When you dig down to the philosophical issues in depth, the distinction between fact and belief can seem to blur. — MetaphysicsNow

Yup. Particularly when digging with certain kinds of schemes(linguistic frameworks; schools of thought;etc.) It seems quite clear to me at least, that that blurring is the inevitable consequence of how one uses words. The blurring is not inevitable however. Given the overwhelming amount of insincerity that is actually expected by the rest of the American population from politicians and attorneys(most politicians are attorneys), there has never been a better time to shed much needed light upon the difference between fact and opinion. The American judicial system actually conflates truth and belief. Perhaps this be better put differently:The American judicial system is based upon language which conflates truth and belief.

That is a huge problem. "I swear to tell 'the truth'..."

However, with the possible exception of Pontius Pilate, I have never known of a single case where a politician or lawyer has seriously questioned the distinction from that kind of philosophical perspective. Giuliani, Trump and their like rather help themselves to the fact/belief distinction we're all familiar with from our everyday lives when it serves their purposes, and then simply move those posts together when it looks like they are about to score an own goal - at least, that's how it seems to me. At best it is intellectual inconsistency, at worst intellectual dishonesty - in the former case an appropriate cure might be a course in philosophical logic, in the latter some hard time might allow them to see the error of their ways - imagine what the world would be like if politicians and lawyers faced jail for intellecutal dishonesty, of course you'd have to be able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

I am of the well-considered position that there are many times when insincerity can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem is that understanding how the proof works requires understanding that material evidence isn't the only kind that warrants being 'hard' enough for such certainty. That's another matter altogether, however it's relevant here in many ways...

Indeed, imagine what the world would be like if we no longer allowed politicians to get away with committing fraud against the American people. I can hear the defense of the Noble Lie in the background...

Trust and the presupposition of truth inherent within all thought, belief, and the statements which follow... no two things are more crucial to understand when it comes to the human condition.

There's much to be said about government officials lying to the American people, including but most certainly not limited to cases of lying during a campaign in order to get elected.
— creativesoul

It is therefore up to voters to decide. It is not a legal matter. Government agencies are not supposed to be partaking in partisan politics. — Dalai Dahmer

The rules that elected officials must follow are most certainly a legal matter. The last statement needs a thorough unpacking. There is no clear connection between it and what counts as acceptable and/or unacceptable elected official behaviour. I don't even know what the name 'partisan politics' is referring to.

If all you meant was "equal under the law" then we've no disagreement. Keep in mind here that not all law applies to all people. Some laws apply to the financial district. Others apply to business owner responsibility. Others still apply to elected officials. — creativesoul

Feel free, then, to define which actual law it is under which an agent of the government demands answers for the allegation that we have been discussing.

On a personal level, one could argue that it's none of anyone's business if someone running for office has had multiple extra-marital affairs replete with non-disclosure agreements as a means to keep them secret. On another level, one could argue that it is most certainly the business of the American people to know about the people running for office. How else does the public form their opinion about them? — creativesoul

The public "forms opinions" also from mere opinions and falsehoods. It is very common that falsehoods come from government agents involving themselves in partisan politics.

For example, many folk hold moral values, such as abortion and other civil rights of the utmost importance. If a candidate for office holds contradictory values to a voter, then that voter has every right to know about that, for those are the kinds of things that many people use to decide how to vote. — creativesoul

This has never stopped any politician from saying one thing and then adopting the opposite position when it comes to agreements with other official players.

There is also no law against this. So, as I have already alluded, leave things to voters and keep politicians and government agents from weaponizing their politics through usurping the laws which are supposed to treat all citizens equal under them.

Say a candidate says 'X', but does not believe that 'X' is true. Further suppose that 'X' is something that a very large swathe of the population holds as of the utmost importance regarding which candidate will get their vote. The candidate is quite aware of all this, and in fact, s/he has asserted 'X' for no other reason than to acquire the votes of the people in question here(of those particular voters).

I would strongly argue that that candidate has committed fraud against the American people — creativesoul

When placed with my immediately prior response this appears therefore to suggest every candidate and holder of any political office has committed fraud and is committing fraud.

I agree on all points. Cynical irrationality should be regarded as a crime against humanity.

