So where are we left with your JTB on my view? Not in a very good place. Facts don’t matter, truth is meaningless, and belief is an aside. You may not wish to get me started on justification. — Ennui Elucidator

So, what more can be said about facts wrt. to justification if you care to elaborate?

I'm not sure if that answers your question. — T Clark

I don't hold the opinion that facts can be used pragmatically when needed, in case they are needed, and how they are needed. This simply seems to arrive at counterproductive opinions that there are things like alternate facts or meanings of dispositions towards facts.

Does that sound off to you, as it does to me?

...facts are the things we putatively make statements about and then judge such statements true when they stand in the right relationship ... — Ennui Elucidator

How would you characterize this relationship?

what does it take for something to be true or be a fact, and how do we know when it is? And like I said, that's quite.. the... can... of... worms.... — Seppo

Yes, I think it leads us to the assertion that it's a criterion consisting of being able to verify whether a statement is instantiated as being a truth or a fact. Im not sure how else to express this.

Sorry to bother you; but, when does an utterance become a fact, then?

What criteria does the justification adhere to for a fact to be "true"?

Again, this isn't really a sensical question- a fact is true of necessity, else it isn't a fact. An untrue fact is like a married bachelor: a contradiction in terms. But what constitutes truth, or epistemic justification, is a separate (and rather big/complex) question. — Seppo

I think that's the working question I have in regards to the truth of the matter, as to how facts are true based on the working criteria one has.

This is just another way of asking, "How or when are facts truth apt?"

Facts become knowledge when they are needed. When they are used. You can't know whether or not a piece of information has been adequately justified until you know what it will be used for. Until you know the consequences of being wrong. At that point - when you are making a decision about a future action, you have to determine whether or not you can use that information. When you decide you can, it is knowledge. — T Clark

This is something I'm unsure of. Many users already stated that they consider facts to be true based out of necessity. You seem to be saying that facts are contingent on circumstances or situations that allow them to be true, am I reading you correctly?

Its definitionally true. A fact just is something that is true. Asking how we know facts are true is like asking how we know that bachelors are unmarried: its just what the term means. — Seppo

But surely facts aren't a priori true, but rather synthetically a priori true.

And on the JTB story of knowledge, a fact becomes knowledge when A. it is believed B. it is true and C. justification is available (i.e. there are good and sufficient reasons for supposing it to be true). — Seppo

What criteria does the justification adhere to for a fact to be "true"?

But knowledge isn't justified true belief, it can't be defined by a strict set of criteria. — Manuel

Yes it can. I see the cow on the field and assume it's a cow as long as I'm sane and sober.

N

A fact is deemed to be a fact, when it is recognized by the relevant people to be so: those involved in the affair, experts in a specific field, etc. — Manuel

Banno says that a fact is a true state of affairs if I'm inferring correctly. Do you agree?

There are no untrue facts. — Banno

On a similar vein, is this a synthetic a priori?

I'm glad for the good weather.

What could a fact be, if not how things are? What could truth be, if not how things are?

It's how the game is played. — Banno

You mention how the game is played...

Are there rules about when a statement can become a fact or attain the qualifier of "fact-hood"?

Well, yes. That is a given. I was about to ask you something quizzical about fact-hood.

Do you care to talk about what makes a statement a "fact"?

Being true is what a fact does. — Banno

I don't understand. What makes the above true?

How do you know that?

In what manner are facts true? As per the OP, if we assume that facts are subject to Gettier's justified true belief, then how are they justified, how are they true, and when are they subject to being 'beliefs'?

Is what is said above just as well the same as asking about when or how facts "truth-apt"?

I'd the above sounds flimsy then I might switch the question to asking how or when are facts truth apt?

"I'm more interested in problematizing the very distinction between reality and unreality, not by claiming there is no such thing as real, but rather by wagering that everything" -- including metaphysics??? -- "is in some sense real, and not just what is deemed 'independent of us'." — Gnomon

Oh dear. We're in Meinong's Jungle then...

If anyone is interested in the war on terror. I have a thread on it below:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4724/the-war-on-terror

Ssu is the main contributor to it, thankfully

You're painting with a broad brush. There are no active warzone's in Africa or South Asia...

If the political base of the right was still interested in the war in Afghanistan, then I'm sure we would still be there.

In fact, what has the Taliban achieved? What do they represent, and whom do they represent are interesting questions in my opinion.

Please keep in mind that were in the final stages of the 20 year war. The fact that ISIS-K is now some blip on the radar is interesting.

Does anyone think the most astute Platonists of these times, being Islamic clerics and their Muslim followers are living an examined life in accordance to Islam?

Propositions can't express anything that is higher, because of the nature of discursive reasoning, not because there isn't anything higher. — Wayfarer

Actually, the highest a proposition can express is self-hood, by recursion. So, there is potential to build off of self-referential statements to talk about what it doesn't envelop.

The error which I think Wittgenstein is calling out, is the belief that methodological naturalism has anything to say about ethics and aesthetics. It can't, because it rules out consideration of such things as a methodological step. But that doesn't mean what the logical positivists took it to mean, as explained in this essay. — Wayfarer

I just read that essay, and the logical positivists had a point about nonsense speaking about ethics, as Wittgenstein would call it. Funny enough it really doesn't come off as nonsense.

