The upshot is that the sense is in a state of flux. Nevertheless we can maintain a distinction between what is the case, and what is believed to be the case; and mark this distinction with care by distinguishing fact from belief.Choose whatever words you will, this distinction must remain, since without it there can be no error, and without error we cannot improve our understanding. — Banno

:up:

Yeah, this distinction is too important to go away. I'd expect it to be found in every language.

Nevertheless we can maintain a distinction between what is the case, and what is believed to be the case; and mark this distinction with care by distinguishing fact from belief. — Banno

What I find curious is that not only can we make the distinction, we can't avoid it. No matter how convinced we might be about reality eluding our beliefs about it, we have no choice but to talk in terms of facts and truth and what is the case. Apo would give us the metaphysical explanation about "sharp cuts" and whatnot. I tend to think in terms of commitment, wagers, that sort of thing.

:sweat:

An earth worms world is dirt. A bird's world is the sky. Dirt and sky are not the same thing thought about differently. — Yohan

We live on the surface of a planet surrounded by gaseous nitrogen with a temperature range between -10 C and 50C and able to perceive a limited range of sound waves and electromagnetic radiation yet the Andromeda Galaxy, x-rays, and quarks are part of our world.

This is problematic for those who want there only to be belief - perhaps that's @T Clark and @Olivier5; If all there is, is belief, then Kelly-Anne Conway wins, since her belief is as valid as theirs.

Throw out truth at your peril.

I think pain pills and hypothermia might be interesting, a whole psychedelic death journey, with my last moments being perhaps the most exciting. If I did have to hang, I think I'd want to the broken neck. I'd prefer the guillotine though, if I had to offer my neck. — Zugzwang

Yes, well. We'll save this for another discussion.

How do facts obtain as true?

That question is what I wonder about facts... — Shawn

What form do you imagine a satisfactory answer to that question to have? To me it's very different than: 'how do helicopters manage to fly?' An answer to helicopter question can help someone build their own. But knowing 'how facts obtain as true' would be useful in what way?

To me such questions are almost like grunts, screeches, chirps...which is to say expressions of mood.

Fun digression tho.

The green knight awaits.

It's a valid question once you read others about how does knowledge become pertinent to the status of fact-hood. Just wondering whether it's the case that only properties of things are facts.

I can imagine a valid sociological question in there somewhere. Perhaps that's what you have in mind.

No matter how convinced we might be about reality eluding our beliefs about it, we have no choice but to talk in terms of facts and truth and what is the case. — Srap Tasmaner

Perhaps it has something to do with animals being forced to move, forced to act. 'Reality' is something like the model an animal is most likely to act on. The 'total sceptic' could only be some fantasy animal that wasn't forced to act and manifest something like belief.

Apo would give us the metaphysical explanation about "sharp cuts" and whatnot. I tend to think in terms of commitment, wagers, that sort of thing. — Srap Tasmaner

Apo has a neo-Hegelian tone that is too convenient; dialectic and pragmatism seem odd bedfellows. We had a long discussion years ago in which he insisted that Mount Everest did not have a height until it was actually measured. @Olivier5 seems to think something similar when he proposes that facts are observations.

I'll go along partway with commitment; but I'd put it in terms of direction of fit. We put the world in order by the way we talk about it. There are apples and chairs because that is what we say there are. We might have spoken differently.

But that's not to invite relativism; the world still inflicts itself upon us; what is the case will be the case regardless of how we express ourselves. We have to divide the world up somehow, we commit to the divisions handed to us by our community because they are functional.

Nah, I'm not talking about intersubjectivity or how objective facts are.

As of late it seems to me that the world is the totality of properties at work.

This is problematic for those who want there only to be belief - perhaps that's T Clark and @Olivier5; If all there is, is belief, then Kelly-Anne Conway wins, since her belief is as valid as theirs.

Throw out truth at your peril. — Banno

I think the thesis that there's only belief is more an expression of attitude. Because it's itself not offered as a mere belief but as a truth about facts or their absence. 'Call it what you will,' but we sometimes bring statements to the tribe that we want believed and acted upon.

Someone mentioned wagers. I think that's a good way to measure confidence/certainty. The practical world is central here, seems to me.

I think the thesis that there's only belief is more an expression of attitude. — Zugzwang

Sure, scepticism has been the fashion for quite some time. If it were kept as an attitude, as a method, there might be no issue. But folk talk of it as if it were a metaphysics; as if Everest really did not have a height until it was measured.

Bayesian analysis works with belief, not with truth.

We had a long discussion years ago in which he insisted that Mount Everest did not have a height until it was actually measured. — Banno

I think one could make a case either way, and that it would be a clever game. A particular practical context would treat the issue differently. Perhaps a probability distribution would be used to model the height.

We put the world in order by the way we talk about it. There are apples and chairs because that is what we say there are. We might have spoken differently.

