Physics? :roll:

I'm not talking about knowingly creating a life for any end. I'm talking about the idea that a life might be worth living even if it were, however improbably, devoid of pleasure for the one living it.

Don’t each of us , whenever we use our ‘common’ language , in some minuscule way already speak our own variant? — Joshs

I would agree with that because we all have different sets of associations that have come to be attached to words and phrases. If I extend the meaning of a term in a completely novel way it must be done in accordance with some logic, it must make sense in some way we can all understand, in order to be, or at least come to be, meaningful to others.

“We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.” (Demon Haunted World) — Xtrix

Nice summation!

Expertise does not mean pinnacle of potential, but consistent proficiency. — Yohan

For me expertise means mastery, not merely proficiency, and "leading expert" would be equivalent to 'grand master', or the one who leads the lesser masters. But all terms are somewhat elastic, and people have different interpretations based on the associations that have gained ascendancy in their consciousness by serendipitous attention to some among the diverse usages.

It does answer one of my questions, in that you are implying, I believe, that you think I am stupid, at least some times. — Yohan

No, I wasn't implying that, I was just presenting a different interpretation.

:rofl: Brilliant!

I get the impression you are a low level expert at problem solving.
Can you solve this? — Yohan

Why would you ask a low level expert? "Low level expert" is either a non sequitur or an irony; does that answer your question?

In what sense is it actual? What even do you mean by actual? Do you mean what's happening now? — tim wood

There have been actual events in the past. They are not actual now, obviously. So what?

Further, I did not ask what the usages of "fact" were, instead I asked what a fact is - you can go back and see. — tim wood

Usages are what tell you what a fact is (conceived to be).

In regard of this, you might have said that a fact appears to be a kind of descriptive proposition that says something about something that is generally accepted as accurate wrt to appropriate criteria, and that being accepted as a fact, was accorded value and currency non-facts neither get nor have. Or something like. This if you had thought about it at all.

You seem to be speaking about what is generally accepted as fact. What is generally accepted as fact need not be fact. What is generally accepted as fact may be reasonable to believe, but that is a different matter. I have thought about it, but obviously not in the strange way you seem to have.

In that regard, it is interesting that the word comes from the Latin stupere, which means to be amazed or stunned as when hit on the head with a stick. That fits with my theory that the quality is not simply a deficiency pejoratively assigned to individuals but an agency that lives amongst people as trauma. Trauma has shown itself capable of reproduction. — Valentinus

So, not "selective attention" then but traumatically induced inability to attend? Makes sense!

Fairy nuff!

You do recognize your answer is actually a non sequitur, yes? And what, exactly, do you suppose "an actual state of affairs" is? — tim wood

I have no idea why you would say my answer is a "non sequitur". An actual state of affairs is a situation or event which exists or has existed, as opposed to an imagined or fictional state of affairs. What else?

Then yours accords only with the definition of facts as propositions, and not with facts as actualities.

It seems that what you are talking about is extending the common meanings of the public language by working imaginatively with possible associations. Poets do it all the time.That is a different matter than creating a wholly novel private language from scratch I would say.

Wittgenstein said if a lion could talk we wouldn’t understand him. That is true of original philosophic work also. — Joshs

I never felt that saying is quite right. Why would we not understand, or at least be able to come to understand, the lion if he speaks a language we are familiar with? If he doesn't speak a language we are familiar with our inability to understand would be on account of the fact that we didn't speak the language; and extremely common human situation.

I'm an expert on stupidity, you are not. Don't question me. — Yohan

You cannot both be an expert on stupidity and stupid.

Hitler wasn’t stupid. — Wayfarer

What a stupid thing to say. — 180 Proof

:wink:

Yes it bloody is. You wrote: "Let's say he's innocent". This immediately establishes his innocence in your narrative. This is the only reason why you can write later on: "It remains a fact that he didn't murder Miss Rabbit". — Olivier5

It is stipulated that, in the story, he is innocent, but that his innocence is never established. Are you denying that there might be prison inmates who are innocent of their purported crimes?

