'Facts' & 'truth' about 'facts' & 'truth' ...

[FrankGSterleJr]

When discussing ‘fact’ and/or ‘truth,’ my preference is to paraphrase and quote Indiana Jones (The Raiders of the Lost Ark) at the beginning of the semester’s first class of which he is a respected professor: This is Archeology 101; in this class, we learn about archeological fact … “If you’re seeking to learn about ‘truth,’ Philosophy 101 is down the hall.”
Regardless of what the dictionary and other academic texts claim that fact and truth are and therefore represent—they’re typically, basically defined as being synonymous—I, to clarify what I’m discussing/debating with others, refer to ‘fact’ as the truth according to what the (e.g. medical or scientific) academic research and confirmed-evidence findings dictate; ‘truth,’ on the other hand, is simply ‘what is,’ a non-relative absolute, including ‘what is’ in regards to the possibility of parallel universes and extra-dimensional phenomena. Perhaps truth includes even far more mind-boggling concepts than the (allegedly) infinite vastness of outer space or maybe even ‘inner space.’
‘Facts,’ however, apparently change according to most-recent academic research and findings: For example, I recall it being front page news not too long ago that the most recent academic tests and study revealed that a previously-considered very-unhealthy daily dose of sodium consumption (in this case, via table salt) was actually beneficial, if not even a biological necessity, for the human body—it, in fact, was a 180-degree flip-flop of what was considered to be but a decades-long solid fact. And then, no more than a few weeks later, it was front-page news that the original ‘fact’—again, beware of that sodium intake—is actually the closest to the truth that was.
Hmmm … It seems that ‘fact’ and/or ‘truth’ often may get us knowledgably nowhere, mighty fast.
Personally, I believe that, albeit more on a spiritual level, that if we are to know the absolute truth about literally everything that exists (existed and will exist)—i.e. the whole truth and nothing but the truth—revealed to us, it will be at some point in the infinite timelessness that follows our body, our existence within this physical realm, permanently giving up the ghost.

[chaz wyman]

When discussing ‘fact’ and/or ‘truth,’ my preference is to paraphrase and quote Indiana Jones (The Raiders of the Lost Ark) at the beginning of the semester’s first class of which he is a respected professor: This is Archeology 101; in this class, we learn about archeological fact … “If you’re seeking to learn about ‘truth,’ Philosophy 101 is down the hall.”

Speaking as an Archaeologist - this is not true of Archeology. There are facts in it, as their ought to be in Philosophy but the aim of archeology is not fact but interpretation. Truth is in the religious studies department. The role of Philosophy ought to be the critique and analysis of Truth.

Regardless of what the dictionary and other academic texts claim that fact and truth are and therefore represent—they’re typically, basically defined as being synonymous—I, to clarify what I’m discussing/debating with others, refer to ‘fact’ as the truth according to what the (e.g. medical or scientific) academic research and confirmed-evidence findings dictate; ‘truth,’ on the other hand, is simply ‘what is,’ a non-relative absolute, including ‘what is’ in regards to the possibility of parallel universes and extra-dimensional phenomena. Perhaps truth includes even far more mind-boggling concepts than the (allegedly) infinite vastness of outer space or maybe even ‘inner space.’
‘Facts,’ however, apparently change according to most-recent academic research and findings: For example, I recall it being front page news not too long ago that the most recent academic tests and study revealed that a previously-considered very-unhealthy daily dose of sodium consumption (in this case, via table salt) was actually beneficial, if not even a biological necessity, for the human body—it, in fact, was a 180-degree flip-flop of what was considered to be but a decades-long solid fact. And then, no more than a few weeks later, it was front-page news that the original ‘fact’—again, beware of that sodium intake—is actually the closest to the truth that was.
Hmmm … It seems that ‘fact’ and/or ‘truth’ often may get us knowledgably nowhere, mighty fast.
Personally, I believe that, albeit more on a spiritual level, that if we are to know the absolute truth about literally everything that exists (existed and will exist)—i.e. the whole truth and nothing but the truth—revealed to us, it will be at some point in the infinite timelessness that follows our body, our existence within this physical realm, permanently giving up the ghost.

[The Voice of Time]

When discussing ‘fact’ and/or ‘truth,’ my preference is to paraphrase and quote Indiana Jones (The Raiders of the Lost Ark) at the beginning of the semester’s first class of which he is a respected professor: This is Archeology 101; in this class, we learn about archeological fact … “If you’re seeking to learn about ‘truth,’ Philosophy 101 is down the hall.”

Speaking as an Archaeologist - this is not true of Archeology. There are facts in it, as their ought to be in Philosophy but the aim of archeology is not fact but interpretation. Truth is in the religious studies department. The role of Philosophy ought to be the critique and analysis of Truth.

Meh, we philosopher's make good use of truth, in our "critique and analysis". We tell you what is truth when we make our own system of assumptions that becomes our arguments for what is true and what is false.

Religion doesn't deal with truth, it deals with belief and why people should believe things.

Often interchangeable those two however, since religion also has its own "assumptions" albeit these are non-negotiable whereas philosophy is a process of getting better at using ones mind (never forget the Oxford definition of wisdom: the effectiveness of knowledge (philosophy being "the love of wisdom").) Fundamentalist philosophy is no better than religious dogma, only difference is the lack of "association collective words", my way of talking about "holy spirit" and "god" which to me are empty words except they contain unspeakable collections of associations for those who put their faith (or should I say "trust") in them.

[chaz wyman]

When discussing ‘fact’ and/or ‘truth,’ my preference is to paraphrase and quote Indiana Jones (The Raiders of the Lost Ark) at the beginning of the semester’s first class of which he is a respected professor: This is Archeology 101; in this class, we learn about archeological fact … “If you’re seeking to learn about ‘truth,’ Philosophy 101 is down the hall.”

Speaking as an Archaeologist - this is not true of Archeology. There are facts in it, as their ought to be in Philosophy but the aim of archeology is not fact but interpretation. Truth is in the religious studies department. The role of Philosophy ought to be the critique and analysis of Truth.

Meh, we philosopher's make good use of truth, in our "critique and analysis". We tell you what is truth when we make our own system of assumptions that becomes our arguments for what is true and what is false.

Religion doesn't deal with truth, it deals with belief and why people should believe things.

My comments are obviously tinged with irony!! Religious people ALWAYS claim truth. Philosophers tell them that their truth is easily unpicked with a little logic and analysis. Moat of the best philosophers have a working skepticism on that which is claimed to be true, rather than give up the journey to get to truth. Arriving is giving up. Philosophy is the process and the challenge.
Religion is accepting the unacceptable.
I do not think religion has that much to do with why people should believe a thing, it is more about seeing that they do. Asking why might lead to the answer no - and religion is not directed to that answer in any event.



Often interchangeable those two however, since religion also has its own "assumptions" albeit these are non-negotiable whereas philosophy is a process of getting better at using ones mind (never forget the Oxford definition of wisdom: the effectiveness of knowledge (philosophy being "the love of wisdom").) Fundamentalist philosophy is no better than religious dogma, only difference is the lack of "association collective words", my way of talking about "holy spirit" and "god" which to me are empty words except they contain unspeakable collections of associations for those who put their faith (or should I say "trust") in them.

Indeed.

See ya later.