s power….an omniscient son cannot reveal anything to an omniscient father by definition because the father knows everything already. And if he doesn’t he’s not omniscient.
Here’s your mad loop…..
The Son tells the Father he’s omniscient.
“How do you know this?” asks the Father.
“Because I am omniscient” says the Son.
“How do you know this?” asks the Father?
“The Holy Ghost told me” says the Son.
The Father asks the Holy Ghost….
“You told my Son he is omniscient….how do you know this?”
“Because I am omniscient” says the Holy Ghost.
“How do you know this?” asks the Father.
“You told me.” says the Holy Ghost.
“And how do I know you’re omniscient?” the Father asks.
“Because you too are omniscient.” the Holy Ghost tells him.
“But how can I know this?” the Father asks.
“Because I told you.” the Son says.
Sure I can. I can be as dense as I want to be.
If you’re talking about my uncle, you are indeed being rude. Rumraket is alive and has posted here. Your false god has never posted here. Rumraket is at least eight in one, your false god is a paltry three only.
And I, personally don’t believe in either of them (i.e., I think neither is a deity). You and my uncle are about the same, although he makes more sense than you do.
Right, that’s the capital R “Reveal.” FMM, also likes to use the small r “reveal” as when he says his grandmother reveals things to him that he can then know.
So, on the one hand, revelation is a natural, ordinary thing that allows people to know things, and on the other it’s a special, supernatural thing that depends on somebody (or somebodies) being omniscient and omnipotent as well as the fabulous group known as “The Incarnations.” (Check out their latest release on The Christian Radio Network)
Knowing both requires a circle and does not. It requires a regression stoppage and insists on a regression.
It’s a holy/unholy mess. Silliest of seasons.
Atheists are supposed to be the reasonable, rational sort. But when you really look into it, they aren’t at all. Now that could say something about atheists, or about people in general, including religious people.
I prefer to think it’s only atheists who are irrational. 😀
I grant that people generally are full of shit. So we have to look at each claim individually (and not take people who insist they’re not making claims seriously).
keiths, to fifth:
Mung:
Don’t pretend that it’s voluntary, Mung.
I may change my mind about having some alcohol tonight, lol.
Not really. Real skeptics deny the possibility of knowledge. What we have here at TSZ are faux skeptics.
Another uniquely human trait!
😀
LoL. Good one.
So you like turtles too. Cool
If you had to choose you’d choose to worship Rumraket over Yahweh correct?
That is what I understood you to mean anyway.
As it is you choose to value something above both of them.
We call that thing that you value most of all your god
peace
Woodbine,
Your snake has only one head it’s unitarian.
Although it’s not perfect a better picture would be found here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity
check it out
peace
No on both hands it’s a natural ordinary thing that allows people to know things. The difference is the persons involved not revelation.
peace
From the link I provided
quote:
The following twelve propositions can be read off the diagram:
"The Father is God"
"The Son is God"
"The Holy Spirit is God"
"God is the Father"
"God is the Son"
"God is the Holy Spirit"
"The Father is not the Son"
"The Father is not the Holy Spirit"
"The Son is not the Father"
"The Son is not the Holy Spirit"
"The Holy Spirit is not the Father"
"The Holy Spirit is not the Son
end quote:
That sums it up 😉
The question is not whether you find the Christian God to be obscure and foolish. Of course you do.
The Question is what alternative do you have.
In other words
How do you know?
peace
There you go again with the temporal talk.
There is no “already” with God (a se). The Father knows eternally because the Son reveals eternally.
peace
PS It’s comments like this that make repetition necessary
I don’t think FMM is afraid. It’s just laziness. He’s not willing to put in the work that would be necessary to understand why he’s confused about justification or why he’s mistaken to think that “what justifies knowledge?” is an intelligible question.
To recap: justification is a criterion of a belief being considered knowledge. Knowledge is justified true belief, if one accepts the standard view. The really interesting questions are about how justification works. I’m very interested in the argument for context-sensitivity to justification — for example, how epistemic standards vary from one kind of social practice to another. (Arguably ID got started by conflating the epistemic standards of scientific explanation and criminal justice.)
There’s something to the idea that there’s a puzzle about how we can tell whether justification is adequate. I suppose I want to think about it in terms of what justification is for.
If one thinks about the role of argument or reasoning in discursive practices, one can find room for the thought that we engage in justification in order to reach agreement (or at least a modus vivendi). And we do that because the human form of life depends on successful cooperation. One could generate cooperation with top-down, hierarchically structured subordination. But that is unstable (because resistance and revolution) and inefficient. A better long-term way of achieving cooperation is through argument that produces agreement.