But that's not to invite relativism; the world still inflicts itself upon us; what is the case will be the case regardless of how we express ourselves. We have to divide the world up somehow, we commit to the divisions handed to us by our community because they work. — Banno

I basically agree with you, but the 'what will be the case' part doesn't fit well with the rest IMO. I guess you can imagine some proto-matter thing-in-itself stuff that chugs along in the same way under all of our naming, but I'd stress that we live largely in the significant noises and marks we make. Those are even physical differences, right? But that's a small quibble.

We use inherited divisions that have worked, and we tinker with them to make them better or just to entertain ourselves. The world does indeed inflict itself on us, and that seems to be the real foundation of meaning. It's not just a game, though it's cute and illuminating to call it a (language) game. Predators that use signs to coordinate their hunting so that their cubs don't starve aren't playing a game. I think language is just a basic for us, though philosophers operate on the more well-fed playful end for the most part.

Perhaps it has something to do with animals being forced to move, forced to act. 'Reality' is something like the model an animal is most likely to act on. — Zugzwang

That's very close to how I look at it. Forced to choose, to act, to place our bets, to say one thing rather than another and then be accountable for what we say. All that.

I do still find it slightly curious that this shows up at the language level, but I probably just haven't thought about it hard enough.

the 'what will be the case' part doesn't fit well with the rest IMO. — Zugzwang

We won't be able to walk through the wall, no matter what we call it. That's all.

Sure, scepticism has been the fashion for quite some time. If it were kept as an attitude, as a method, there might be no issue. But folk talk of it as if it were a metaphysics; as if Everest really did not have a height until it was measured. — Banno

I'm no expert on QM, but...strictly speaking, scientifically...does it have height? One could also mumble about how Everest is not the same from moment to moment. If it has a height, its height varies, etc. But climber wouldn't need to worry about all these niceties. They'd just need a trustworthy estimate that allows them to bring the right amount of food and oxygen, etc.

We won't be able to walk through the wall, no matter what we call it. That's all. — Banno

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.

That's very close to how I look at it. Forced to choose, to act, to place our bets, to say one thing rather than another and then be accountable for what we say. All that.

I do still find it slightly curious that this shows up at the language level, but I probably just haven't thought about it hard enough. — Srap Tasmaner

I speculate that actual usage is just too complex for more than sketches. English runs on a brain with brains for neurons. Another example: how many bits are necessary to encode the skill of driving safely? Tesla might answer that for us, or at least give us an upper bound.

As I think about it, I think the language bit is mainstream pragmatism.

It does still feel a little funny having words like "truth" and "fact" around we've given definitions we can only aspire to use and never reach. I used to think a lot about the role of the ideal, as something that does have practical use. I'll have more time later tonight.

We live on the surface of a planet surrounded by gaseous nitrogen within a temperature range between -10 C and 50C and able to perceive a limited range of sound waves and electromagnetic radiation yet the Andromeda Galaxy, x-rays, and quarks are part of our world. — T Clark

To me this sounds very clunky. Do you think all of reality is clunky? To me its like rocks and dirt. All these technical things. Part of being in the dirt. I'd rather be the bird.

It does still feel a little funny having words like "truth" and "fact" around we've given definitions we can only aspire to use and never reach. I used to think a lot about the role of the ideal, as something that does have practical use. I'll have more time later tonight. — Srap Tasmaner

I do think 'truth' and 'fact' do lots of solid work in the real world, tho. It's us philosophers who can't help trying to do math with them, 'clarify' them, find some hidden center, understand them to point at something unreachable. You mention the ideal having a practical use. That makes sense to me, though maybe it's fairly indirect. I think of birds decorating their nests, suggestions of status, sophistication, sensitivity.

Mount Everest is 8,849 m heigh, give or take a metre or so.

Introducing QM to a thread is a surefire way to ensure it goes for another twenty pages without being at all helpful.

The contention here is that I reject the notion that the height of the mount came into existence only when the observation was made.

actually the height of Everest constantly changes, if only by millimeters, due to continental drift. Also major corrections have been made to its height estimates due to variances in measurement. I recall an early measurement came out at exactly 29,000 feet, so the surveyors added 27 - a random number - simply because a round number seemed wrong.

actually the height of Everest constantly changes, if only by millimeters, due to continental drift. — Wayfarer

Yeah, dude. Hence the give or take.

And yep, the height changes over time. Therefore it has a height.

And yep, sometimes they measure the height incorrectly. Therefore it has a correct height.

So...?

To me this sounds very clunky. Do you think all of reality is clunky? — Yohan

Reality isn't clunky. Human thought is clunky.

Human thought is clunky. — T Clark

That's exactly the distinction marked by distinguishing belief from fact.

That's exactly the distinction marked by distinguishing belief from fact. — Banno

As I noted before, I'm not sure fact/belief/knowledge/truth distinctions are worth the trouble. When we get to the end, the only question that matters is "What do I do now?"