3 ms·
> 'Yugoslavia is a country'. Are you really going to exclude that? Yes, of course. > So, no statements about political geography at all, then. Absolutely not
by DanWaterworth 14y ago
> 'Yugoslavia is a country'. Are you really going to exclude that?
Yes, of course.
> So, no statements about political geography at all, then.
Absolutely not, you just have to make time explicit.
- msellout 14y agoWhat calendar will you use? Edit: It seems we're arguing about what a priori knowledge is capable of serving as a base for factual deductions. The Kantian approach is to say that we all agree on time and space and everything can be based off of these self-evident truths. I think there is not such a clear boundary between objective truth and induction. Edit2: I'd also like to take this moment to point out that "you're" is the proper contraction of "you are", since we're getting all semantic.
- DanWaterworth 14y agoThis has suddenly become very philosophical. My view is that a database of facts should contain things that are believed to be facts. It should be possible to remove facts that are shown to be incorrect, but those things should never have been true. > I'd also like to take this moment to point out that "you're" is the proper contraction of "you are", since we're getting all semantic. I know, it annoys me too. By the time I'd realized it was too late to edit. Typos happen.
- jacalata 14y ago"My view is that a database of facts should contain things that are believed to be facts. It should be possible to remove facts that are shown to be incorrect, but those things should never have been true." But they definitely were true. I thought you were making a distinction between 'something that is true' and 'something that is a fact (ie: is unchangingly true)' which I don't think most people make.