@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Why would the etymology of a word have anything to do with its current meaning? The etymology of the word, "lunatic" is, "a person whose behavior is influenced by the Moon", but if I call Kim Jong Il a lunatic, I am not saying that his behavior is influence by the Moon. The argument of the form: Word "W" used to mean so-and-so, therefore word "W" currently means "so-and-so" is known as the etymological fallacy.
But that's not even the issue. The issue is that he believes that the meaning of a word has bearing on there being an objective world. In other words, he believes that the meaning of the word "fact" dictates if there are facts. But no matter what the meaning of the word "fact" is or was, that has nothing to do with there being an objective world or not.
Suppose the word "elephant", somehow, through convention, changed meaning. That would have absolutely no bearing on elephants existing or not.
Goshisdead wrote:Facts are still constructs
Well, facts are not constructs insofar as they are
not mind-dependent; they are mind-independent. Why would people think that facts are psychological constructs?