If you're talking about the use of the terms in science, there's a distinction, but it's what I described, not what you described. — InPitzotl
Again, you replied, but you did not answer the question. Is it a fact that planets exist when you aren't looking at them, or a theory that planets exist when you aren't looking at them?: — InPitzotl
"But the observations that were done, remain done, factum," ...but that's a contradiction. You're using certainty as a criteria, and we can't be certain an object is there when we are looking at it either. — InPitzotl
So what you're saying is because I might draw a blue marble, it does not matter what the probability is that I draw a red one. — InPitzotl
There is no number of times we can play where it's not true that you "might" win. — InPitzotl
Well let me phrase it another way. You observe some particular and derive some truth about the particular, where "truth" is simply something to your own satisfaction. That's a fact. You collect a bunch of facts and find some generalized explanation for it... that's a theory. Incidentally this isn't just a mathematical or logical net; a mathematical relationship between several facts isn't considered an explanation; that is just a law, not a theory.What distinction did you describe, exactly? — Olivier5
As requested, kept it very short.Short version please. — Olivier5
I'm unconvinced that being a presupposition implies "neither". We learn object permanence at an incredibly young age. It has the hallmarks of a theory; we observe objects going out of view, and coming into view, but there's some consistency of the observations that appears to arise out of the data... objects going out of view still seem to "be out there", potentially to come back into view again. We infer then that objects stay there even if we don't see them. This would make it a theory.Neither. It's an absolute presupposition for astronomy. — Olivier5
Once I've drawn 100 marbles it wouldn't matter if I were more likely to draw what I did or less likely.No, I'm saying that once you've drawn it doesn't matter if you were more likely to draw what you did or less likely. — Srap Tasmaner
No, my accumulated net winnings would probably increase. There's a probability that it would. The contradiction here is that you're appealing to probability in the multiple case yet ignoring it in the single case. Either probability matters, in which case it matters on a single draw; or it doesn't, in which case it doesn't matter on multiple draws. The only thing multiple draws gives you is another probability.I meant that your accumulated net winnings would gradually increase. — Srap Tasmaner
A notable feature of facts as I defined them — Olivier5
so far it seems like we have precisely the facts we have, no more, no less, and that logic serves as an interpretive tool rather than an imposition on what they can be — Ennui Elucidator
Exactly, except we can of course acquire more facts as we go along, and we do. — Olivier5
facts come at a cost, so we are likely to obtain only those facts that have a cost that we (or others) are willing to bear in order to obtain them. Unsurprisingly, then, many facts support power and undermine the powerless. — Ennui Elucidator
Here's a couple of uses for the word.
A fact is a statement that is true.
It is also the state of affairs set out by a true statement. — Banno
"A fact is what is set out by a true statement" sets up a realist agenda. The fact exists independently of the statement. Here one might avoid Fitch by pointing out that there are things we do not know, and moreover, there are things we cannot know. — Banno
So, it wasn't clear to me what Fitch has in mind. Do you take Fitch to be saying that there are unknown truths, but that all truths are knowable in principle, or that all truths are actually knowable? — Janus
A fact is an accurate observation. — Olivier5
A fact is then any statement that has been assigned the value "true".
The criticisms I levelled at Olivier target observation, not verification per se. — Banno
So drop truth, as such, from the lexicon, going straight to belief, with three values, true, false and undecided. Logic and mathematics are down as true. Add whatever institutional statements you like - bishops move only diagonally, making a promise counts as undertaking a commitment, whatever you need. Other statements are undecided. Then add observations and associated theory in some sort of holistic verification model as per Quine... — Banno
It sounds like you're saying that, for example, GOFAST is very likely some form of fowl. But it is possibly an alien craft. But whatever it is, it is definitely a genuine video with authentic metadata. Is that correct?My point here is that the only undeniable facts are the grainy footages and their metadata (how and when they were collected). The rest is interpretation and therefore, highly technical. — Olivier5
:up:A consequence of realism is that there are things we don't know, but which are true. The world exitst independently of what we say about it.
Antirealism in its various forms holds that all truths areknowable[known]. So for an antirealist truth may be just what is verified. — Banno
I think you have confused me with someone else. From this thread:As180 Proof has said, facts are ineluctable, but not for the reasons he supposes. — Ennui Elucidator
And also discussing 'ontology' :A fact is a truth-maker for at least one truth-claim. — 180 Proof
Not necessary, not "ineluctable".What's impossible is a fact - node of causal relations - which is 'impossible to negate', or change; factual existence presupposes contingency - possibility of negation - insofar as facts are - at least one fact is - causally relational, unlike abstract subsistents which are not causally relational. — 180 Proof
The list of unknowns, innumerable. — 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.