Looked at that way, “how do we know when we’ve reached sufficient justification of p?” is answered with “when disagreement about p is not a barrier to successful cooperation.”
Of course this requires that justification be kept distinct from truth, if one thinks that truth (or something like it) involves “correspondence to reality”.
And it does make justification a wholly contingent, local affair. A proposition or theory can be justified at a time for a particular community and not be justified when the community becomes aware of contradictory evidence.
That’s why I call myself a pragmatist, and not a skeptic. I don’t deny the possibility of knowledge; I insist on the fallibility of all real knowledge.
You assume that I’m not familiar with the scholarship surrounding epistemology.
There is a difference between being familiar and being convinced.
again
How do you know that this is the proper way to know stuff?
Opinions are like bellybuttons we all have them.
You like cooperation I like pizza.
peace
PS I know you think this is unnecessary repetition but you demonstrate that repetition is necessary because you continue to present opinion as if it was actual knowledge
I second this. He’s had a year now to write his “game” in a form that could be used in a browser. The game that could determine if there is a mind behind the universe, or something to do with ID or something. As such, it’s surprising that he simply has not bothered to put in the effort as the payoffs are so potentially large.
I think that “what justifies belief?” is an intelligible question. I don’t understand why when the question becomes “what justifies knowledge?” the question becomes unintelligible.
That is a interesting point.
You would grant that belief is necessary for knowledge wouldn’t you?
peace
In fact I’m hoping to use my game next week in an experiment to determine if people are secretly working to scuttle a new industrial process.
It’s Interesting stuff indeed.
As far as putting it all in a browser the benefits need to outweigh the cost and your continued misunderstanding makes it hard to convince myself that that is the case
peace
Yes, but I am not sure it makes sense to say that God has beliefs.
Because knowledge is justified true belief, it doesn’t stand in need of justification.
The difference between “what justifies a belief?” and “what justifies knowledge?” is like the difference between “how much does a stone weigh?” and “how much does one kilogram weigh?”
In the first two questions, you are using a criterion to assess something to which the criterion can be applied. In the second two questions, you are applying the same criterion to itself and pretending that it’s just as a meaningful a question.
Here are some better ways of putting the question (I think):
“what is our best account of justification, and what are the strengths and weakness of that account compared to its rivals?”
“what is the function of justification in our linguistic practices?”
“how can we tell if a belief is justified or not?”
and no doubt there are others as well!
Remembering my British weights and measure, I believe a stone weighs 14 lbs while a kilogram weighs 2.2 lbs.
(I don’t think that was what you meant).
Actually no, the ability to do something is different from the knowledge of what to do, He needs to know how to do it( omniscience) and the ability to do it.
He certainly could not change them, so revelation would serve no purpose
Great point. Expect some apoplectic apologetic acrobatics from FMM to explain that one away
Indeed, it was not. A better way of seeing the nonsense that FMM insists on would be to ask something like “how much does one kilogram weigh (in kilograms)?” or “how much does one kilogram weigh according to the absolutely true and necessarily correct system of measures that there is?”
again how do you know that?
If you are unable to make sense of
“What justifies knowledge?” surely you can get your head around “How do you know?”
The sentences in this context are synonymous
FMM: How do you know?
KN: I don’t need to know because knowledge does not stand in need of justification
FMM: How could you possibly know that?
The fact that you have no problem answering both questions shows that KNs dichotomy is ill-conceived. He needs to think a little deeper.
peace
IYO Does it make sense to say “The Son believes that the Father loves him?”
quote:
“Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven: “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.”
(Joh 12:27-28)
and
In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.
(Heb 5:7-8)
end quote:
peace
It weighs one kilogram
It weighs exactly one kilogram.
One kilogram could not weigh anything other than one kilogram because that would violate the law of non-contradiction
See how easy that was?
peace
The issue here is whether “how do you know?” is a question that always makes sense, or if it is context-specific.
Abe: “Don’t eat the green berries, they aren’t ripe yet.”
Susan: “How do you know?”
Abe: “Because I was told that once, and then I was curious, so I ate a green berry to test it, and I got sick.”
Susan: “How do you know that?”
Abe: “I remember it happening.”
Susan: “Sure, but how do you know?”
Abe: “My memory is generally reliable.”
Susan: “And How do you know that?”
Abe: “My memories of the past are consistent with my perceptions of the present and with what other people tell me about the world.”
Susan: “How could you possibly know that?”
At this point I do not know what Abe could say that would make any sense. Perhaps he couldn’t say anything beyond “I don’t know!” or “I know, but I don’t know how I know!” But it’s pretty clear that the following wouldn’t work:
Susan: “How do you know?”
Abe: “Revelation.”
Susan: “But how do you know that?”
Abe: “I know revelation by revelation”
Susan: “But how do you know that?”
