The T-sentence. Statement mentioned on the left, — Banno
state of affairs, fact, statement used, on the right. — Banno
state of affairs, fact — Banno
state of affairs, fact, statement used, on the right. — Banno
state of affairs, fact... statement used to mention which, on the right. — Banno
Statement mentioned on the left, — Banno
This thread has really deteriorated. I would love to clean it up by deleting the personal attacks that should never become part of a thread or just close it to stop the bad behavior. — Athena
Where did I go wrong? — Banno
That is a statement. — Banno
It is also a fact, because the door is indeed shut. — Banno
It can be used as a statement and as a fact. — Banno
What can? The string of four words which is indeed a statement and a fact, in the sense of true statement? Are you saying it can sometimes be used as a sentence whose truth is irrelevant? — bongo fury
To resolve the deeper question takes a much larger conception than that provided by ‘plain language’ philosophy because it has to deal with metaphysics - which is just the subject that plain language philosophy presumes to reject.
See for an example this critique of Lawrence Krauss’ book ‘A Universe from Nothing’, by Neil Ormerod, an academic theologian, in particular the section on Bernard Lonergan’s analysis of the nature of judgement.
3h — Wayfarer
Of course, we could ask ourselves, what would happen if the scientists had not found the Higgs boson, and the standard model was not verified? Certainly the response would not have been, "Well, why should we expect the universe to fit our mathematical models?" Rather it would have been something like, "We'll go back to the drawing board and develop new models and then test them." The scientific drive to understand presumes rather than proves that the material world is intelligible. The continued success of science is a testament to the fact that this presumption is well founded.
Of course I acknowledge that not all what passes for a fact deserves the title. Which is precisely why I am interested in a pragmatic definition, that gives a sense of how facts are determined by us human beings in practice. — Olivier5
I don't understand what you are asking. — Banno
It can be used as a statement and as a fact.
— Banno
What can? — bongo fury
Metaphysics Is really just psychology.
And psychology is verbal and emotional language expression.
However,I'm a Linguistic realist,which means our language is a direct reality and we experience objects directly. None of this kantian nonsense. — Ambrosia
For so long as he can maintain his pickets - his definitions - without being forced to yield, he's secure in his redoubt. — tim wood
But what it really means is that at a given time a given observer observed at that time that the door was shut and reported his observation. — tim wood
...see the problem here? The door might blow open, unseen, and then it would be a fact that the door was open; but you cannot say this on your account.all that he can reasonably make of that is that the door is closed and will remain so until another report is received, — tim wood
I read that critique as a rejection of naive realism in favor of Kantianism. — Joshs
I'm not convinced that the success of science does not constitute proof of the intelligibility of the universe — Banno
(Bring a torch! My limited experience with real math matches that. To prove a theorem in topology, say, you build some really specialized sort of set or space or transformation -- your torch -- and then you send it down into the cave and it lights up your surroundings for you, shows you exactly how things stand. That suggests that philosophical problems might be solvable with a sort of Deleuzean, or at least pragmatic, concept craftsmanship.) — Srap Tasmaner
In that case I have no idea what you are arguing about. — Janus
You can call the distinction a mere matter of usage, but I would call - do call - using them interchangeably ignorant. — tim wood
Proof brings with it the air of certainty, which is what Olivier5 and T Clark both crave and fear, since it gives some support o their scientistic views.
— Banno
This is not an accurate characterization of my views. — T Clark
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.