If somethign is a FACT, it is true. It is somethign that has been proven.
OK, I am an investigating officer. I pick up a bullet cartridge up off the ground next to the body. That it was next to the body is a fact. Did I prove that fact, or did I observe that fact? In the trial, I need to convince the jury that it is an important piece of evidence. The fact that it was next to the body is an important bit of evidence. How do I prove that fact to the jury?
Not that is just plain silly. Childlren do not always get the same blood type as their parents . If the doctor does not know what type you parents have, they must test yours to prove what kind you need so you will not die.
If it is a fact, then it is known. no more guesswork; no more testing. If there is any doubt, it is not a fact.
A fact is not a description of an observed event. A fact is what the observation reveals to make it a fact.
No, that is not a fact. it is a conclusion. It may become a hypothesis which could grow into a theory.
The FACT is that science had proved there is more than one blood type.
Not exactly. Scientists have
observed the
fact that sometimes transfused blood clumps, and sometimes it doesn't. They also observed the fact that there is a pattern in whether or not the blood clumps. This led to conjectures or
hypotheses concerning the reason for the pattern. The hypotheses were tested, and one prevailed. with more vigorous testing, that hypothesis became a
theory. Blood type is a theory, not a fact.
You have shot yourself in the head when you say "there is no such thing as a false fact," then say nothing in science has been proven. That is contradictory.
It only seems that way because you are being sloppy with the meaning of words, again. Vague and fuzzy speech leads to vague and fuzzy thinking. "Fact" and "prove" have very precise and limited meanings, especially in science and math.
Some thing is proven when it can be repeated and observed.
Something is proven if it is the conclusion in a valid syllogism, or the contrapositive of the conclusion of a valid syllogism. When something can be repeated and observed, it can be repeated and observed.
Science has developed a machine that can prove what your blood type is and it will come out the same every time.
"Science" has developed a
process (which may or may not involve machines) which can
test your blood and determine your type. It comes out the same each time because your blood type is a fact that does not change.
It doesn matter if you can predict it. If it is a fact and you have admditted there are not false facts, it has already been proven and that is a FACT.
Yes, it is a fact. But no, it has not been "proven." If it were "proven" you would know what it is without testing.
All you are doing is digging your hole deeper. You can guess wha tthe blood type might be, but you can also prove what it is. You say we KNOW. If we KNOW, then it has been proven. If it hasn't been proven, you can't know
So, we didn't know anything before the Greeks invented logic? We could not trust our eyes, and our other senses until Plato said we could? We know
facts because we can
observe them for ourselves. No proof necessary, or possible. Not possible because there is no syllogism involved.
