9
   

Truth vs. Fact

 
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2017 05:57 am
@Razzleg,
...exactly...you were talking about experience...i.e. you were verbalizing about percetual episodes aka 'observations' including their emotional aspccts.

'Diagreement' amounts to a hitch in the communication stream.But since by definition humans have many common perceptual, and emotional needs based on common physiological apparatus, the words 'illusion',and 'delusion' amount to claim for concensus held by one of the parties in the communication. However we should also take into acout the transient nature of 'self' or 'selves' whose seperate 'states' can constitute different parties within internal dialogue.
Yesterday's 'fact' could be tomorrow's iluusion' because facticity is a function of transient observer states.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2017 06:42 am
@Razzleg,
(apologies for typos)
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 01:40 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

...exactly...you were talking about experience...i.e. you were verbalizing about percetual episodes aka 'observations' including their emotional aspccts.

'Diagreement' amounts to a hitch in the communication stream.But since by definition humans have many common perceptual, and emotional needs based on common physiological apparatus, the words 'illusion',and 'delusion' amount to claim for concensus held by one of the parties in the communication. However we should also take into acout the transient nature of 'self' or 'selves' whose seperate 'states' can constitute different parties within internal dialogue.
Yesterday's 'fact' could be tomorrow's iluusion' because facticity is a function of transient observer states.


i need to think about what you are saying here before i reply comprehensively. However, after just a quick scan, i disagree with one point -- disagreement is not hitch. It's not a glitch -- it's a feature of the "communication stream".
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 02:08 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

I concur with one writer's assertion that all we humans call 'observation' involves 'verbalization'....i.e. the encapsulating of experience using words.


It all involves breathing, too. So what? I guess no animal can perceive or "observe" anything, because they can't "verbalize," eh?

You can't "encapsulate" any observation "using words" UNTIL AFTER you have first made the observation.
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 02:24 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Yesterday's 'fact' could be tomorrow's iluusion' because facticity is a function of transient observer states.

Will you EVER give up on your ridiculous solipsism, Fresky? "Factivity" is NOT a "function" of observer states, sorry. The fact is that there's an oak tree in my backyard, whether I observe it or not. It will still be there if I die. It's factual existence does not depend on me, or you, or ANY person's "transient observer states."
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 07:08 am
@layman,
The point about animals not 'observing things' like we do, is well made by Maturana et al. Our 'common sense' view of animals tends to be anthropomorphic and couched in ' naive realism'. (The point made about 'starving frogs' elsewhere is relevent here).
But I am probably wasting my time because you already think 'things' e,g. 'an observation' can be defined without considering their functional context. So assuming that is the elementary level of analysis you are stuck at I expect no coherent reply from you.
Oh ...and your second post merely underscores that lack of depth. Ask yourself in what sense is yesterday's 'tree' today's 'tree' other than by virtue of its continued relational functionality in human lifespan terms ?.....given that its molecular structure (and ours) has changed!
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 10:09 am
@fresco,
Quote:
you already think 'things' e,g. 'an observation' can be defined without considering their functional context


It's one thing to say that all perceptions have both a subjective and objective aspect and quite another to say that there in ONLY a subjective aspect, eh, Fresky?

I do indeed "consider" both. You refuse to.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 10:54 am
@layman,
You haven't got a clue about 'contextual functionality' have you.? It dumps the simplistic dichotomy 'subjective -objective' back in the high school debating toolbox where it belongs. Its a pity you never got further than being fixated at that level and wittering garbage about 'solipsism'.

layman
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 11:16 am
@fresco,
I didn't think you'd have any substantive response beyond reciting your solipsistic propaganda for the millionth time and coupling it with a sneering ad hominem attack.

Bluster on, bombastic buffoon.

I'm sure your pretentious, pompous pedantry must enable you to sucker some chumps into believing that you are what you claim to be, poseur. Take it to them.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 11:31 am
@layman,
Laughing
You never did read up on Freudian Projection did you ?....never mind...we'll just have to put it down to another gap in your education.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 06:20 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

your second post merely underscores that lack of depth. Ask yourself in what sense is yesterday's 'tree' today's 'tree' other than by virtue of its continued relational functionality in human lifespan terms ?.....given that its molecular structure (and ours) has changed!


Oh, you're so DEEP with your trite, sophomoric arguments about identity, eh!!!? Some granules from my roofing shingles washed into the gutter when it rained last night. Now I have to go buy a house! It's not my house any more, because it's a different house! It's not "the same,"

Great "insight" there. You convinced me. Solipsism all the way from here on in for me, Baby.

Still, I'd be even a little more convinced if you'd drop some names of respected thinkers you claim to have read, eh? That would really clinch it. Could ya do that some more? Don't forget to remind me that you have 27 PhD's either, OK?
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 08:39 pm
@layman,
The dictionary definition of "ignorant American".
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 09:00 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Ask yourself in what sense is yesterday's 'tree', today's 'tree' ,other than by virtue of its continued relational functionality in human lifespan terms

No you don't need to buy a new house, but a new pair of glasses is advisable.
layman
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 09:44 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Quote:
Ask yourself in what sense is yesterday's 'tree', today's 'tree' ,other than by virtue of its continued relational functionality in human lifespan terms

No you don't need to buy a new house, but a new pair of glasses is advisable.


