What is a Fact?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5498
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2020 6:43 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:29 pm
Precisely moron. Define "today" and "yesterday'.

You keep tripping up over temporal paradoxes because your logic doesn't do time.
And when you keep ignoring time, you can't coherently say anything about anything in this universe.
Agree.
Something that is deemed "factual" in one framework for one purpose, may or may not be a "factual" in another framework for a different purpose.

And we sure have ourselves two frameworks on the table. One that treats time as absolute and one that treats time as relative.

That which you are calling "facts" is history. Memories. Nothing more. They may have HAPPENED (past tense) they are no longer HAPPENING (present tense).
That is the fact!

What is fact is relative to the specified Framework and System of Knowledge.

There is no such thing as a fact-in-itself or a referent-in-itself, both fact and referent are conditioned upon a specific model of reality represented by its Framework and System of Knowledge. Science is such a specific Framework and System of Knowledge

What the rest of those ignoramus is they do not qualify the Framework and System and Knowledge they are grounding on.
What they relied upon is the logico-linguistic Framework and System which is a very superficial in representation of reality.

What is fact always entangles with a referent [the supposed real thing or state-of-affairs].
Those ignoramus assume the 'referent'-of-the-fact, is absolute but it is not.

There is no such thing as a fact-in-itself or a referent-in-itself, both fact and referent are conditioned upon a specific model of reality.
That's pretty much what Model-dependent realists say.
It is worth posting some details of it;

Model-dependent realists

i.e.,
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]

It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.

It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.

The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2]
The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design
Belinda
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:02 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:44 am Now this is contentious re What is fact?
1. In philosophy, the concept fact is considered in epistemology and ontology.

2. Questions of objectivity and truth are closely associated with questions of fact.

3. A "fact" can be defined as something that is the case—that is, a state of affairs.[12][13]

4. Facts may be understood as information that makes a true sentence true.[14]

5. Facts may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers.
The statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is about the fact Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_philosophy
I agree with points 2-5.
All of these facts must be related to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.

However point 1 need further qualifications.
The concept 'fact' is not restricted to epistemology and ontology but include Morality & Ethics and Logic.
You've taken a conceptually wrong turn here.

In information/computer science the notion of a knowledge ontology is perfectly coherent. Ontology and epistemology are not separate notions - they interact.

An ontology is simply the information which answers a well-formed epistemic questions. It is the location of the information necessary to answer the question.

If no ontology can provide an answer to the question - neither ontology nor epistemology matter. The question is simply bullshit.

The key insight here though is that ontologies can be engineered. Ontologies are mental constructs - which goes against the intuition of just about.... everyone.
To specify a conceptualization, one needs to state axioms that do constrain the possible interpretations for the defined terms.[16]
(copied from Skepdick's recommended knowledge ontology ).

Please would you tell me , regarding the above quote, does a chain of criteria ultimately end with an axiom?
E.G. "Peter is a good boy because he gets enough sleep". "Getting enough sleep is good because it keeps Peter healthy". "It is good for Peter to be healthy because he can stay alive longer". "Peter wants to stay alive longer as he has much he wants to do". " Wanting to do is good because doing is how mankind learns". "Learning is good because man should be free from the sort of authority that prohibits learning and living".
The last item is where I can reason no further, so I'd claim the last item is axiomatic. Am I correct?
Skepdick
Posts: 5829
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:52 am Please would you tell me , regarding the above quote, does a chain of criteria ultimately end with an axiom?
All reasoning either begins or ends with an axiom.

You can conceptualise it even more trivially. Any statement where you get tired of asking "Why?" and you accept it without further skepticism.

This problem has a name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_criterion
Belinda wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:52 am E.G. "Peter is a good boy because he gets enough sleep".
Why does getting enough sleep make somebody a good boy?
Belinda wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:52 am "Getting enough sleep is good because it keeps Peter healthy".
Why must Peter keep healthy?

Belinda wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:52 am "It is good for Peter to be healthy because he can stay alive longer".
Why must Peter stay alive for longer?
Belinda wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:52 am "Peter wants to stay alive longer as he has much he wants to do".
Why does Peter want to do anything?
Belinda wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:52 am " Wanting to do is good because doing is how mankind learns"
Why does Peter want to learn?
Belinda wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:52 am "Learning is good because man should be free from the sort of authority that prohibits learning and living".
Why must man be free?
Belinda wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:52 am The last item is where I can reason no further, so I'd claim the last item is axiomatic. Am I correct?
Yep. Unless you admit something to be true you are perpetually asking "Why?"
Post Reply