Well for one, the power to make a bet by stating that I'm making one. It's a fact that I made that bet; a fact made true by the fact that I stated that I made it (is that not how bets are made?) — InPitzotl

That is a good one. I guess you would win that bet.

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. I don't think that's true either, but that's not what's being claimed.

Yes, you misunderstood. — InPitzotl

Cool. Then what were you claiming, and what does it have to do with whether what we say is factual?

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

Let me announce I do not know math. It is an awesome mystery to me. That said pi is about circles and it is important to the engineering of airplanes for connecting with a satellite that determines where the plane is at all times, and the mechanics of the tail flap. That makes me wonder if birds use pi to navigate?

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

Maybe in the next hundred years, I will learn to think with the clarity many people here have. I love your words "objective standard or criterion available". Isn't the object to make you look like an ass so everyone thinks I won the argument? :lol: I definitely am not serious and I don't see that much here, but in political forums that seems to be the mentality. The point is a clear question and objective standard or criterion for answering it is true thinking. Just reacting to someone is not the process of thinking that reasoning requires. But I have so much to learn before I can achieve the goal of good reasoning. I only have a vague understanding of the terms you used. My brain is still like a wild horse that could bound off in any direction rather than conform to an objective standard or criterion.

Cool. Then what were you claiming, and what does it have to do with whether what we say is factual? — Srap Tasmaner

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.

In like fashion, I said this:

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. 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.

and by saying that, I made that bet — InPitzotl

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 alley. Do you owe him ten bucks?

You might, if it were custom among you two always to accept these small bets, but probably not.

Is it at least a fact that he offered a wager. Again, maybe. Maybe. Might just be the way he talks, an expression of confidence. Words are not magic spells. There is no necessary connection between the words spoken, in themselves alone, and any fact brought about in the world by speaking them.

That fact is described by what I said to make the bet. — InPitzotl

And that's especially wrong. When a judge passes sentence, by speaking certain words, he brings about certain facts but is not stating a fact. That's the whole point of the category of performative utterance. That he said what he said, is a fact. That it counts as passing sentence, also fact, and more factual consequences flow from that. But he wasn't stating a fact, and what he said is not a factual statement but a judicial sentence.

(A) I made that bet — InPitzotl

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

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.

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

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.

You're arguing for irrelevancies not on the table.

And that's especially wrong. — Srap Tasmaner

I'll bet you $5 that I can make something a fact just by saying it. — InPitzotl

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.

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

Wonderful. Something I can quibble about. I love to quibble and nitpick. When they were first introduced, bicycles did not have pedals, chains, and gears. They were propelled by foot, much as a scooter or skateboard is.

That is a quibble, but it also says something about facts.

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

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.

And no, it's not a bet if no one accepts.

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?

If I'm watching a baseball game, and it looks to me like a pitch went right over the heart of the plate waist-high, doesn't matter if I say "Strike!" It matters what the home-plate umpire says (these days it's just a gesture). He does not observe that the pitch is in the strike zone and report this fact. Whatever he decides becomes fact, even if PITCHf/x shows he was wrong. His speech act is of a different kind from mine; I report what I saw but he makes a call.

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

I discussed that too, right here:

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

...unprompted even.

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.

And no, it's not a bet if no one accepts. — Srap Tasmaner

Why not? It's natural to say "I do not accept that bet".

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

Sure, it's possible to make bets without statements. But... (a).

I don't quite understand the point of this. Are you trying to earn your $5?

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

I don't understand in what sense you think I'm conflating them.

Why not? — InPitzotl

Who pays out if you win? Nobody? Then what were the stakes? Nothing? Then no wager.

The point I'm making, once again, is not that you cannot make a bet by saying certain words, of course you can. But your speech act is then "making a bet", not stating a fact. If I make a promise, I'm not stating a fact. If I express a wish, I'm not stating a fact. If I issue a command, I'm not stating a fact. If I make a bet, I'm not stating a fact.

All these things are related to other factual statements. If I promise to do the dishes, I promise to bring about the state of affairs that could be factually described as, that the dishes are done. But I'm making a promise, not stating a fact.

Why not? — InPitzotl

This is what you quoted. Here's what you left out:

It's natural to say "I do not accept that bet". — InPitzotl

Who pays out if you win? Nobody? Then what were the stakes? Nothing? Then no wager. — Srap Tasmaner

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".

I'm appealing to natural use of the language as the standard by which we judge what "to bet" means... that would be the part of my quote that you left out. So I added it back in for you... just in case you want to actually reply to me.

C=πd

Is that a fact? — Srap Tasmaner

Yep; It's a true statement. Being a definition of π does not change this.

...what they say is not made a fact by their saying it. — Srap Tasmaner

It is the saying that makes it a fact that the bishop moved diagonally. Adopting that fact sets up the complex iterative interactions that go into making Chess interesting. Searle called such things "institutional facts", characterising them as of the form "A counts as X"; moving diagonally counts as a move in chess. Doing otherwise is not playing chess.

Wittgenstein may have had something similar in toe with talk of Hinge propositions.

Searle contrasted institutional facts with brute facts; roughly speaking, brute facts are observations: the cup s on the table.

The unaddressed problem with this is that brute facts can only be presented by taking advantage of institutional facts. "The cup is on the table" uses the institutional facts of language.

Now this is Davidson's point, when he says that the world is always, already interpreted.

It is also the Quine-Durkheim thesis.

