The Half-life of Facts.

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

As you note, fresco has the same problem with asserting that facts are merely discursive. If facts are what everyone agrees upon at that time, then it's a fact that most people agree that facts aren't what everyone agrees upon at that time. That would mean that some facts are, in fact, non-facts. In other words, since fresco's position is a minority position, that means that some facts - such as the fact that facts are what people agree upon - are not what people agree upon.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Who said "everyone"? Not me.

As an atheist I understand that "existence of God" is a "fact" in the context of a community of believers, in the sense that informs some of their decisions and behavior. As a former teacher I taught that Newtonian mechanics still remained "factual" in the context of the prediction of movements of large objects. Facts are limited by transient contexts and needs.

If you are looking for an "Aunt Sally" to shy your simplistic coconuts at, I suggest you look elsewhere. Why not try Olivier's self concocted context involving "lying about Hitler". And that goes for the other big kids who would rather be at the fair than the library.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Not "overturning" others' positions means to critically attend to their meaning rather than to reject them out of hand or to intentionally misconstrue them. To agree or disagree constructively is the civil thing to do.

By the way, this discussion (thread) is not a farce; I think it is one of our best. While we continue to disagree, I think we are coming closer (sometimes) to understanding one another.At least we are refining the terms of our disagreement. When you, Frank, refer to "reality" as what is, I have always agreed with you, but your consistent refusal to include in that reality the continuously "constructed" meanings and socially "negotiated" structures of social life you overlook the more subtle processes of HUMAN reality.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

REALITY may be a human concept.

Heh, that's right ! It could be a canine concept, or even a divine one !
I'd better think that one out.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Who said "everyone"? Not me.

As an atheist I understand that "existence of God" is a "fact" in the context of a community of believers, in the sense that informs some of their decisions and behavior.

Put all the lipstick on that pig you want, Fresco...but it still is a pig.

"The existence of God" is not a fact in any context. It is a consideration...a blind guess in my opinion. But it is not a fact, simply because you want it to be in order to further this REALITY belief system of yours.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Not "overturning" others' positions means to critically attend to their meaning rather than to reject them out of hand or to intentionally misconstrue them. To agree or disagree constructively is the civil thing to do.

Not sure of your point here, JL. I have attempted to be a civil here as anyone else. And I think I have been a lot more successful than many.

Quote:

By the way, this discussion (thread) is not a farce; I think it is one of our best.

This thread is not a farce, but the line I was talking about is...whether you can see it as farcical or not.

Quote:

While we continue to disagree, I think we are coming closer (sometimes) to understanding one another.At least we are refining the terms of our disagreement. When you, Frank, refer to "reality" as what is, I have always agreed with you, but your consistent refusal to include in that reality the continuously "constructed" meanings and socially "negotiated" structures of social life you overlook the more subtle processes of HUMAN reality.

You put a great deal more importance in HUMAN considerations of REALITY than you should.

If we are discussing REALITY...let's stick with that.

If we are discussing human considerations about reality...then we can go there. Mostly I will not participate in that part of the discussion, because any human can have damn near any consideration about reality.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Nicely put, but perhaps we should use the term "actuality" rather than "reality" to characterize the dynamics of interaction.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
REALITY may be a human concept.

Heh, that's right ! It could be a canine concept, or even a divine one !
I'd better think that one out.

Do so, Fresco.

But I think you will come down to: The concept of reality is a human concept...even though it would not be absurd to suppose that lesser intelligence animals HAVE A CONCEPT of reality.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, when you say "reality is a human concept" are you agreeing that it--the idea--is a social construction"? And are you implying that the construction refers to itself (to a cultural system of understandings) or to some objective referent?
I tend to think it's both. "Reality" is a human concept--I doubt my cat is aware of it--and that is reality. Total reality is much larger than humans can encompass mentally, but we are ourselves part of it. I do not feel apart from it when I am not trying to grasp it mentally. I feel I am it when I "meditate" or passively experience its manifestations.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, when you say "reality is a human concept" are you agreeing that it--the idea--is a social construction"?

Where did I say that reality is a human concept?

Just want to get a context!

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

No, Franck said reality is a godly concept.

He, it is what it is!

1 Reply

@timur,

timur wrote:

No, Franck said reality is a godly concept.

He, it is what it is!

Ummm...I don't think I said that...EITHER.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

So, who's concept is reality?

