OK, we will leave it for some other time. I was just taken aback.

we are the ones who have to make these decisions regardless of whether such and such is true or false. — Moliere

I wrote a short thesis on this once, relating it to organisational leadership and bringing in Feyerabend. The point was to explain organisational irrationality in terms of the need to act: "We need to do something; this is something; so we'll do this".

That actually sounds pretty cool. Maybe you'll have to share it sometime.

That actually sounds pretty cool. — Moliere

I thought so, too. But apparently not. You see, the upshot of the argument is that rational leaders in an organisation ought do as little as possible. Whenever I tried to implement this approach, instead of a promotion I got a reprimand.

Facts are what's the case. If you are going to claim that what's the case has a location,
— S

Just saw this response now.

"What's the case" is ambiguous to me, because people often use it to refer to, for example, stating propositions. Otherwise, what's the difference between "what's the case" and "state of affairs" a la there being some dynamic physical things in particular relations to other dynamic physical things? — Terrapin Station

What's the case are facts. The two are no different. It's the case that today is Sunday. It's a fact that I'm at home.

I just reject your, "It must be about dynamic physical things in particular relations to other dynamic physical things!".

It's just about stuff. I'm not committed to that stuff necessarily being physical. Is Sunday physical? Weird.