It's the reason that observations cannot be the foundation of our understanding.

We have to give up the distinction between fact and theory.

We have to give up the distinction between fat and theory. — Banno

This is one of the best things you ever said. Fat is intrinsic to good theory. Who wants lean and meagre theories?

As for the rules of chess as we know them, they stabilized around the 15th century in Europe. Before that at some point, the bishop did not exist yet. It was still called al fil, the elephant in Arabic, and the elephant did already move diagonally but I believe it could jump, like the knight and moved only by two squares.

So it is a historical fact, well established by the study of ancient Arabic and European chess books, that since the 15th century or so the bishop moves diagonally in the standard (or rather European) rules of chess.

You seem to think this an argument; it isn't. It just seems that you have not been able to follow the discussion.

You claim that facts are only ever the result of observation. That claim has been thoroughly critiqued and found wanting.

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.

Your move. See if you can address the actual issue at hand.

... since the 15th century... in the standard (or rather European) rules... — Olivier5

See what I did here? I contextualized the fact within its theoretical, historical, and geographical milieux. In doing so, it was made more of a fact, not less of a fact. More precise, more informative.

Facts have this in common with objective reality, with empirical, stubborn reality, that they are always local. Facts are always somewhere, and some when. Even the formula for the area of the circle is only true within a certain context: that of Euclidian geometry.

You claim that facts are only ever the result of observation. That claim has been thoroughly critiqued and found wanting. — Banno

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.

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.

It is: people learn the rules of chess by observation and imitation. That is precisely how they know, and can verify anytime they want, how the bishop moves: by asking others, by reading books.

Sure, facts are contextual. On this we agree. In particular, what counts as an observation is dependent on the context.

A fact is an accurate observation. — Olivier5

Do you now rescind this?

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

:up: Words may not directly affect the world itself, as they were thought to be able to do in traditional magick, but they certainly affect the ways we see the world. And insofar as human actions have affected the world, then words have affected the world.

Maths, on the other hand, does seem to reflect the deep structures of the world.

Do you now rescind this? — Banno

Of course not...

Of course not... — Olivier5

Well, I don't see a point in going over the arguments against your position yet again, so I guess that's the end of the chat.

Hi. 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?

Well, I don't see a point in going over the arguments against your position yet again — Banno

You have made no argument against my position whatsoever. Maybe you think you did, but as always you only gesticulated in the general direction of Wittgenstein...

But maybe you can understand what I am saying if I take a very simple example: do you often drive a car with your eyes close? Does the driver of a car benefit (or not) from keeping his eyes open? Think about it for a day or two... No rush.

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

My take is that two words never mean the exact same thing, otherwise there wouldn't exist two words. In this case, a fact is not just a true statement: it is a well established true statement, relatively easy to verify empirically by oneself.

You have made no argument against my position whatsoever. — Olivier5

Sure.

So let's list 'em.

A fact is an accurate observation. — Olivier5

1. Accurate is problematic. What is it that makes an observation accurate?
1a. One answer would be "being close to the truth", but then your your comment is just "being a true observation" and gets no further than mine.
1b. A second answer would be Aa measure that has a smaller error but then 1.5±0.001m would be a more accurate figure than 2±0.1m for something that is actually 2.0m.

2. An observation might be made that is erroneous. That is, not true. On your account such an observation would still count as a fact. Your account admits false facts.

3. Observations are embedded in theory. Facts on this account must be dependent on other facts. Not a killer, this, but still relevant.

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

There were a couple of others, but these will do.

Glad we agree.

See above.

1. Accurate is problematic. What is it that makes an observation accurate? — Banno

This has been answered already. Accuracy is -- if you wish -- the quantitative version of truth. Truth is black or white, yes or no, but accuracy goes by degree; one can be more or less accurate but not more or less true (there's the concept of "true enough", which means "accurate enough"). The concept of accuracy is therefore apt for natural sciences, perhaps more so than the concept of truth, because in natural science facts are usually understood as quantitative measurements, always coming with a certain margin of imprecision.

2. An observation might be made that is erroneous. That is, not true. — Banno

In this case it is an inaccurate observation, ergo not a fact. Beside, the way to tell if a previous observation was accurate or not is to redo the observation (or a similar one) and compare the results. Therefore one corrects inaccurate observations via other, more accurate observations. Not via more theory or revelations from the gods.

3. Observations are embedded in theory. Facts on this account must be dependent on other facts. Not a killer, this, but still relevant. — Banno

I addressed this already. The Duhem-Quine thesis (nothing to see with Durkheim, and the correct order is with Duhem first because he stated it first, historically) is correct, if a bit trite. It is only stating the obvious, that one cannot test only one hypothesis in isolation from the whole theoretical framework underpinning it. So yes, there is no observation without some prior enquiry shaping and motivating that observation, and "pure observation" (so to speak, meaning observation not based on any theory) is simply impossible. And yet, astronomers still look through their telescopes, biologists still peer through their microscopes, and people still keep their eyes open when they drive, in spite of the Duhem-Quine thesis... As you conceded, it's not a killer at all.

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

Again, addressed already. Perhaps you can explain how you know for a fact that the bishop always moved diagonally, rather than like the rook, or like the al fil piece that predated the bishop ? Was this knowledge handed over to you by a revelation from God? Or was it an instinct perhaps?

We derive what we take to be facts via, inter alia, observation, but it doesn't follow from that that there are no unobserved facts. I'm still not clear on whether you agree with that or not.