4 ms·

This comment resonates a lot with me. What I observe is that people mistake "fact" for "truth". A "fact" is the _interpretation_ of something that has happened.

This comment resonates a lot with me. What I observe is that people mistake "fact" for "truth". A "fact" is the _interpretation_ of something that has happened. While truth is what objectively really happened. Most people can't detach their personal world view from an "absolute" reality and hence their "facts" are biased by the way how they _perceive_ the objective reality. But what's an objective reality? Everyone lives in their own subjective reality! And this is where their "facts" come from. TLDR; The discussions around "facts" are totally useless to me. Unless you accept that someone who pushes through their "facts" does nothing else than pushing their worldview onto you. Everyone is free to learn "truth" through their own perception. Other people's "facts" don't support this much.

hobs 6y ago
It's sounds like a teenage Solipsism, and its really boring and tedious for other people.
- blumomo 6y ago
  For whom it is boring besides yourself? Are you presenting a „fact“ or your opinion ;) ?
thih9 6y ago
> A "fact" is the _interpretation_ of something that has happened. This is not how I'd understand it. From Cambridge dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact , "something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information"
- blix 6y ago
  Objective reality doesn't have a native representation in human language. When an event is recorded in text or speech it is neccessarily an interpretation. Even in memory, the record of an event is a mere interpretation of reality. I'd also argue the words "known", "proof," and "information" all require interpretation as well.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- J-Kuhn 6y ago
  Let's take one of the older conspiracy theories: 9/11 was an inside job. * "something that is known to have happened" - Yep, 9/11 did happen. And some people say they KNOW that it was an inside job. * "especially something for which proof exists" - job of the CIA is to exactly prevent such a thing, they did not. * "or about which there is information" - come on. I won't link conspiracy theory websites here. So, in the end, your definition does not contradict that someone calls the 9/11 conspiracy theory a "fact". The first point is debatable - but then you could apply the same logic to WW1 or any other history event. Therefore, I don't like your definition of fact.
  - blackbear_ 6y ago
    The second point is also debatable: > Job of the CIA is to exactly prevent such a thing, they did not. This is not a proof that 9/11 was an inside job. Alternative interpretation: they did not do their job well enough.

hobs 6y ago

It's sounds like a teenage Solipsism, and its really boring and tedious for other people.

blumomo 6y ago
For whom it is boring besides yourself? Are you presenting a „fact“ or your opinion ;) ?

thih9 6y ago

> A "fact" is the _interpretation_ of something that has happened. This is not how I'd understand it. From Cambridge dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact , "something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information"

blix 6y ago
Objective reality doesn't have a native representation in human language. When an event is recorded in text or speech it is neccessarily an interpretation. Even in memory, the record of an event is a mere interpretation of reality. I'd also argue the words "known", "proof," and "information" all require interpretation as well.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
J-Kuhn 6y ago
Let's take one of the older conspiracy theories: 9/11 was an inside job. * "something that is known to have happened" - Yep, 9/11 did happen. And some people say they KNOW that it was an inside job. * "especially something for which proof exists" - job of the CIA is to exactly prevent such a thing, they did not. * "or about which there is information" - come on. I won't link conspiracy theory websites here. So, in the end, your definition does not contradict that someone calls the 9/11 conspiracy theory a "fact". The first point is debatable - but then you could apply the same logic to WW1 or any other history event. Therefore, I don't like your definition of fact.
- blackbear_ 6y ago
  The second point is also debatable: > Job of the CIA is to exactly prevent such a thing, they did not. This is not a proof that 9/11 was an inside job. Alternative interpretation: they did not do their job well enough.