I think you have confused me with someone else. From this thread:
A fact is a truth-maker for at least one truth-claim.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

I don’t have you confused, but that doesn’t mean I am not confused.

Reality is the word we use when we go hunting for certainty. — “Tom Storm”

Ineluctability. — 180 Proof

Though I will certainly grant that the change from “reality” to “fact” was mine and not yours.

It sounds like you're saying that, for example, GOFAST is very likely some form of fowl. — InPitzotl

Not really. I am using the example to illustrate what is a fact.

Is it a fact that the US air forces have released these vids? Yes.

Is the footage genuine? Most probably yes.

So the vids are facts.

Is there any else that can be regarded as certain or almost certain, i.e. as factually established? No. Even Mick West does not conclude it is certainly a fowl. He just demonstrates that 'gofast' does not actually go that fast.

A fact is an accurate observation.
— Olivier5

Taking this as a naive attempt at verificationism — Banno

That's your mistake right there. I'm a Popperian. Falsification is the thing, not verification. And of course I am a realist like Popper.

The criticisms I levelled at Olivier target observation, not verification per se. — Banno

You have not levelled any criticism at me. You gesticulated in my general direction, declared victory and then ran away from the battle, as you always do...

Del

Falsification is the thing, not verification. And of course I am a realist like Popper. — Olivier5

:100:

Thanks. It's pretty obvious to me that "verificationism" is simply a logical error. Just because you observe white swans doesn't verify that all swans are white...

:up:

Not really. I am using the example to illustrate what is a fact. — Olivier5

But it sounds a bit confusing:

My point here is that the only undeniable facts are the grainy footages and their metadata (how and when they were collected). — Olivier5

(A) Is it a fact that the US air forces have released these vids? Yes.
(B) Is the footage genuine? Most probably yes.
(C) So the vids are facts. — Olivier5

By including line (B), it sounds like you're suggesting the footage being genuine is a fact. By your prior statement it sounds like you're binding undeniability to factuality. By your prior statement and your current one (the one I'm replying to) it sounds like you're including the video's genuineness in what you're calling undeniability. I disagree that the video's being genuine qualifies as undeniable.

...and yet, you also sound like you're paying heed to this... in line (B), you call the video's footage "most probably" genuine. The whole question here is where you draw the line.

So to follow up... do you consider the notion that the videos are genuine a fact? If so, it sounds like you do not really consider undeniability to be a trait of facts ("Most probably" not "undeniable"?)

Roughly, here's what I'm getting at. We might could have a "pragmatic fudge"; certain and undeniability really mean "for all practical purposes". But suppose we put a number to it; let's say using some Bayesian analysis, anything more likely than p is certain; less likely than p is uncertain. Then I'm not sure there is such a number beyond which are only facts, and before which are only theories.

For example, I'd happily accept that the videos were faked way before I accept that someone built a perpetual motion machine.

I disagree that the video's being genuine qualifies as undeniable.

...and yet, you also sound like you're paying heed to this... in line (B), you call the video's footage "most probably" genuine. The whole question here is where you draw the line. — InPitzotl

That is indeed important in that a document, understood broadly as a video, a photo, a text or a voice recording, or any cultural artifact can be accepted as genuine or rejected as fake. There is no power in this world that can force anyone to accept a source as valid. For someone who thinks the Holocaust never happened, all testimonies of the survivors, all the pictures, all the records of the Holocaust are fake. But here comes the rub: to reject a massive amount of evidence is unhealthy. It is indicative of a very strong bias bordering on insanity.

Facts are what a sane person in good faith cannot deny. Not what a fool can't deny.

So, coming back to the UFO vids, it is technically possible but it would surprise me very very much if the US Armed Forces had forged three or more fake videos of UFOs to then 'declassify' them... Like why would they do that? And how come the testimonies of service members fit?

We might could have a "pragmatic fudge"; certain and undeniability really mean "for all practical purposes". — InPitzotl

Yes, and for all sane, bona fide folks.

But suppose we put a number to it; let's say using some Bayesian analysis, anything more likely than p is certain; less likely than p is uncertain. Then I'm not sure there is such a number beyond which are only facts, and before which are only theories.

In theory you are right but even imprecision can be measured or estimated. If you disclose openly the limitations of your data and its margin of error, it's part of what make facts good facts.

In practice, a 5% alpha risk is recommended.

. I'm a Popperian. — Olivier5

So you use verisimilitude as your measure of truth.

If not, then it's not apparent how you might reconcile realism with Fitch's paradox.

So you use verisimilitude as your measure of truth. — Banno

I'm not a Popperian but I plead guilty to elevating verisimilitude. As far as I can tell, I have no alternative but to assume the world I am in is real that other people exist and act accordingly. All matter may well really be discrete globs of energy bobbing about on quantum waves but it makes no sense to conduct life using this model of reality. Is there help?

Is there help? — Tom Storm

I don't know, Tom.

I'm looking into antirealism, to see if it is a viable alternative to realism.

See here.

Are there unknown truths? The approach inspired by Fitch post-dates Popper, so it's not obvious whether verisimilitude is realist, as he thought, or anti-realist, a notion that came into prominence after falsificationism lost purchase in epistemology.

I'm looking into antirealism, to see if it is a viable alternative to realism. — Banno

Excellent. I've wondered about this. Verisimilitude not being realist is fascinating. I guess there's also the phenomenologist's perspective (of which I have limited understanding) wherein we co-create reality and share an intersubjective experience rather than an objective reality. But maybe I've got this wrong. Let us know what you find.

Verisimilitude gives an approximation to the truth, in that theories with a higher verisimilitude are "closer to the truth" than those without. Yes?

I suppose it remains an open question as to whether this leads to realism or antirealism. Presumably, given that Popper avowed realism, he thinks that a statement is either true or false, and verisimilitude becomes a measure of the degree to which we might believe, or perhaps know the truth of the statement.

But oddly @Olivier5 seemed to previously disavow the notion that a statement is either true or false, preferring a measure of the probability of it's being true... or something like that. An antirealist approach, from someone who claims to be a realist.

One might be able to drop binary truth for degrees of truth, at the cost of dropping realism for antirealism.

That's an interesting notion, that I would not have noticed were it not for @Olivier5's odd definition of "fact" as observation. While it's clear from the criticisms offered here of that notion that it won't cut the mustard, there might be space for someone to defend an anti-realist argument against the realist account.

It seems antirealism cannot be dismissed quite as quickly as I had thought.

Maybe a new thread.

So you use verisimilitude as your measure of truth.

If not, then it's not apparent how you might reconcile realism with Fitch's paradox. — Banno

I use observation as a measure of truth, as I thought I made clear, and as every body else does really. Or do you know anyone who drives his car with his eyes closed?

I don't believe there is such a thing as Fitch's paradox: it's a mere illusion of a paradox due to poor conceptual clarity. It's fake.

I'm looking into antirealism, to see if it is a viable alternative to realism. — Banno

You may wish to define these terms the way you understand them. Perhaps a new thread: What is realism?

I don't believe there is such a thing as Fitch's paradox: it's a mere illusion of a paradox due to poor conceptual clarity. It's fake. — Olivier5

Well, write it up and get a doctorate.

Well, write it up and get a doctorate. — Banno

:lol: Would feel like getting a doctorate for changing a light bulb...