It's "really cool" the way you deliberately left out your own (immediately following) justification for your claim in a blatant, sophistic attempt to deceive, eh, Fresky? I.e, the phrase I was actually addressing, as indicated by the BOLD print I highlighted, to wit:

Fresky wrote:
given that its molecular structure (and ours) has changed! [Exclamation mark in original]


Instead you enlarge and bold different phrases in a feeble and futile attempt to distract attention from your supposed (and intentionally omitted) justificational basis and to completely obscure the comment that you falsely pretend to be responding to.

Nice try, poseur.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 12:04 am
Next !
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 12:44 am
@fresco,
Your M.O. is pretty consistent and predictable, eh, Fresky? I won't take the time to elaborate on all the components of your pretensions, but here's one "standard" ploy of yours:

You scour specialized journals which are seldom read by anyone. You find a "technical" phrase that is given a "special," idiosyncratic definition in that obscure source. You commit that definition to memory. Well, not so much the actual meaning, but the idiosyncratic term itself, at least.

Then, forever after, you throw that memorized terminology around, ad nauseum, in an attempt to give the impression that, because you have memorized some "specialized" (that's not to say important or significant, by any means) terminology, you are some kind of expert who actually understands the topic even when you don't.

Sorry, but it all becomes completely transparent after awhile, and it ceases to fool anyone who might otherwise have been fooled in the beginning. You need to continuously seek out "fresh blood" to "impress" with that kinda ****, ya know? Repeating it endlessly on one forum doesn't work.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 12:53 am
@atchoo522,
atchoo522 wrote:

I have to make a writing prompt for one of my classes and I've been really interested in theories of truth. However, I view truth as something concrete and unchangeable, and facts as more swayed toward amount of evidence. For example, something like "I went to the park yesterday." Is true because it's already happened and theres no argument. However, a fact is something like a science statement that has evidence both for and against it. I'm just not sure how to approach the subject in a way that will creat ideas, controversy or something to write about. I've found some quotes, but I'm hoping someone can help me think of something better.


How is, "I went to the park yesterday." a defacto truth?

"I had lunch with an alien from outter space yesterday."

Would also be true? No that's silly and not how truth works.

Past tense doesn't render a statement as true.

If this is how we regard all statements then everything stated is true?

So therefore, "I went to the park yesterday." is not a true statement. It can't be.
layman
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 01:03 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

How is, "I went to the park yesterday." a defacto truth?...

So therefore, "I went to the park yesterday." is not a true statement. It can't be.


I've omitted your interim statements for the sake of brevity, Krumps, but your conclusion is a non sequitur. That is, your conclusion is by no means established by your premises, it does not follow from them, and in fact it seems completely unrelated to them.

You must be leaving something out, eh?

Your "reasoning" seem to be in the form of something like this:

Claims which can be properly grouped into category A can be false.

Therefore any claim which can be properly grouped into category A can't be true.
layman
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 01:22 am
@atchoo522,
atchoo522 wrote:

I view truth as something concrete and unchangeable, and facts as more swayed toward amount of evidence. For example, something like "I went to the park yesterday." Is true because it's already happened and theres no argument.

However, a fact is something like a science statement that has evidence both for and against it. I'm just not sure how to approach the subject in a way that will creat ideas, controversy or something to write about. I've found some quotes, but I'm hoping someone can help me think of something better.


Are you aware of the the distinction that Kant made (and that many others have since made) between so-called "a priori truths" and "synthetic truths?" He claimed, in essence, (but with some--mistaken--exceptions) that there is no such thing as a synthetic truth that is also an a priori truth. It sounds to me like this might be akin to the distinction you are trying to draw.

That said, I don't think that the word "fact" is generally intended to apply to claims that are also deemed to be debatable.

I do think, however, that the term "fact" is generally used to refer to empirical (synthetic) truth as opposed to "analytic" (a priori) truth.

Edit: I now see (remember, after checking) that the OP was made over 2 years ago, so I guess my response was misdirected. I blame Krunps! He suckered me in with his last post.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 02:52 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

Krumple wrote:

How is, "I went to the park yesterday." a defacto truth?...

So therefore, "I went to the park yesterday." is not a true statement. It can't be.


I've omitted your interim statements for the sake of brevity, Krumps, but your conclusion is a non sequitur. That is, your conclusion is by no means established by your premises, it does not follow from them, and in fact it seems completely unrelated to them.

You must be leaving something out, eh?

Your "reasoning" seem to be in the form of something like this:

Claims which can be properly grouped into category A can be false.

Therefore any claim which can be properly grouped into category A can't be true.


It wasn't a waste.

The point I was making is that a statement can never be true without a proof. Or a supporting base.

Truth relies on proof. A statement without proof can not be said to be true.

The sky is blue.

Sure but not always. Which sky? Cloudy? On another planet? Or at night? The supporting proof is in the reference.

Nothing can be held as true without it. This statement is not an exception.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Truth vs. Fact
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 02:35:47