Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

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: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

This is one of the dumbest philosophical argument to arrive at one's conclusion, i.e. it is true philosophical because we English Speakers said so it is.

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:03 pm Your premise - 'whatever is fact must be conditioned upon a specific framework and system of knowledge' - is false.
We English speakers use the word 'fact' to mean 'a feature of reality that is or was the case' - which has nothing to do with knowledge or description. And words can mean only what we use them to mean. You can object to this use of the word 'fact' - but so what? That's how we use it.

If your claim is that nothing exists outside a framework and system of knowledge - say it clearly, and prove it. Otherwise, your whole argument collapses. It's patent nonsense, of course.
While there is a large number of people speaking English, the distribution of language speaker is widely spread around the world, note, Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, French, etc.
To ground your argument on "We English speakers ..." is one of the worst defense in any philosophical argument. It is too flimsy!
In a way you are relying merely in a restricted linguistic FSK.

OTOH, I am relying heavily on the scientific FSK which is definitely more reliable than the linguistic FSK.

Show me what other FSK is more reliable than the scientific FSK?

If you claim there is something existing independent of the entanglement of a specific FSK, then prove it.
This is similar to what theists are claiming, i.e. God exist independent of all FSKs.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

My earlier post to the above,
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 8:53 am
Strawman again, again and again!

I argued strongly
Whatever is fact must be conditioned upon a specific FSK.
E.g. the scientific facts [the most credible] can only be generated and conditioned upon a scientific FSK.
Therefore credible moral facts must be conditioned upon a specific credible moral FSK.
What is wrong with this logic?

The most credible FSK at present is constructed by humans,
if that is the case, there is no reason for humans to construct a credible moral FSK.

Your refutation should be that it is impossible for humans to construct a moral FSK.
I have shown elsewhere it is possible to construct a moral FSK with must be of near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK.

Btw, you still have not given me you answer to what is the basis [grounds, fundamentals] of the FSK supporting your definition of what is fact which cannot standalone by itself.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by popeye1945 »

WHO IS ON FIRST? Communication makes continuity necessary.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:16 am This is one of the dumbest philosophical argument to arrive at one's conclusion, i.e. it is true philosophical because we English Speakers said so it is.

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:03 pm Your premise - 'whatever is fact must be conditioned upon a specific framework and system of knowledge' - is false.
We English speakers use the word 'fact' to mean 'a feature of reality that is or was the case' - which has nothing to do with knowledge or description. And words can mean only what we use them to mean. You can object to this use of the word 'fact' - but so what? That's how we use it.

If your claim is that nothing exists outside a framework and system of knowledge - say it clearly, and prove it. Otherwise, your whole argument collapses. It's patent nonsense, of course.
While there is a large number of people speaking English, the distribution of language speaker is widely spread around the world, note, Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, French, etc.
To ground your argument on "We English speakers ..." is one of the worst defense in any philosophical argument. It is too flimsy!
In a way you are relying merely in a restricted linguistic FSK.

OTOH, I am relying heavily on the scientific FSK which is definitely more reliable than the linguistic FSK.

Show me what other FSK is more reliable than the scientific FSK?

If you claim there is something existing independent of the entanglement of a specific FSK, then prove it.
This is similar to what theists are claiming, i.e. God exist independent of all FSKs.
Don't dodge the question. Do you think nothing exists outside a framework and system of knowledge? Or, to put it another way: Do you think that a thing can exist only if it's known and described? The answer is yes or no.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:16 am This is one of the dumbest philosophical argument to arrive at one's conclusion, i.e. it is true philosophical because we English Speakers said so it is.

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:03 pm Your premise - 'whatever is fact must be conditioned upon a specific framework and system of knowledge' - is false.
We English speakers use the word 'fact' to mean 'a feature of reality that is or was the case' - which has nothing to do with knowledge or description. And words can mean only what we use them to mean. You can object to this use of the word 'fact' - but so what? That's how we use it.

If your claim is that nothing exists outside a framework and system of knowledge - say it clearly, and prove it. Otherwise, your whole argument collapses. It's patent nonsense, of course.
While there is a large number of people speaking English, the distribution of language speaker is widely spread around the world, note, Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, French, etc.
To ground your argument on "We English speakers ..." is one of the worst defense in any philosophical argument. It is too flimsy!
In a way you are relying merely in a restricted linguistic FSK.

OTOH, I am relying heavily on the scientific FSK which is definitely more reliable than the linguistic FSK.

Show me what other FSK is more reliable than the scientific FSK?

If you claim there is something existing independent of the entanglement of a specific FSK, then prove it.
This is similar to what theists are claiming, i.e. God exist independent of all FSKs.
Don't dodge the question. Do you think nothing exists outside a framework and system of knowledge? Or, to put it another way: Do you think that a thing can exist only if it's known and described? The answer is yes or no.
My main point is NOT "a thing can exist only if it's known and described."

My point is whatever exists as real is entangled with the human conditions.

There are no things that are things-in-themselves, i.e. existing absolutely independent of the human conditions.

If you insists, prove things exist as real with absolute independence of entanglement with the human conditions.