And we do talk about aesthetics every day or state opinions about differing values. So, the mystical is in the differences, not the apparent.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/21/world/evacuations-afghanistan-taliban-ramstein-intl/index.html

Personally, I think two membrane's collided.

Everyone's buying the same stuff though.

Incredulity is merely an opinion, not a reasoned, or informed, objection. Read Smith. Read Marx. Read histories of slave societies (e.g. Orlando Patterson). Read Burckhardt. Read Charles Beard. Read Thomas Piketty. C'mon, dude. Google & wiki don't bite. Pardon, though, if I've assumed we shared the same very basic background knowledge of e.g. histories (summaries) of empires, colonization of the Americas, etc. :roll: — 180 Proof

I don't have the attention span, forgive me.

It's my understanding that Marx didn't plan the manner in which socialism ought to become scientific to then become communism. Also, his Capital was meant for Germany. Maybe in a possible world near you Germany became communist and never went to war with the Europe. Who knows these things.

I'm somewhat skeptical about arguments that a planned economy cannot compete with capitalism, with the caveat that you have scientific socialism down. China is working hard at it.

My further understanding is that the Wealth of Nations got more rep with the powers that be at the time, and even China has some predisposition towards mercantilism.

Just my two cents.

I'm planing on reading The Great Transformation by Polanyi. Have you read it?

Optimism is a choice. :cool:

Progress for whom? — 180 Proof

In economics there's a saying, that a rising tide lifts all boats...

The socioeconomic immiseration of the vast majority of people on this planet is relatively constant over time. — 180 Proof

I find this hard to believe in certain regards. Can you actually support this argument?

Bread and circuses have become cheap too, and that's a good thing. Distractions are cheap nowadays.

Well, contrary to your argument nobody is saying, "Let them have cake", anymore. So, it's all about progress and GDP growth, right?

I meant your depiction of mindless consumers. — praxis

Thinking about Amazon for a second, you have an organizational ability to collect all the goods at the best price, meaning that economically you have the cheapest good provided to you without thinking much about it, then it's pretty mindless product peddling, no?

The leisure class always needed a robust symbolic class to leverage in the neverending, ever-expanding exploitation of the laboring masses. — 180 Proof

They're enjoying their cake.

Prices are good enough for them to have it and eat it too. :party:

Globalization, corporatization, stagnation of standard of living, weakness of labor unions, failure of the Democratic party to protect its constituents. — T Clark

What Biden did was monumental towards the average worker in America, especially women.

Are you happy about his New Deal and Infrastructure bill?

Everyone wants to believe there's something special about themselves, right? Liberals tend to think this way. Though, I don't want the topic to be too much about politics, but whatever works, right?

But, that aside, and the veneers of having a literate group in science and technology is quite important to the GDP of a nation, right?

Poignant speech, upon which the American voter responded with Reagan. Yeah, the 80's were something else entirely.

What about that peanut farmer, Jimmy Carter? He was a cool guy that hasn't been respected at all. Had some really interesting ideas that oil shitted on? Climate change and especially peak oil was whispered around that time in government circles.

Well, just off the top of my head, you guys were extremely concerned with the environment back in the 70's, which was suppressed ever since. Back then some books really sent shockwaves throughout the times about peak oil and such. We even had a President that wanted solar panels on the White House in Washington.

I was always preoccupied with understanding the counterculture of the 60's that led to concern over spirituality, equality, and to much extent egotism.

How has it been since then?

"Mediocre" means "not very good." — T Clark

Well, that's relative, isn't it? I mean, I explicitly or implicitly wanted someone from an older generation to expound on that. I already stated that I'm a millennial, and personally have been enjoying my self labeled mediocre life. I justify that with my life having been spent in-large-part on the internet/world-wide-web buying goods on Amazon for myself and utilizing products from Google or Twitter to socialize with others*. :party:

*Is that a reification in thought to say that your socializing with others on Twitter or on a place like this? :brow:

Criticizing other people's lives is, and has always been, a popular pastime. — T Clark

Where did I criticize? I made no value judgements on my thoughts about other people.

If you reeallly think about it you can even say I'm talking about myself with respect to the "world" as I've seen and experienced it online or offline.

Isn't this a kind of a caricature? — praxis

Well, it's not really a caricature if you take under consideration how much work goes into maintaining the internet as we know it, although it seems like a caricature given the amount of information available on anything that has value.

If you zoom out and look at the internet, we had some highly monopolistic behavior in the market due to Microsoft in the 90's and 00's, right? Then, you had Google racing to the top, making the majority of their money through ad's, since their inception. Then there was Apple, working silently on their own goods, such as iPhones and Mac. And as of fairly recent you have Amazon, which is a giant marketplace for anything that is a product.

No one is merely a mindless consumer of cheap products. — praxis

Well, I don't mean to stereotype, but, what about all this meme shit on the internet? Twitter is like some kind of organism that thrives off of memes and some such...

I must be lacking in very important and fundamental neurotransmitter levels, or should I say, experiences. Too bad we don't have relationships with reality that allow or even guarantee such rich and esoteric states. The medications find their appropriate use when I need a re-lease from reality if the former holds true. Though, the philistines look for new memes to enrichen the plebians' life that the moderators laugh at their struggles with glee.

@Baden knows about this all too well, as he's in the Chocolate factory nowadays instead of drinking in the belly of the day. :party: