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. — Olivier5
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. — Olivier5
As explained in detail, some facts are true in virtue of the institutions in which they occur. Such facts are not true in virtue of observations.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. — Olivier5
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. — InPitzotl
That the table is 3.0±0.1m is either true or false. — Banno
how do you differentiate between the erroneous observations and the correct ones? — Banno
As explained in detail, some facts are true in virtue of the institutions in which they occur. Such facts are not true in virtue of observations. — Banno
My point entirely. — Olivier5
For Olivier5, Is it that every fact is known? — Banno
There must be vast numbers of facts about the stars and planets in this galaxy and other galaxies which have not, and may never be, discovered. — Janus
accuracy is just camouflaged truth. — Banno
What observation leads to the conclusion that the area of a circle is given by π r² ? — Banno
What exists exists, but in order to get to a true statement describing some state of affairs accurately, you need an observer observing. — Olivier5
Reasons, sure. Not observations. — Banno
in order to get to a true statement describing some state of affairs accurately, you need an observer observing. — Olivier5
You can say "Leonardo was gay" and " Leonardo was not gay" and one of those statements will be a true statement, a fact; no observation required. — Janus
Are you viewing ‘observe’ as ‘experience’? — I like sushi
I cannot ‘observe’ 1 yet I can say 1+1=2 is a specific fact of basic addition. — I like sushi
My only question would they be to what ends? What can/do you/we achieve by shifting our perspective thus? — I like sushi
Facts
Facts, philosophers like to say, are opposed to theories and to values (cf. Rundle 1993)
So you acknowledge bet can have this meaning. Let's call this bet(1).While I recognize the common usage of "I bet you ..." to mean "I am offering to enter into a wager with you such that ...", — Srap Tasmaner
Sure. "Bet" can also have this meaning. Let's call this bet(2).There is a wager once the parties have a contract, and the word "bet" is also used in this sense. — Srap Tasmaner
Let's suppose your name is East, and my name is South. We are negotiating a contract. During the "bidding process" (that being the formalized negotiation mechanism for such bets), I say "two no-trump". Immediately afterwards, someone called West says "pass", followed by someone called North saying "pass", and then you, East, say "pass".Such a contract is certainly some kind of fact, — Srap Tasmaner
Like the christening of a ship or any other speech act, it requires specific circumstances and the cooperation of others. — Srap Tasmaner
Might I suggest there are different "kinds" of facts, and they feel different because they're doing different things? But along those lines, "water molecules are composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom", "bishops always stay on their own color", and "Joe is married to Sue" all feel different to me... IOW, perhaps a taxonomy of facts would be preferred to a refinement of the concept? — InPitzotl
You like monads I take it? You cling to ‘essences’? Some ‘pure form’? If not then explain your view regarding ‘truth’/‘fact’ please. I’m interested to hear. — I like sushi
in order to get to a true statement describing some state of affairs accurately, you need an observer observing. — Olivier5
You can say "Leonardo was gay" and " Leonardo was not gay" and one of those statements will be a true statement, a fact; no observation required. — Janus
But you still need someone stating the statement for a statement to exist. Without someone saying "Leonardo was gay", this statement is not in existence so it cannot be true or false. And once it has been stated by someone, its truth value can only be assessed by someone based on the available empirical evidence to someone. It is not a fact if it is not buttressed by any evidence. — Olivier5
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.