Fourteen pages in. What is a fact? Anyone? — tim wood

Two definitions have been given which reflect two different common usages. One conceives of a fact as a proposition that states an actual state of affairs and the other conceives of a fact as an actual state of affairs. What more do you want?

The only reason you can say this is that, in your story, it IS established that the dude is innocent. — Olivier5

No, it's not. In the story his innocence is never established. Most of us realize that it is likely that some of those in prison are actually innocent even if that fact may never be determined.

My experience tells me that this way of thinking of facts is in accordance with common usage. You apparently have a different understanding. There is a fact of the matter as to which of us is correct even though it may never be established.

Your second two definitions from Webster accord with my understanding. 'The quality of being actual does not depend on our establishing it, and nor does a thing being done rely on anyone knowing about it.

Both @Banno and I have acknowledged that there are two common usages regarding the term 'fact'. The first established facts are in accordance with the ordinary parlance of "the encyclopedia is full of facts" and the other common usage is facts as actualities or states of affairs. Obviously dictionaries are not full of worldly states of affairs.

Anyway, if you don't acknowledge these usages which are contra your definition, it's no skin off my nose.

Once more, a fact is more than just something true. It is a statement known to be true, established, that only a madman or a liar would deny. That level of certainty can't be based on conjectures. It must be empirical. — Olivier5

OK, we still don't agree. For me there are many facts which could be established as such, but never will, That they are not established doesn't change the fact that they are facts.

For example, imagine a murder trial where it is established beyond reasonable doubt that John Axeman murdered Miss Rabbit. Let's say he's innocent, but he goes to prison for life anyway, Only he knows he didn't murder Miss Rabbit. Then, being a diabetic with cardiovascular disease, he dies 2 years later. It remains a fact, I would say, that he didn't murder Miss Rabbit, even though it will never be established as such.

Surrender trying to be smart. — Yohan

Give up all aspiration for self-improvement? That seems like the zenith, or should I say nadir, of stupidity. If you had said 'surrender trying to appear smart' I could agree.

My understanding of the PLA is that it would seem to be impossible to construct an idiosyncratic language of my own without translating it into the (public) language I have learned in order to know what my novel words refer to. This is all the more true of non-ostensive words, but is also true of ostensive words it seems to me.

And never sleeps. — 180 Proof

:up:

That's true and yet seems paradoxical in that sleep is the very essence and condition of stupidity. Thus the common injunction "wake up to yourself". Selective attention perhaps?

Good advice; thanks Frank.

This has always struck me. How many leaves are there on the trees in my state right now? There is an exact figure but we cannot access this. — Tom Storm

There is an exact figure — Tom Storm


...maybe not. — Banno

Intuitively I agree with you Tom; but I'll be interested to see a counter-argument. I'll read Banno's linked article when I have time.

I believe @baker is a woman. I had Astra Zeneca yesterday and I feel my skin is sensitive and muscles aching. These are listed as common side effects. If Baker got her shot in the left arm that could explain the slight numbness, I'm not sure what "hot flashes" are, and I don't think palpitations are that uncommon; they can be brought on by anxiety for example. But you have more medical experience than I. and I agree with you that it's best to err on the side of caution.

(How tall was Socrates?) — Srap Tasmaner

Good example. The whole of history, both natural and human, seems to fall into this category too.

It is only inaccessible as a practical matter, but if determination of the truth is not possible then that still rules out the definition that Olivier5 gave that a fact is an accurate observation it seems.

I don't see a problem with us not being able to establish the truth of the matter. Maybe absolute precision, as you say, is not possible in some cases. So, maybe it is impossible to establish the exact boundary of your front yard (especially if it is not fenced), but nonetheless some allowance of error could be introduced; you could say it is a fact that the number of blades of grass in your front yard is between X and Y or it is not.