If all you meant was "equal under the law" then we've no disagreement. Keep in mind here that not all law applies to all people. Some laws apply to the financial district. Others apply to business owner responsibility. Others still apply to elected officials.
— creativesoul

Feel free, then, to define which actual law it is under which an agent of the government demands answers for the allegation that we have been discussing. — Dalai Dahmer

This will be my only attempt to get this conversation going in the direction it ought be, according to the main thrust of the thread. Laws governing the behaviour of folk running for public office are not applicable to those who are not. "Equal under the law" is irrelevant to the thread. That is about laws that apply to everyone's behaviour. In particular, it is about applying those laws to everyone equally. We are not discussing those laws.

The thread is not about how laws apply to extra-marital affairs - in general. It is not about a consensual sexual relationship involving Trump. It is about the effects/affects of language use - in general - with particular attention being paid to cases where candidates deliberately and knowingly misrepresent their own thought and belief as a means to lead the public to believe things about them that are not true. That is committing fraud against the American people. The people are buying into false pretense. The extra-marital affair part was invoked by you. While it is covered by what I've been discussing, it's not the only thing that is.

With that in mind...

There are no laws that I'm aware of that are enforced when a candidate lies to the American people. There are laws that are enforced when banks lie, when retailers lie, when manufacturer lie, when drug companies lie, when investment firms lie, etc. In short, there are all sorts of laws regarding committing fraud against people. There used to be more. There are no such laws concerning a lying candidate.

There ought be.

One reason, I suspect, that there are not has to do with how the situation is framed in language. Another reason, I strongly suspect, is that the overwhelming majority of Americans actually expect politicians to lie, and the idea itself doesn't cause the outrage necessary for taking action to change that accepted norm.

This has never stopped any politician from saying one thing and then adopting the opposite position when it comes to agreements with other official players.

There is also no law against this. So, as I have already alluded, leave things to voters and keep politicians and government agents from weaponizing their politics through usurping the laws which are supposed to treat all citizens equal under them. — Dalai Dahmer

You're missing something very very important to consider. Voters do not write the laws which govern political behaviour. Voters could change the entire landscape and end up with the same problem if the laws are not changed accordingly.

This will be my only attempt to get this conversation going in the direction it ought be, according to the main thrust of the thread. Laws governing the behaviour of folk running for public office are not applicable to those who are not. "Equal under the law" is irrelevant to the thread. That is about laws that apply to everyone's behaviour. In particular, it is about applying those laws to everyone equally. We are not discussing those laws. — creativesoul

Well, how convenient. And how inconvenient it was of me to press you on what you yourself introduced regarding the different laws for different circumstances. This is a law argument, after all. Lawyers are involved with this case.

So now, apparently, it is NOT about a different law for a different circumstance but about "laws" plural that apply to "everyone's" behavior.

So what is this "everyone's" laws that are applied to ONE area of behavior? You know? The behavior which is the discussion point of this entire thread?

"We", however, are apparently not discussing law or laws now. Need I inconveniently remind you that even within this thread's title is the name Giuliani. Yes, that is a LAW-yer.

The thread is not about how laws apply to extra-marital affairs - in general. It is not about a consensual sexual relationship involving Trump. It is about the effects/affects of language use - in general - with particular attention being paid to cases where candidates deliberately and knowingly misrepresent their own thought and belief as a means to lead the public to believe things about them that are not true. That is committing fraud against the American people. The people are buying into false pretense. The extra-marital affair part was invoked by you. While it is covered by what I've been discussing, it's not the only thing that is. — creativesoul

The thread is about what is introduced into the thread. What is introduced IS the thread. There is the opining post. But the opening post is not the thread.

The "effects/affects" of language use is predicated upon whether it was ever legally appropriate for a government agent to involve themselves, for public consumption using the force of special powers, to look into the consensual sexual affairs of a private citizen. Not a president. Not a person holding any public office.

Consequently no answers are appropriate to be heard. And I argue that wrong answers are AS appropriate as no answers, and I think this will be how it gets legally resolved because this "case" (it is not a "legal" case, remember) is merely about a negative popularity contest of usual partisan political strategy.

It is not a "legal case" because no law has been identified.

There are no laws that I'm aware of that are enforced when a candidate lies to the American people. There are laws that are enforced when banks lie, when retailers lie, when manufacturer lie, when drug companies lie, when investment firms lie, etc. In short, there are all sorts of laws regarding committing fraud against people. There used to be more. There are no such laws concerning a lying candidate.

