3 ms·
> A "fact" is the _interpretation_ of something that has happened. This is not how I'd understand it. From Cambridge dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.
by 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 agoObjective 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 agoLet'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 agoThe 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.