Abe: “I know by revelation that I know revelation by revelation.”
Susan: “and how do you know that?
Abe: [etc.]
At this point Abe’s responses to Susan take the form of increasingly lengthy appeal to revelation to justify revelation. Clearly the length of the sentences approaches infinity. Hence appealing to revelation does not halt the regress.
fifthmonarchyman,
If you can understand that, then why can’t you understand that if a belief is justified, then it does not need to be justified?
If knowledge is justified true belief, then knowledge does not need to be justified, because it already is.
Abe does not need to justify revelation because God can reveal something so that Abe can know it.
You have already granted that obvious fact.
Bye the way Susan and KN both know this by revelation.
peace
Again the question is not whether belief is justified but how it is justified.
If belief is justified surely there is a reason it is justified.
I’m asking for that reason
peace
exactly, Abe and you don’t know how you know.
But I do
That would not be a problem except you act as if you do know how you know.
You simply trust that knowledge is possible and accessible but have no warrant for doing so given your worldview.
You admit as much.
You are stealing warrant from my worldview. It’s like the little girl who climbs up on her father’s lap in order to slap him in the face
peace
Well, put, KN. This has been explained to FMM countless times.
I don’t think it’s laziness myself, though. I think it’s either inability, fibbing, or a form of self-deception resulting from fear and conditioning. In any case, we’re not going to come back here some day and discover that FMM has finally learned this.
KN, maybe you have a better sense of this than I do, but FWIW, I’d guess that a hefty portion of reliabilists don’t accept JTB as correct anyhow–holding that the reliable causal background isn’t really a type of justification. And another substantial chunk of philosophers think knowledge is primary and is not definable in terms of belief. So wanting a certain, controversial epistemological theory to itself be justified is just more silliness. If knowledge requires justification and some proposition is believed and justified, it’s known. If knowledge requires something else–like a reliable process–and that obtains, again, there’s knowledge. But the whole question of what constitutes knowledge has been assailed by, among others, Wittgenstein and Haack as a silly, unanswerable question in any case. There are lots of kinds of knowledge and finding a single group of necessary and sufficient conditions for all of them is likely a pointless exercise. Even some famous xtian philosophers (like Swinburne) have said this.
FMM just repeats his catechism as he’s been taught.
That cannot be right, because Sue can ask “how do you know that?” to Abe. What is at stake here is not whether Abe is satisfied with his response to Sue but whether Sue is satisfied with his response to her.
You keep on assuming that “revelation” is an adequate answer to the question “how do you know?”, but you only assume that because you stop thinking there. The rest of us don’t.
I know that you think it is logically possible for God to reveal something to you in such a way that you are justified in believing it.
I don’t think that — not a second.
I say that because it is only the attempt to engage in dialogue with actual concrete other humans that allows us to distinguish between subjective appearance and objective reality. Left to my own cognitive devices, my ability to distinguish between what is the case and what seems to be the case is fairly meager. If I’m totally epistemically isolated, I can’t even be aware of a difference between how things seem and how they really are.
(The very best I could do is distinguish between perceptual variants and invariants that are strongly correlated with motor variants and invariants, and those that are not. That, combined with some degree of mental representation when unperceived, are probably the furthest that objectivity can get to in non-human animals.)
In human animals, we can engage in dialogue with others, and ask them which features that are perceptually present to us are absent to them and conversely. The very attempt to justify any of our claims only makes sense in the context of trying to get along with minimal violence.
So can being sick.
There are many different kinds of reasons for why any specific belief is justified, depending on context. A reason for believing that Trump will be impeached within the first two years of his administration is going to be a different kind of reason than a reason for believing that sentient life is very rare in the universe.
Funny thing, Le Gran K has been losing mass, so the absolute measure of a kilogram doesn’t not weigh a kilogram. How do they know?
OK now we are getting somewhere
An omnipotent God can do whatever is possible.
You are saying that justification is impossible.
If justification is impossible then knowledge is impossible and you don’t know anything at all.
Is that really a road you want to go down?
peace
Is Le Gran K really the absolute measure?
apparently not. 😉
peace
I’m not asking about specific beliefs. I’m asking about belief in general.
peace
I am saying that it is not logically possible for divine revelation to justify a claim, because of the kind of thing that justification is.
God can’t make a square circle, and he can’t make a claim justified by revelation for the same reason.
The essentially public nature of justification cannot be reconciled with the essentially private nature of revelation any more than squareness can be reconciled with circleness.
Justification by revelation is as incoherent as a private language, and for the same reason: both justification and meaning are essentially normative (epistemic norms and semantic norms, respectively), and norms that only one person conforms to are not norms at all. Norms are essentially intersubjective.
By definition