There ought be — creativesoul

But there is no law, I think, that makes a case of a bank worker's or bank executive's consensual sex life PRIOR to them even becoming a bank worker or bank executive. That is the only equivalence I see there. Again possibly inconvenient of me. A bank executive has the right to more or less indicate "f**k off" to any law body looking into such personal and private matters. A way to say "f**k off" is to obfuscate. I recommend obfuscation to nosy Stalinist tactics.

You're missing something very very important to consider. Voters do not write the laws which govern political behaviour. Voters could change the entire landscape and end up with the same problem if the laws are not changed accordingly. — creativesoul

Are you advocating for law change with regard to this thread topic?

If so, then it is really an admission that a law body should not be involving itself into this circumstance. If law somehow requires change to fit one's argument as it stands now then in as it stands now should not involve the law.

It's politics. That is all it is. It is political strategy to sway voters for the midterms and usurping state powers for this purpose.

This will be my only attempt to get this conversation going in the direction it ought be, according to the main thrust of the thread. Laws governing the behaviour of folk running for public office are not applicable to those who are not. "Equal under the law" is irrelevant to the thread. That is about laws that apply to everyone's behaviour. In particular, it is about applying those laws to everyone equally. We are not discussing those laws.
— creativesoul

Well, how convenient. And how inconvenient it was of me to press you on what you yourself introduced regarding the different laws for different circumstances. This is a law argument, after all. Lawyers are involved with this case.

So now, apparently, it is NOT about a different law for a different circumstance but about "laws" plural that apply to "everyone's" behavior.

So what is this "everyone's" laws that are applied to ONE area of behavior? You know? The behavior which is the discussion point of this entire thread?

"We", however, are apparently not discussing law or laws now. Need I inconveniently remind you that even within this thread's title is the name Giuliani. Yes, that is a LAW-yer. — Dalai Dahmer

You're confused.

The thread is about how language effects/affects thought, belief, and behaviour, with an initial aim on how Giuliani used the terms "opinion" and "fact" and "truth" as synonyms for one another, and the inevitable affects/effects that doing so has on public opinion for those who trust his truthfulness in 'testimony'.

Your invocation of "equal under the law" is and was irrelevant. Different laws apply to government officials. These laws do no apply to average citizens. A prima facie example is campaign finance law. Those do not apply to those not running a campaign.

I would argue that there ought be, if there is not already, laws governing a candidates' behaviour; particularly... laws governing their sincerity in speech. There ought be laws against a candidate knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting their own thought and belief. That would be to misrepresent themselves, their motives, and hence their actual intentions. Misrepresenting oneself to the public, when you're a candidate for public office, is a clear case of committing fraud against the American people.

Are you advocating for law change with regard to this thread topic?

If so, then it is really an admission that a law body should not be involving itself into this circumstance. If law somehow requires change to fit one's argument as it stands now then in as it stands now should not involve the law. — Dalai Dahmer

You're not making any sense at all. In order to change law a law body must be involved.

I would argue that there ought be, if there is not already, laws governing a candidates' behaviour; particularly... laws governing their sincerity in speech. There ought be laws against a candidate knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting their own thought and belief. That would be to misrepresent themselves, their motives, and hence their actual intentions. Misrepresenting oneself to the public, when you're a candidate for public office, is a clear case of committing fraud against the American people. — creativesoul

You do not even know there is such a law and then you argue for a government agency to legally pursue something you acknowledge you do not even know whether it is something they can legally pursue.

That's confusion right there.

I would argue that there ought be, if there is not already, laws governing a candidates' behaviour; particularly... laws governing their sincerity in speech. There ought be laws against a candidate knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting their own thought and belief. That would be to misrepresent themselves, their motives, and hence their actual intentions. Misrepresenting oneself to the public, when you're a candidate for public office, is a clear case of committing fraud against the American people.
— creativesoul
You do not even know there is such a law and then you argue for a government agency to legally pursue something you acknowledge you do not even know whether it is something they can legally pursue.

That's confusion right there. — Dalai Dahmer

No confusion my friend. I've not argued for anyone in particular to pursue anything in particular. You're either dishonest or wrong. Neither is acceptable. The discussion with you is an exercise in spotting fallacy in the wild... I've been ignoring them out loud...

I'm not confused about whether or not there are laws pertaining to the honesty of a candidate's public speech. I'm not confused about whether or not there ought be. I'm also not confused about the paths by which such laws could be written and/or enforced, whether there are or aren't such laws currently on the books. All of this is rather irrelevant.

The argument here is a philosophical one. I suspect you know this, and are neglecting it as a result. It has to do with the effects/affects of language, with the use of terms such as "truth", "belief", "fact", and "opinion" at the forefront for the obvious reasons of relevancy to a candidate's committing fraud against the American people.

No confusion my friend. I've not argued for anyone in particular to pursue anything in particular. You're either dishonest or wrong. Neither is acceptable. The discussion with you is an exercise in spotting fallacy in the wild... I've been ignoring them out loud. — creativesoul

So you have not argued for the legal pursuit of the former candidate in question for fraud?

I would strongly argue that that candidate has committed fraud against the American people. — creativesoul

I see.

To me the quest for knowledge starts with Socrates' "To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge.", expanded by Descartes to "I think, therefore I am". That's about where what we can truely know stops and strictly spoken where facts stop. Beond that we need axioms, if the applied axiom gets questioned, what we took as facts based upon that axiom gets reduced to an opinion. As long as the applied axiom doesn't get questioned we can take our opinions based upon that axiom as if they were facts.

To me the quest for knowledge starts with Socrates' "To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge.", expanded by Descartes to "I think, therefore I am". That's about where what we can truely know stops and strictly spoken where facts stop. Beond that we need axioms, if the applied axiom gets questioned, what we took as facts based upon that axiom gets reduced to an opinion. As long as the applied axiom doesn't get questioned we can take our opinions based upon that axiom as if they were facts. — Tomseltje

That quote is untenable. It makes no sense. It is self-contradictory on it's face. You're conflating conclusions based upon axioms with facts. Facts cannot be false. Conclusions based upon axioms can.

No confusion my friend. I've not argued for anyone in particular to pursue anything in particular. You're either dishonest or wrong. Neither is acceptable. The discussion with you is an exercise in spotting fallacy in the wild... I've been ignoring them out loud.
— creativesoul

So you have not argued for the legal pursuit of the former candidate in question for fraud? — Dalai Dahmer

Nope. I'm barely breaching the idea. Is there a problem with your reading comprehension?

There is a parable that is appropriate to the occasion. This is the abridged version.

There was student who wanted to learn from a great master. After persistently hounding the master, the master finally agrees, but tells the student to follow him, but he is to watch but say nothing.

As they walk, they notice a young child hiding a valuable possession in a hole near a tree. When the child leaves, the master quickly goes down to the tree and digs up the possession and takes it. The student is besides himself. He thought the old man was a great master, but in truth he was nothing but a two bit thief.

The master knows the young man's mind and asks the student what is bothering him? The student tells him. The master then says, you are still young and not ready to learn. The child you saw is the child of a close friend. Where he buried his little treasure, we were not the only ones who saw him. There was also a well known thief hiding in the bushes. I took the item for safe keeping and will return it later.

The facts are tangible but do they are not always reveal the truth. The truth depends on the context of facts and also how one wishes to view that context.

In the case of Trump and Russian collusion, say Trump was innocent and being railroaded by sore losers. The same facts will add differently. Many assume guilty context, so when the innocent gets upset, this means guilt.

Two lawyers presenting the offense and defense of the same case, will each pick the facts, that support a given context. It is easy to prove or disprove facts, but the context can be disguised, especially since lawyers are not required to tell the truth.

The facts are tangible but do they are not always reveal the truth. The truth depends on the context of facts and also how one wishes to view that context.

In the case of Trump and Russian collusion, say Trump was innocent and being railroaded by sore losers. The same facts will add differently. Many assume guilty context, so when the innocent gets upset, this means guilt.

Two lawyers presenting the offense and defense of the same case, will each pick the facts, that support a given context. It is easy to prove or disprove facts, but the context can be disguised, especially since lawyers are not required to tell the truth. — wellwisher

Nice story. Shows that it is unwise to draw conclusions based upon too little evidence. Sometimes things aren't as they appear. However, the story doesn't necessarily support what followed...


This is a prima facie example of the kind of confusion that comes as a result of playing fast and loose with the terms "fact" and "truth".

1. How one views the facts(events) does not determine truth.

That claim is virtually common sense understanding. For example, one can view the facts, talk about them using a certain context, or think about them in a certain way, and still arrive at false conclusions. Your story is a fine example of this. Truth cannot be false. Therefore, truth does not depend upon how one wishes to view the context of facts. Forming and holding true belief about the facts does.