Has it some kind of immanence or did it popped out of nowhere at some point in time?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

My sister's dog had an interesting "concept of reality". When called, if he did not want to come, he would "hide" with its head behind a tree and its body sticking out. I attempted to cure him by reading to him from Piaget's "Construction of Reality in the Child", but he kept falling asleep.

1 Reply

@timur,

timur wrote:

So, who's concept is reality?

It could be a human concept, Timur. I have not ruled that out.

It could be a god concept. I have not ruled that out.

It could be something quite different from anything I, or any other human, can possibly understand.

Quote:

Has it some kind of immanence or did it popped out of nowhere at some point in time?

I do not know.

My return question would be: Do you think anyone KNOWS the answer to any of the questions you asked...or are you asking for guesses?

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

My sister's dog had an interesting "concept of reality". When called, if he did not want to come, he would "hide" with its head behind a tree and its body sticking out. I attempted to cure him by reading to him from Piaget's "Construction of Reality in the Child", but he kept falling asleep.

Our cat has a concept of warmth...and a need for warmth these days.

He is quite good at dealing with that concept in the living room...where he spends lots of time on either my lap or Nancy's...or nestled by the wood burning stove when it is fired up.

At night...he tends to get under the coverlet...and scrunches up to one of us.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Pretty lame response; I give you an D-. Try again, addressing the reflexivity of your theories. Eg is the 'fact' that facts are 'transient' itself 'transient'? Hasn't it become old and discarded already?

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Who said "everyone"? Not me.

True. You said:

Quote:

"Facts" are STATEMENTS about agreements as to "what is the case".

If you want to limit that to a "community of believers" rather than everyone, that's fine. But where's the limit? Can one person "agree" to "what is the case," or does it have to be more than one? Can two people reach that sort of agreement?

You want facts to be what "works" for people. Actually, I don't have a problem with that. It's just that you have adopted that position because you want to dismiss "theological facts" as being nothing more than the product of a sort of mass delusion. As I see it, facts "work" for people to the extent that they correspond to collective perception. If I see a tree and you apparently see the same tree, then we can agree that the tree exists. That agreement, however, only follows upon the perception. Our agreement is the product of the perception - the perception is not the product of the agreement. How we act with regard to that perception is of sociological or psychological interest - which is, I think, your point - but that's not an epistemological question. In confusing the two, I think Dennett might say that you've fallen into a use/mention fallacy.

fresco wrote:

If you are looking for an "Aunt Sally" to shy your simplistic coconuts at, I suggest you look elsewhere. Why not try Olivier's self concocted context involving "lying about Hitler". And that goes for the other big kids who would rather be at the fair than the library.

And you wonder why people think you're a pompous, condescending ass.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Our agreement is the product of the perception - the perception is not the product of the agreement.

Not on the basis that perception is active not passive. We tend to "observe" through the selective cultural spectacles of language (empirical evidence for that). And some have even said that there is no such thing as "observation" without "verbalization" (references available)

People can think of me what they want. I agree that I don't tolerate fools gladly, and belligerent fools even less. But it is an unfortunate characteristic of A2K that what I call "un-mannerly conduct" for want of a better term, often goes unchecked and unchallenged. Not from me it won't ! Playing to the gallery with your magisterial production of Latin one liners as a rejoinder to the standard practice of textual referencing should be well beneath your dignity and your intellect, as should your indulgence in logical convolution as a rejoinder to metalogical and metalinguistic issues.

Anything else I can help you with ?

3 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Not on the basis that perception is active not passive.

Yeah, that's another of those use/mention problems. I'm talking about the tree, you're talking about the concept of the tree.

fresco wrote:

Playing to the gallery with your magisterial production of Latin one liners as a rejoinder to the standard practice of textual referencing should be well beneath your dignity and your intellect, as should your indulgence in logical convolution as a rejoinder to metalogical and metalinguistic issues.

Just because you're engaged in "textual referencing" doesn't earn you any special dispensation. If your arguments don't make sense, I'm not going to pretend that they do. You have JLN and all of your philosopher buddies for that - you shouldn't expect that kind of arse-licking from me. And I've really seen nothing from you that can be fairly described as "meta-logical." "Anti-logical" maybe, not meta.

fresco wrote:

Anything else I can help you with ?

No, I think you proved my point quite nicely.

0 Replies

The Half-life of Facts.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know