I have raised loads on threads on this issue;

There are No Things-in-Themselves
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32512

Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32481
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 6:01 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:16 am This is one of the dumbest philosophical argument to arrive at one's conclusion, i.e. it is true philosophical because we English Speakers said so it is.



While there is a large number of people speaking English, the distribution of language speaker is widely spread around the world, note, Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, French, etc.
To ground your argument on "We English speakers ..." is one of the worst defense in any philosophical argument. It is too flimsy!
In a way you are relying merely in a restricted linguistic FSK.

OTOH, I am relying heavily on the scientific FSK which is definitely more reliable than the linguistic FSK.

Show me what other FSK is more reliable than the scientific FSK?

If you claim there is something existing independent of the entanglement of a specific FSK, then prove it.
This is similar to what theists are claiming, i.e. God exist independent of all FSKs.
Don't dodge the question. Do you think nothing exists outside a framework and system of knowledge? Or, to put it another way: Do you think that a thing can exist only if it's known and described? The answer is yes or no.
My main point is NOT "a thing can exist only if it's known and described."

My point is whatever exists as real is entangled with the human conditions.

There are no things that are things-in-themselves, i.e. existing absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Okay, here's your premise: if there were no humans, and therefore no human conditions with which things would be entangled, then nothing would 'exist as real'.

Bonkers. End of conversation.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 6:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 6:01 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:44 am
Don't dodge the question. Do you think nothing exists outside a framework and system of knowledge? Or, to put it another way: Do you think that a thing can exist only if it's known and described? The answer is yes or no.
My main point is NOT "a thing can exist only if it's known and described."

My point is whatever exists as real is entangled with the human conditions.

There are no things that are things-in-themselves, i.e. existing absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Okay, here's your premise:
if there were no humans,
and therefore no human conditions with which things would be entangled,
then nothing would 'exist as real'.

Bonkers. End of conversation.
As usual strawman again.
I did not present the above argument at all.

Note I provided two links that support my arguments which you ignored.

My argument in general is this;
  • 1. All Thing of reality emerged as real conditioned upon a specific FSK [e.g. scientific FSK].
    2. All FSKs are entangled with the human conditions.
    3. All Thing of reality are entangled with the human conditions.
Now prove to me your claim that things claimed as real can exist absolutely independent of the human conditions?
You cannot! If you every try, that would be BONKERS!
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:16 am While there is a large number of people speaking English, the distribution of language speaker is widely spread around the world, note, Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, French, etc.
To ground your argument on "We English speakers ..." is one of the worst defense in any philosophical argument. It is too flimsy!
In a way you are relying merely in a restricted linguistic FSK.
LOL English is the language you and he were communicating in and about a word in the English language.
Often it can be rather complicated to explain obvious things to someone who misses the obvious.
We can only hope you have a flash of insight on your own. Not holding my breath.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 6:55 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 6:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 6:01 am
My main point is NOT "a thing can exist only if it's known and described."

My point is whatever exists as real is entangled with the human conditions.

There are no things that are things-in-themselves, i.e. existing absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Okay, here's your premise:
if there were no humans,
and therefore no human conditions with which things would be entangled,
then nothing would 'exist as real'.

Bonkers. End of conversation.
As usual strawman again.
I did not present the above argument at all.

Note I provided two links that support my arguments which you ignored.

My argument in general is this;
  • 1. All Thing of reality emerged as real conditioned upon a specific FSK [e.g. scientific FSK].
    2. All FSKs are entangled with the human conditions.
    3. All Thing of reality are entangled with the human conditions.
Now prove to me your claim that things claimed as real can exist absolutely independent of the human conditions?
You cannot! If you every try, that would be BONKERS!
Whoa. I hope everyone else can see your dishonesty. Is it everything that EXISTS 'as real', or everything that's CLAIMED to exist 'as real'?

If it's the second, answer this question. Do you think that only things claimed to exist 'as real' actually exist?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 7:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 6:55 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 6:28 am
Okay, here's your premise:
if there were no humans,
and therefore no human conditions with which things would be entangled,
then nothing would 'exist as real'.

Bonkers. End of conversation.
As usual strawman again.
I did not present the above argument at all.

Note I provided two links that support my arguments which you ignored.

My argument in general is this;
  • 1. All Thing of reality emerged as real conditioned upon a specific FSK [e.g. scientific FSK].
    2. All FSKs are entangled with the human conditions.
    3. All Thing of reality are entangled with the human conditions.
Now prove to me your claim that things claimed as real can exist absolutely independent of the human conditions?
You cannot! If you every try, that would be BONKERS!
Whoa. I hope everyone else can see your dishonesty. Is it everything that EXISTS 'as real', or everything that's CLAIMED to exist 'as real'?

If it's the second, answer this question. Do you think that only things claimed to exist 'as real' actually exist?
Note my first premise;

1. All Thing of reality emerged as real [are] conditioned upon a specific FSK [e.g. scientific FSK].

As such whatever is claimed to exists 'as real' actually exists are real and is justified within a credible FSK.

Note existence is not a predicate, whatever exists as real must be conditioned within a specific FSK which is entangled with the human conditions.