I think all we are discussing is the logic of our understanding of what constitutes a fact, and I don't see that that logic demands that we be able to determine the truth.I'll give you another example; I live on 15 acres with about 10 acres of forest and the rest pasture with a fair bit of long grass. The property is fenced. Now I have no hope of discovering how many snakes are within my fences right at this moment, but I can't help believing that there is a fact of the matter. Once you start thinking about it, the possible examples of facts which we have no hope of confirming or denying seems almost endless.

:up:

It's most likely nothing serious, but if those symptoms are not listed as usual side-effects, you probably should seek medical advice. Take care.

Yeah, I agree,

Being a fact is the same as being true. — Banno

Right, this can be easily shown by word substitution. For any sentence "it is true that" we can substitute " it is a fact that" without any change of meaning, it seems.

Fartrick's will, I predict, acknowledge all that, but object that that says nothing about the ethics of forcing people to be vaccinated. I'm with you, though, because I don't think it is really a significant ethical question if it is true that vaccination is extremely unlikely to do people any harm. Also mandates in most countries are likely to be provisional, " If you want to do X, then you must be vaccinated".

Yes :up:

It's like what Augustine purportedly said about time (roughly, from memory): " When I think about time I'm sure I understand what it is, but when asked to explain I find that I cannot". Something like that anyway.

It seems to me that the T-sentence is a "Claytons" definition; it's the definition you're having when you're not having a definition. It's well hidden beneath a ton of clay. :wink:

I think there’s plainly a difference between hybridisation and genetic engineering. — Wayfarer

I agree that a distinction can be made which means there must be difference. The question is as to the ethical significance of this difference. It's just that I don't know what your problem with this difference, well actually with the genetic engineering technologies. is.

Yes.

Virus are not sentient life-forms, and obviously the benefits of such medicines are enormous. — Wayfarer

The benefits of the various techniques of cultivating various animal and plant species have been enormous too. The benefits of creating this elephant/ mammoth hybrid might also be enormous. Does the technique matter, are you worried that the subject animals and plants might have suffered or are you objecting to "playing god"? Because if the latter then you should for the sake of consistency, object to all forms of selective cultivation.

Agree with it or not, the ability to directly manipulate the genetic code, which is quite distinct from selective breeding, is a big deal. — Wayfarer

You don't have a problem with it when it comes to vaccines do you?

The proposal is to create a new species of animal, based on splicing the genetic material of one extinct species with that of a living species. In this case, there is obviously no chance of creating such a species by interbreeding, because one of the sources is extinct. — Wayfarer

Sure, it won't be a case of interbreeding. Is a mule or a ligon a new species? I believe those examples of hybrids are infertile, which is what the term 'mule' generally refers to. Most animal hybrids are infertile, or poorly fertile or only the females of males are fertile if I remember correctly. It will be interesting to see whether this Melephant will be fertile.

Science is creating completely novel life-forms, not variations of existing life-forms. — Wayfarer

I can't think of any "completely novel lifeforms" created by science. You would be referring to new species, not hybrids or modified species, I take it? Wouldn't the mammoth/ African elephant be a hybrid, just as the so-called Tigons or Ligers or mules are?

So much so that most of them would simply die without humans around. — StreetlightX

Actually this is not true if what I have heard from a national parks guy responsible for culling wild dogs is correct. He told me that even seemingly innocuous breeds like cocker spaniels and poodles when left behind in the national park by their "owners" can adapt, join a pack, and become efficient predators very quickly.

If you had not observed that rain, and nobody else did, would it still be a fact that it rained? A fact is not just supposed to be true, it is known to be true, accepted as truth by all reasonable people. And to be accepted as true it must be based on evidence. — Olivier5

I guess we don't understand what facts consist in in the same way then. For me, for example, that there is another planet in our galaxy with humanoid creatures living on it is either a fact or it is not, regardless of whether we can discover the truth of the matter.

If we have different definitions of the term 'fact' what would determine who is right? I would say the only reasonable answer to that would be common usage, and from what I have observed common usage is on my side.

The other point here is that that which is accepted as truth by all people based on evidence may sometimes nonetheless turn out not to be true.