4 ms·

So you're saying that my definition of the term "fact" is wrong... http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact Fact: a truth k

So you're saying that my definition of the term "fact" is wrong... http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact Fact: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. So... are you saying that a fact isn't something that's known to be true? Because my understanding of the word "fact" is that it means something indisputable, an underlying truth upon which you can base other truths and know them all to be true. If this is the case, then what can we possibly know with any sense of conviction?

meheleventyone 10y ago
Dictionaries are not sources of objective facts either. The subject you're looking to know more about is the philosophy of science and in particular how it relates to epistemology which tackles this subject.
- balabaster 10y ago
  These days I wonder if anything is a source of objective fact. The more I try and remain objective and strive for enlightenment, the cloudier everything seems to become.
  - Danihan 10y ago
    There is no such thing as enlightenment, only the worldview you choose to adopt and the results that it confers.
  - marknutter 10y ago
    Strive less for objective facts and strive more for keeping an open mind.
    - balabaster 10y ago
      Objective facts are so few and far between and based on assumptions that are either vague in their definitions, limited or flawed that chasing them appears to enforce keeping an open mind. These two paradigms appear to be intrinsically linked.
philipov 10y ago
Yes, correct. Humans are not capable of having access to indisputable truth. However, indisputable truth is not necessary for forming useful foundations for other knowledge. Humans exist in the space of the "probably good enough." What becomes a fact for you depends on how tolerant you are for uncertainty. You're probably going to die. That's almost 100%. A solipsistic universe is likewise very unlikely. Those are pretty good bases for facts, but they're not indisputable. Facts are not a simple structure. They are a conclusion of a series of comparisons after which we have considered many things and at the end decided that the evidence satisfies our threshold for uncertainty. People regularly make assumptions on which facts are predicated, and so we can say that we only have access to contingent facts, because they will always lead back to some assumption sooner or later. If you want facts that won't change after 15 years, you should study Mathematics.
- balabaster 10y ago
  > If you want facts that won't change after 15 years, you should study Mathematics. I was just watching The Man Who Knew Infinity the other night and I would dispute that even Maths won't change after 15 years. Once in a generation, someone like Ramanujan comes along and manages to change something even as fundamental as Mathematics.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    Hell, Hilbert's program, Godël, and Turing.
    - philipov 10y ago
      I think a lot of mathematicians distinguish zealously between Mathematics per se, as opposed to mathematical logic/philosophy.
      - mcguire 10y ago
        True, but Hilbert was a mathematician and was expressing the general thought, that mathematics could be formalized and when that was done, it would be complete, consistent, firm, round, and fully-packed. When that was demonstrated to be false, it had no great effect on day-to-day mathematics. But still,....

meheleventyone 10y ago

Dictionaries are not sources of objective facts either. The subject you're looking to know more about is the philosophy of science and in particular how it relates to epistemology which tackles this subject.

balabaster 10y ago
These days I wonder if anything is a source of objective fact. The more I try and remain objective and strive for enlightenment, the cloudier everything seems to become.
- Danihan 10y ago
  There is no such thing as enlightenment, only the worldview you choose to adopt and the results that it confers.
- marknutter 10y ago
  Strive less for objective facts and strive more for keeping an open mind.
  - balabaster 10y ago
    Objective facts are so few and far between and based on assumptions that are either vague in their definitions, limited or flawed that chasing them appears to enforce keeping an open mind. These two paradigms appear to be intrinsically linked.

philipov 10y ago

Yes, correct. Humans are not capable of having access to indisputable truth. However, indisputable truth is not necessary for forming useful foundations for other knowledge. Humans exist in the space of the "probably good enough." What becomes a fact for you depends on how tolerant you are for uncertainty. You're probably going to die. That's almost 100%. A solipsistic universe is likewise very unlikely. Those are pretty good bases for facts, but they're not indisputable. Facts are not a simple structure. They are a conclusion of a series of comparisons after which we have considered many things and at the end decided that the evidence satisfies our threshold for uncertainty. People regularly make assumptions on which facts are predicated, and so we can say that we only have access to contingent facts, because they will always lead back to some assumption sooner or later. If you want facts that won't change after 15 years, you should study Mathematics.

balabaster 10y ago
> If you want facts that won't change after 15 years, you should study Mathematics. I was just watching The Man Who Knew Infinity the other night and I would dispute that even Maths won't change after 15 years. Once in a generation, someone like Ramanujan comes along and manages to change something even as fundamental as Mathematics.
- mcguire 10y ago
  Hell, Hilbert's program, Godël, and Turing.
  - philipov 10y ago
    I think a lot of mathematicians distinguish zealously between Mathematics per se, as opposed to mathematical logic/philosophy.
    - mcguire 10y ago
      True, but Hilbert was a mathematician and was expressing the general thought, that mathematics could be formalized and when that was done, it would be complete, consistent, firm, round, and fully-packed. When that was demonstrated to be false, it had no great effect on day-to-day mathematics. But still,....