I ask you to show me otherwise, i.e. a thing can exists absolutely independent by itself?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 7:48 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 7:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 6:55 am
As usual strawman again.
I did not present the above argument at all.

Note I provided two links that support my arguments which you ignored.

My argument in general is this;
  • 1. All Thing of reality emerged as real conditioned upon a specific FSK [e.g. scientific FSK].
    2. All FSKs are entangled with the human conditions.
    3. All Thing of reality are entangled with the human conditions.
Now prove to me your claim that things claimed as real can exist absolutely independent of the human conditions?
You cannot! If you every try, that would be BONKERS!
Whoa. I hope everyone else can see your dishonesty. Is it everything that EXISTS 'as real', or everything that's CLAIMED to exist 'as real'?

If it's the second, answer this question. Do you think that only things claimed to exist 'as real' actually exist?
Note my first premise;

1. All Thing of reality emerged as real [are] conditioned upon a specific FSK [e.g. scientific FSK].

As such whatever is claimed to exists 'as real' actually exists are real and is justified within a credible FSK.

Note existence is not a predicate, whatever exists as real must be conditioned within a specific FSK which is entangled with the human conditions.

I ask you to show me otherwise, i.e. a thing can exists absolutely independent by itself?
You're not answering the question. I'll put it another way. Does anything exist outside a framework and system of knowledge?

Or try this: must a thing be known in order for it to exist? The answer is yes or no. Try really hard to answer with yes or no.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 7:48 am Note my first premise;

1. All Thing of reality emerged as real [are] conditioned upon a specific FSK [e.g. scientific FSK].

As such whatever is claimed to exists 'as real' actually exists are real and is justified within a credible FSK.

Note existence is not a predicate, whatever exists as real must be conditioned within a specific FSK which is entangled with the human conditions.

I ask you to show me otherwise, i.e. a thing can exists absolutely independent by itself?
1. All Thing of reality emerged as real [are] conditioned upon a specific FSK [e.g. scientific FSK].
So, the Sun emerged as real conditioned upon a specific FSK?
It wasn't there until there was an FSK?

Now I suspect we are dealing with English as a Second Language issues here, but since there is little humility about how the way this person expresses himself and how this might contribute to problems, I'll ignore that possibility.

This means that things did not exist until there was a knower/experiencer with an FSK.

The problem here...
As such whatever is claimed to exists 'as real' actually exists are real and is justified within a credible FSK.
is the word credible. It creates a backdoor out that makes the assertion nearly meaningless. But let's look at the assertion...

Things are real or 'are real' if the FSK is credible. We know that the scientific FSK has been wrong. But here we have a simple assertion that things are real, despite even science being fallible. And the quotes are 'are real' would seem to be problematic regardless of first language. What the heck do they mean?

Now he may not mean these things, it may be poor language use. Hard to know.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:16 am This is one of the dumbest philosophical argument to arrive at one's conclusion, i.e. it is true philosophical because we English Speakers said so it is.
You've cooked up a shit alternative meaning for FACT that doesn't draw a distinction between that and FICTION.

You fucked up.

You just aren't smart enough to understand yet.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 9:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:16 am This is one of the dumbest philosophical argument to arrive at one's conclusion, i.e. it is true philosophical because we English Speakers said so it is.
You've cooked up a shit alternative meaning for FACT that doesn't draw a distinction between that and FICTION.

You fucked up.

You just aren't smart enough to understand yet.
You are the stupid and ignorant one.

Have you heard of 'half-truths'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth
Regardless of the intention there is still an element of 50% truth in it.

On that basis there is no reason to stop at quarter-truth or 10% truths provided one justify it clearly.
If one make a point about something comprising 10 statements but only one statement is evidently true, that can be a 10% truth. It is appear ridiculous [atypical] but with proper explanation there is nothing wrong with it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 8:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 7:48 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 7:30 am

Whoa. I hope everyone else can see your dishonesty. Is it everything that EXISTS 'as real', or everything that's CLAIMED to exist 'as real'?

If it's the second, answer this question. Do you think that only things claimed to exist 'as real' actually exist?
Note my first premise;

1. All Thing of reality emerged as real [are] conditioned upon a specific FSK [e.g. scientific FSK].

As such whatever is claimed to exists 'as real' actually exists are real and is justified within a credible FSK.

Note existence is not a predicate, whatever exists as real must be conditioned within a specific FSK which is entangled with the human conditions.

I ask you to show me otherwise, i.e. a thing can exists absolutely independent by itself?
You're not answering the question. I'll put it another way. Does anything exist outside a framework and system of knowledge?

Or try this: must a thing be known in order for it to exist? The answer is yes or no. Try really hard to answer with yes or no.
Why should I answer your question which make no empirical sense at all?
Your question will lead to whether God exists as real outside any framework and system of knowledge.

Note again, my approach,

My argument in general is this;
1. All Thing of reality emerged as real conditioned upon a specific FSK [e.g. scientific FSK].
2. All FSKs are entangled with the human conditions.
3. All Thing of reality are entangled with the human conditions.

What is wrong with the above which is more realistic.
Post Reply