Impenitent v TRUTH & FACT

Impenitent versus both TRUTH and FACT. [somewhat edited]

Impenitent versus TRUTH:

Impenitent versus FACT:

Two strands, same conception at hand. KNOWLEDGE. Boo-yah!

Truth and facts revolve around relativity. The first mistake of the objectivist.

A baseless assertion to make for if it is “all relative,” as you assert, you have also asserted that you have no position to know anything. Your objection self-refutes.

This thread contains a specific epistemological argument that is linked in the above post. I’d suggest you read it. This has nothing to do with “objectivism,” nor am I an objectivist.

Please, don’t bring a paper knife to a gun fight.

hmmmm . the nuke you perceive as a paper knife is powerful, however tricky to employ it may be.

joker did not assert that he cannot know anything. he asserted that all he can know is relative. he has the capability of sharing claims like this given that our relative standpoints are very similar.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!! lol just kiddin…

You got it! :slight_smile:

Okay fine. Let me know when you can actually address the content in the OP, and will stop playing around with your dictionary level philosophical definition arguments. Integrate your points into the discussion, make them relevant, or go away.

I know you are, but what am I? :stuck_out_tongue:

You are fun to be around. :slight_smile:

answered in other thread

-Imp

Oh, my dear Imp!

Pray do tell, is the empirical sciences [aka the scientific method] a deductive or inductive enterprise? Is the is/ought problem inductive or deductive?

The entire point about the is/ought problem is the issue with "pure reasoning.’ Hume’s entire point is that we should trust our sensory experiences, which is what science - well good science which is all too rare anymore - is based upon. The empirical sciences are a deductive enterprise. I am afraid you’re a touch confused over what you ought to be skeptical about. Pun intended. :wink:

Your point about validity is exposed, and I think rebutted. It’s not a straw man argument you’ve made, you are correct on that point. I’m afraid you’ve got your categories of reasoning mixed up. Hume is actually arguing for a method of ongoing verification to hold the probability accountable to experience, that a sensory experience trumps a thought experiment. This is what inspired Karl Popper…

The validity only holds as long as the outcomes hold. There is no validity in the “prediction,” there is only validity in the method itself. And it’s not a prediction, its an expectation based on probability. The real issue I think you are driving at, is when does scientific discoveries via method become fact.

Now on this point I am familiar with your argument, and I tend to take your side. The probability revealed via scientific method is all too often treated as fact. A fact cannot be something that also still needs to be verified, imho.

meanie!!

Fascinating analysis.

we agree on the last.

-Imp

If that were true, then we wouldn’t have any facts. While that is a fine position to take, why bother with the word and definition then?

Science does not prove “fact” via methods. All it does is create a theory that, as is most often said, holds water. It can be said to have a measure of truth, but a theory is neither “truth” nor “fact.”

That’s why its called a “theory!”

How can a fact no longer “hold water”? When is was, in fact, only a theory…

I shouldn’t have to explain why “meaning” matters, I cannot believe you even asked the question, frankly.

I’ll reply to the body of the post later, but on that last point… I think we can both agree that that is the most important issue at the end of the day.

That is where most scientific claims fail.

I’m just asking what a fact is, in your estimation.

Fascinatingly appropriate:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_philosophy

Facts are essentially tautologies or proofs. Either true by fiat, and/or I would only extend the idea of “fact” as for meaning a “true-fact” with regards to theories, meaning for well established theories the have only the highest level of validation, or correspondence to repeated observations.

The testable hypothesis, that which can be verified, is the one that continually provides sensory experience for ongoing verification. I think its best to say these theories have a measure of truth until they are shown to be false, but theories are never proven TRUE, nor are they FACT.

I believe the proper term for well established theories with this high level of veracity or correspondence with observable data [ie, the verification of a measure of truth from sensory experience] is “proofs,” and not “facts.”

This is all too often abused and leads to weak arguments over scientific claims. That is the inconvenient truth. :wink:

Is only true if you’ve measured Jupiter. Or arbitrarily defined it so. In the case of the former, I’d say it is in a process of on-going verification, if the later, I’d question it’s utility.

I don’t think you understand. The “true-fact” that Jupiter corresponds with is “largest.” We know that largest is the largest planet as that is a tautology by the definition of “large.”

The measurement would verify this correspondence to the claim by comparing Jupiter’s measurement with the measurements of all the other planets, limited to our solar system.

Until measurements change, the theory “Jupiter is the largest planet” would hold water, and thusly be a proof we can treat as a fact. Buts it still not a proven fact. Its only a “proof” of a claim. Utility is a product of the veracity of the claim, its has full utility until counter-proven, assuming ongoing conformity with the scientific method - ie, its still verifiable.

I still think that “large” is contingent upon the measurement, meaning that it is a proof we can treat as a fact . . . but I’m not so sure this is different from any other theory. Especially since other factors (like “planet”) are subject to change, which can screw the whole pooch.