Yes, you misunderstood. I don't think that's true either, but that's not what's being claimed.I thought you had claimed that because you had said something like "I bet $5 I can make a fact by saying something" you must have made a bet; I don't think that's true. — Srap Tasmaner
Yes, you misunderstood. — InPitzotl
It is a fact. But we constructed it. In nature this does not exist. It's projected by means of a mathematical net. Thrown over the physical universe. There are no inherent areas of circles. After the orojection only. — Rstotalloss
I strongly agree that too much time is squandered in philosophical disputes in which it seems there is no objective standard or criterion available to settle the matter. I suggest it's one of the more important tasks of the philosopher to identify such controversies and put them to rest. — Cabbage Farmer
I'm not sure what's so complicated about this. If I am riding a bike, I would propel the bike by pushing on the peddles.Cool. Then what were you claiming, and what does it have to do with whether what we say is factual? — Srap Tasmaner
...and by saying that, I made that bet. By making that bet using these means, it becomes a fact that I made that bet. That fact is described by what I said to make the bet.I'll bet you $5 that I can make something a fact just by saying it. — InPitzotl
and by saying that, I made that bet — InPitzotl
That fact is described by what I said to make the bet. — InPitzotl
(A) I made that bet — InPitzotl
Why did you bother with this example? I've already explained this to you. No, I don't (B) owe him ten bucks. But what's in dispute is (A) that my buddy made a bet. The reason I don't owe him ten bucks isn't because my buddy didn't make a bet; but because I did not accept the bet.No you really didn't. Suppose you and a buddy are drinking behind the 7-11. Your buddy finishes his beer and says "Ten bucks says I can make it." You say nothing as he arcs his empty bottle into the recycling bin across the aisle. (B) Do you owe him ten bucks? — Srap Tasmaner
That's irrelevant. Bets tend to have an unspoken by demonstration rule. If I bet my buddy I can touch the ceiling, and I jump up and touch it, I win the bet. It doesn't matter whether or not I can necessarily touch the ceiling, or whether I can touch the ceiling regardless of circumstances. I demonstrate "can" by a successful attempt.There is no necessary connection between the words spoken, in themselves alone, and any fact brought about in the world by speaking them. — Srap Tasmaner
And that's especially wrong. — Srap Tasmaner
Let Y be that phrase. By my producing that statement, Y is said. By Y being said, a bet is made. By the bet being made, it becomes a fact. The thing that becomes a fact is Y. You might could quibble about distinctions between performatives and factual descriptions, but Y is both the thing being said to make the bet, and a fact brought about by saying it.I'll bet you $5 that I can make something a fact just by saying it. — InPitzotl
For example, we propel bicycles by pushing on their pedals, but that requires specific circumstances (wheels on the ground, you on the seat, chain hooked up, etc). Nevertheless, that is indeed how we propel bicycles. To say that this isn't how we propel bicycles because if the chain weren't there it wouldn't work would just be silly; there's nothing in the claim that this is how we propel bicycles that purports this to be sufficient. — InPitzotl
The reason I don't owe him ten bucks isn't because my buddy didn't make a bet; but because I did not accept the bet. — InPitzotl
I discussed that too, right here:Or because he wasn't even offering a wager but expressing his confidence by saying "I'll bet I can ..." --- an alternative which you passed right over. — Srap Tasmaner
...unprompted even.Arguably, the speaker's probably (but not necessarily) making a bet anyway; they're just being satirical about the wager. (A case where the speaker might not be making a bet may be if the speaker is teasing; e.g., using that language to suggest Jerry may have had lots of fun last night). — InPitzotl
Why not? It's natural to say "I do not accept that bet".And no, it's not a bet if no one accepts. — Srap Tasmaner
Sure, it's possible to make bets without statements. But... (a).Suppose he just hoists his empty and points at the bin saying, "Five bucks." You nod. Now there's a bet. What statement of fact did he make? What statement of fact did you make by nodding? — Srap Tasmaner
But you're conflating two distinct things: (a) the fact that I can make a bet by saying "I bet I can x", and (b) the fact that I can say "I bet I can x" without making a bet. — InPitzotl
Why not? — InPitzotl
This is what you quoted. Here's what you left out:Why not? — InPitzotl
It's natural to say "I do not accept that bet". — InPitzotl
You have already sung that song. And the answer was already given to you. In order for me to be obliged to pay, I must accept "it". But the "it" I must accept is called a bet; hence, it being natural to say "I accept that bet". If I reject "it", I am not obliged to pay out; but again, the "it" that I reject is called a bet; hence it being natural to say, "I reject that bet".Who pays out if you win? Nobody? Then what were the stakes? Nothing? Then no wager. — Srap Tasmaner
C=πd
Is that a fact? — Srap Tasmaner
...what they say is not made a fact by their saying it. — Srap Tasmaner
We have to give up the distinction between fat and theory. — Banno
... since the 15th century... in the standard (or rather European) rules... — Olivier5
Only superficially so. It is a truism that any observation takes place within a certain theoretical framework. So what? The data is still collected, and useful.You claim that facts are only ever the result of observation. That claim has been thoroughly critiqued and found wanting. — Banno
Sure, it's an historical fact that the bishop moves diagonally. It is also an institutional fact. That it is true is not dependent on observation.
Well, it was not my intention to make that point, but it seems to come out of the discussion. I have not given the subject a lot of thought before but through the discussion, I am realizing an appreciation for why we have the word "spell" which means the letters we use for a word and also the power of the word to affect what is so. There is something magical about the word. Like there is something magical about math. This is beyond accepted materialistic thinking and I am not sure if anyone wants to go that far? — Athena
Well, I don't see a point in going over the arguments against your position yet again — Banno
Did everyone decide that "fact" and "true" are two word that mean exactly the same thing? Or do they mean different things? And if different, would someone be good enough to tell me what, or point me to the post that has that? — tim wood
Sure.You have made no argument against my position whatsoever. — Olivier5
A fact is an accurate observation. — Olivier5
1. Accurate is problematic. What is it that makes an observation accurate? — Banno
2. An observation might be made that is erroneous. That is, not true. — Banno
3. Observations are embedded in theory. Facts on this account must be dependent on other facts. Not a killer, this, but still relevant. — Banno
4. Counter examples. That the area of a circle is given by r² is a fact but is not an observation. That the bishop always moved diagonally is a fact but not an observation. It will not do to claim that we learn these by observation, since learning something does not make each a fact — Banno
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.