2.Facts do not add people do.

Saying that "the facts add up differently" presupposes agency where none exists, and ignores the efficacious nature of human thought and belief, all of which are germane.

3.Facts are events(things that actually happened and/or or happening).

Facts aren't the sort of thing that can be proven or disproven. Claims about the facts can be proven or disproven, beyond a reasonable doubt, by virtue of comparing them to the known facts.

4. I agree that both sides of the case will choose to talk about things in support of their own explanations for what happened(their own explanation of the facts). That doesn't make all those things equal. Relevancy and adequacy/sufficiency matter.

Say we have a set of facts(events that everyone agrees took place).

The things chosen to talk about are not always the facts in current consideration. They can be nothing more than an explanation of/for those facts. Such explanations are not always true. The things chosen can also be other facts that are not the ones in current consideration. If these other facts are used as evidence to support an alternative explanation for the facts in current consideration, then it is up to the one arguing for that explanation to set out exactly how these new facts are relevant and adequate for arriving at the proposed alternative explanation. S/he must argue for how these other facts warrant a certain conclusion(alternative to the other side) about the events that everyone agrees took place.

When there are competing explanations of/for the facts, we must judge which, if either, is believable and what makes it so. We can often just consider what all it would take for each explanation to be true. That is to say that we must consider what would have to happen, or what would have had to have already happened, or what would have to be happening in order for that particular explanation to be true. That adds a much needed temper... a certain level of disinterest... to the understanding of one who partakes in such an exercise.

That quote is untenable. It makes no sense. It is self-contradictory on it's face. You're conflating conclusions based upon axioms with facts. Facts cannot be false. Conclusions based upon axioms can. — creativesoul

Sure, you can uphold that strict definition of what a fact is. In wich case there is only one fact that can be supported by the evidence, wich is 'I am'. However, I don't think you actually do, I think you vieuw other things to be 'facts' as well. You simply may not be aware of the axiom(s) you derrived those 'facs' from.

Say we have a set of facts(events that everyone agrees took place). — creativesoul

And here is my confirmation, events that everyone agrees took place, are not facts in the strict way you were suggesting facts to be in your post to me. Events that everyone agrees took place can simply be a result of mass delusion. In order to accept those as facts, you already applied the axiom that the universe is real.

You've misunderstood.

On my view, facts are events. Events cannot be false. I proposed having a set of facts that everyone agrees to. The agreement doesn't make them facts. The agreement makes them uncontroversial.

Sure, you can uphold that strict definition of what a fact is. In wich case there is only one fact that can be supported by the evidence, wich is 'I am'. — Tomseltje

Have no idea how you've arrived at that conclusion...

Nope. I'm barely breaching the idea. Is there a problem with your reading comprehension? — creativesoul

Call it "breaching" if you must but for intellectual honesty, therefore personal responsibility for one's proposed ideas, saying "the idea", rather than owning your expressions and instead referring to them as your ideas, just doesn't cut it. It's merely evasiveness in order to form an attack from the shadows.

But your form, your modus operandi, is easily distinguishable regardless.

An idea is not an argument. Both are mine.

You're lost brother. Go pick on someone smaller. I'll kick your ass. That's my MO. As I've already said, your posts are an exercise in spotting fallacy in the wild.

Have no idea how you've arrived at that conclusion... — creativesoul

If you don't accept any axioms, you won't get beond Descartes "I think, therefor I am". So if you dismiss all 'facts' derrived from axioms, that's about the only fact left.

Have no idea how you've arrived at that conclusion...
— creativesoul

If you don't accept any axioms, you won't get beond Descartes "I think, therefor I am". So if you dismiss all 'facts' derrived from axioms, that's about the only fact left. — Tomseltje

We've been working from two different conceptions of the term "fact".

Do you understand that and agree?

We've been working from two different conceptions of the term "fact".

Do you understand that and agree? — creativesoul

I considered it a possibility, though if so, I don't understand your objections to my original statement about axiomatic facts.
Perhaps I ought to clarify some more on it:

In general most people would agree that '5+5=10' is a fact. but its only a fact under the axiom of a decimal system, since for instance under the axiom of a hexadecimal system this isn't a fact, its just incorrect, since in a hexadecimal system 5+5=A not 10. 10 in a hexadecimal system translates to 16 in the decimal system.