Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
When you look deeper, the dictionary definition doesn't suffice. This often happens
Look things we called facts that were later proven untrue. You begin to see that "fact" is a unit of human knowledge, subject to revision.
In many realms I think we have good success in proposing facts which correspond well to truth.I think our entire discussion should be based on the assumption that we can accurately determine facts that can never be proven untrue. Do you think that's possible? Because if its not possible then I see no point in even trying to determine facts from delusion.
In many realms I think we have good success in proposing facts which correspond well to truth.
But examination reveals facts are units of human knowledge that have met certain tests for correspondence with truth. But they are obviously not just "truth", proven by examples facts that have had to be revised or abandoned.
Truth is what we want facts to be. But "fact" as a unit of human knowledge accurately describes what facts really are when we examine the situation.I see. I would argue the “facts” that were later proven untrue weren’t really facts, but rather, were either lies or misunderstandings. Of course hindsight is 20/20.
If I tell you there's a rock in my front yard, and you by and see it. If you come by a week later and the rock isn't there, did I lie? Did you lie to yourself? Did you misunderstand? Did I misunderstand?I see. I would argue the “facts” that were later proven untrue weren’t really facts, but rather, were either lies or misunderstandings. Of course hindsight is 20/20.
If I tell you there's a rock in my front yard, and you by and see it. If you come by a week later and the rock isn't there, did I lie? Did you lie to yourself? Did you misunderstand? Did I misunderstand?
Or maybe I just moved the rock. Facts can change. It happens all the time that a statement was and is not now true.
I think it's like Newton's laws of motion were considered fact until Einstein's theory of relativity.Obviously, I’m not disputing that. Durangadogwood was positing that facts are often proven untrue and are therefore not truths, or something like that, you’ll have to read his posts to understand what he’s saying exactly.
I think it's like Newton's laws of motion were considered fact until Einstein's theory of relativity.
I think, though, that the confusion between @Chriliman and @durangodawood is along these lines. Newton is wrong at large scales. As such, for a given definition of fact, Newton's laws aren't. However, it is a "fact" that Newton's laws work for the average person (such as myself).Newton's laws are still considered facts. They work just fine, until you get up to very large scales, at which point you need Einstein. And neither of them can account for quantum physics. That's why we're still in search of a grand unified theory, one that works in all three scales. That's something that humans, as pattern-seeking mammals, have trouble conceiving of - that there are really three different scales to the universe, and three different physics to describe each one. All three are "correct", yet none of them cooperate with one another.
Turns out, reality is not as neat as we'd like to imagine it is, and there is quite a bit of plasticity to those things we think of as indisputable facts.
To the point though...no amount of fact will ever get you to an "absolute morality". Morality requires value judgements. "Absolute value" is an oxymoron. So is "objective value".
For an example I prefer a (former) fact like: normal humans have 48 chromosomes. Its not just inapplicable at certain scales. Its now considered plain wrong.I think, though, that the confusion between @Chriliman and @durangodawood is along these lines. Newton is wrong at large scales. As such, for a given definition of fact, Newton's laws aren't. However, it is a "fact" that Newton's laws work for the average person (such as myself).
But, for myself, that fascination with objective, fact, absolute, truth and the like is overblown. I'm interested in what ideas I hold allow me to make predictions adequately for a good life. I'm interested in "true enough".
That's not to say that discussion over the centuries haven't had their value.
I think it's like Newton's laws of motion were considered fact until Einstein's theory of relativity.
We called it a "fact" according to how we use and think about the word.Agree, so the “fact” at the time was limited to our knowledge at the time.
You described a situation and then pulled the imperative out of thin air. You don't have enough facts to support your claim, is the point.But the claim(or imperative) is based on the facts of the situation and therefore anyone who may want to ignore the facts and do what they want anyway, should expect resistance. Key points are "based on the facts" and "ignore the facts" for why the imperative is correct/right/good and why ignoring the facts is incorrect/wrong/bad.
That's not how language works. Words mean whatever we want them to. Whatever thing we want a word to convey is what it conveys. Just because we were wrong in a lot of instances that we called a thing a fact doesn't alter the meaning of the word. That's ridiculous. 2+2=4 is a fact. It is true, it is proven, it is not subject to correction.We called it a "fact" according to how we use and think about the word.
Its evidence that really facts are units of human knowledge, which aims for, but is not identical to, truth.
Yes. 2+2=4 is a fact, a unit of human knowledge, that corresponds well to truth.That's not how language works. Words mean whatever we want them to. Whatever thing we want a word to convey is what it conveys. Just because we were wrong in a lot of instances that we called a thing a fact doesn't alter the meaning of the word. That's ridiculous. 2+2=4 is a fact. It is true, it is proven, it is not subject to correction.
When we say that a thing is a fact, we are saying that it is true. Sometimes we are correct and sometimes we are incorrect. When we discover that we were incorrect, we discover that it was never a fact. None of that requires redefining a word.Yes. 2+2=4 is a fact, a unit of human knowledge, that corresponds well to truth.
Other fact nots so much. I dont know which ones right now. But wait and see....
This^ part I agree with. At any rate, this sidebar is not critical to the heart of the topic.When we say that a thing is a fact, we are saying that it is true.
Introspection is notoriously unreliable. People keep all kinds of secrets from themselves, tell false stories about themselves to themselves. Why do you think we have loads of therapists and religions? The human heart can be a hall of mirrors and trap doors. In this regard subjective biases can absolutely influence reports of inward examinations. Probably moreso on average than external observations....I claim that "I like chocolate ice cream" is a fact. Is there any way you can imagine that I could be incorrect about my claim? And remember, we're talking about introspection, so we aren't talking about whether I'm lying to you or not. I remember enjoying experiencing chocolate ice cream. I expect to enjoy that experience if I have it again. I want to experience it again. Therefore I "like" chocolate ice cream. How could I have made a mistake based on some personal bias?
I think our entire discussion should be based on the assumption that we can accurately determine facts that can never be proven untrue. Do you think that's possible? Because if its not possible then I see no point in even trying to determine facts from delusion.
In what way can I be wrong about the fact that I like chocolate ice cream? Specifically.Introspection is notoriously unreliable. People keep all kinds of secrets from themselves, tell false stories about themselves to themselves. Why do you think we have loads of therapists and religions? The human heart can be a hall of mirrors and trap doors. In this regard subjective biases can absolutely influence reports of inward examinations. Probably moreso on average than external observations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?