Define 'Fact"

Something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.

Fact and the scientific method

Apart from the fundamental inquiry in to the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method.[27] Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent from the observer in that no matter which scientist observes a phenomenon, all will reach the same necessary conclusion.[28] In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy (among other interests) in scientific study.[29]

Fact does not always mean the same thing as truth. Fact is a generally agreed-upon and seemingly obvious observation. It is a fact that things stick to the earth, without regard to why that happens. It was once a fact that the planets changed direction from time to time, and that the sun, planets and stars circled the earth once daily. This seemed obvious, and was generally agreed to be the case.

In time, the fact was changed, and it was then said that the earth circles the sun, and the planets only appear to change direction as they are passed by the earth in their orbits, or vice versa.

Misunderstanding of this difference sometimes leads to fallacy in rhetoric, in which persons will say that they have fact, while others have only theory. Such statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting they believe that fact means "truth," and theory means "speculation."

In case any one has yet to notice, I posted this same question in Science, Philosophy and Religion Forums

The differing points of view are interesting, but not yet enlightening, IMO.

neologist wrote:

In case any one has yet to notice, I posted this same question in Science, Philosophy and Religion Forums

The differing points of view are interesting, but not yet enlightening, IMO.

The science thread seems to stop rather quickly because there is a finite answer within the structure of science. Very sciencelike

The other threads seem to continue to varying degrees because there is no finite answer due to an unbounded structure (no rules).

The strength of science seems to be its ability to provide finite answers within the structured assumptions of a particular worldview (naturalism). But it limits creativity.

The other conditions are unbounded, so they lead to a much broader, and probably endless, series of possibilities. The unbounded condition seems to provide more fertile ground for creativity and expansion. Yet it provides no functional answers until one is chosen and set into a rule structure (thus limiting it).

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:

In case any one has yet to notice, I posted this same question in Science, Philosophy and Religion Forums

The differing points of view are interesting, but not yet enlightening, IMO.

The science thread seems to stop rather quickly because there is a finite answer within the structure of science. Very sciencelike

The other threads seem to continue to varying degrees because there is no finite answer due to an unbounded structure (no rules).

The strength of science seems to be its ability to provide finite answers within the structured assumptions of a particular worldview (naturalism). But it limits creativity.

The other conditions are unbounded, so they lead to a much broader, and probably endless, series of possibilities. The unbounded condition seems to provide more fertile ground for creativity and expansion. Yet it provides no functional answers until one is chosen and set into a rule structure (thus limiting it).

Is creativity limited by the selection of one worldview, or is it just channeled?