There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are two senses of 'what is fact', i.e.

• 1. Facts as feature of reality
  2: FSK Conditioned Facts

1. Facts as feature of reality, that is or are the case, state of affairs.
As I had argued, such facts-in-themselves independent of the human conditions are illusory, meaningless and literally nonsense. see,'
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577


2: FSK Conditioned Facts
1. Whatever is a fact is conditioned upon its specific FSK [collective], i.e. independent from any any individual's opinion, beliefs and judgments, so, it is objective.

2. Facts as in Scientific Facts which are conditioned upon a specific FSK, thus entangled with the human conditions.

3. There are objective moral facts which are conditioned upon the moral FSK. Since all the material inputs into the moral FSK are from the scientific FSK [empirical], the moral facts are as near-objective as the scientific facts.

Views?

[Peter Holmes]

There are two senses of 'what is fact', i.e.

A. Facts as feature of reality, that is or are the case, state of affairs.
As I had argued, such facts-in-themselves independent of the human conditions are illusory, meaningless and literally nonsense. see,'
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577


B: FSK Conditioned Facts
1. Facts as in Scientific Facts which are conditioned upon a specific FSK, thus entangled with the human conditions.

2. Whatever is a fact is conditioned upon its specific FSK [collective], i.e. independent from any any individual's opinion, beliefs and judgments, so, it is objective.

3. There are objective moral facts which are conditioned upon the moral FSK. Since all the material inputs into the moral FSK are from the scientific FSK [empirical], the moral facts are as near-objective as the scientific facts.

Views?

All wrong. What we call objectivity is not independence from any individual's opinion. It's independence from opinion altogether - because it means reliance on facts.

You mistake our knowing a thing, and the way we describe it, for the thing itself. If, as you claim, there is no 'thing itself', then what is it that we know and describe? And how do scientists know and describe it more credibly than the rest of us?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are two senses of 'what is fact', i.e.

A. Facts as feature of reality, that is or are the case, state of affairs.
As I had argued, such facts-in-themselves independent of the human conditions are illusory, meaningless and literally nonsense. see,'
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577


B: FSK Conditioned Facts
1. Facts as in Scientific Facts which are conditioned upon a specific FSK, thus entangled with the human conditions.

2. Whatever is a fact is conditioned upon its specific FSK [collective], i.e. independent from any any individual's opinion, beliefs and judgments, so, it is objective.

3. There are objective moral facts which are conditioned upon the moral FSK. Since all the material inputs into the moral FSK are from the scientific FSK [empirical], the moral facts are as near-objective as the scientific facts.

Views?

All wrong. What we call objectivity is not independence from any individual's opinion. It's independence from opinion altogether - because it means reliance on facts.

Ok, just any opinion.

You mistake our knowing a thing, and the way we describe it, for the thing itself. If, as you claim, there is no 'thing itself', then what is it that we know and describe? And how do scientists know and describe it more credibly than the rest of us?

There is no such thing as a thing-it-itself.
Such is an illusion in your mind.

Here is a repeat post;

Yes, in general, "Knowledge is a representation of reality"
but in another more refined perspective, it is;
Knowledge by a subject is a representation of reality, of which the subject is a co-creator of that reality.

Take the obvious example,
If you create a chair [reality], then you have knowledge of that chair [reality] which you are the creator of.

A more refine version of co-creator or reality;
Reality is all-there-is, i.e. including you therein.
We have reality at t1 - a specific state of affairs of the universe in all there is with your therein.
Then you cough at t2.
At t3, we have a different reality [all there is] because your cough have changed reality from at t1 to t3.
Your cough had contributed subsequently to a hurricane in Florida [Chaos Theory] at t4.
You then see for your self [video report] and thus has knowledge of that hurricane at t5.

From the above sequence of events,
isn't it true that you were the co-creator [at t2] of that reality at t3 which you subsequently have knowledge of at t5?
Do you agree with the above?

The above is undeniable but you may ask,
what about when there were no humans?
You can trace this back to the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.
But note, the Big Bang is conditioned upon the Science-Physics FSK.
Since any FSK is conditioned upon human conditions,
whatever or whichever ways, it is ultimately linked to the human conditions and human as co-creators.

As Model Dependent Realism asserted it is meaningless to talk about any "true reality" that is independent of the human conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

According to Kant, to chase for such for 'true reality' [thing in itself] is chasing illusions, and being insistence and dogmatic about it is delusional.

Wittgenstein's "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" can be applied to the above.

To get a better of this truth, I suggest you read the following [quoted earlier];

Note this thread;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili

Note Kant;
Kant: Laws of Nature, We Ourselves Introduce [CPR A125]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33772

Note this post re the merging of subject with object:
viewtopic.php?p=624583#p624583

As for why Science is more credible and Reliable than other FSK,
Read this OP

Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

[Iwannaplato]

There is no such thing as a thing-it-itself.
Such is an illusion in your mind.

If there is no thing-in-itself then what's this mind, this illusion, or this brain you keep referring to?

He experiences his mind, but you can't. So his mind is a ding-an-sich for you. Is it for him?

How can you speak with such certainty about the ding-an-sich of his mind?

I realize that ding-an-sich is sort of built into our language, but what the heck does something like this mean...

Take the obvious example,
If you create a chair [reality], then you have knowledge of that chair [reality] which you are the creator of.

If there is no ding-an-sich what is this you, this chair that you have knowledge (what's this knowledge) of and created. You even call the chair [reality].
What are these nouns you are referring to?

The above is undeniable but you may ask,
what about when there were no humans?
You can trace this back to the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.
But note, the Big Bang is conditioned upon the Science-Physics FSK.
Since any FSK is conditioned upon human conditions,
whatever or whichever ways, it is ultimately linked to the human conditions and human as co-creators.

Sounds like reverse causation. The concept of the Big Bang which was created quite recently and this caused earlier stages of the universe?

You call knowledge representation of reality.

Knowledge by a subject is a representation of reality,

A representational model of reality has ding-an-sich built into it.

It is so much more than a representation in your view. And a representation is not the thing represented.

Again, sure, it's hard to talk about this stuff in language with models built into it.

But you just said the representation (concept of Big Bang) caused or was coterminus with a stage of the universe billions of years ago, when we were not even dust gathering yet.

[Impenitent]

this creation is not a thing-in-itself?

can the thinker think about the thinker-in-itself?

no there is no thinker-in-itself...

do you think about the thinker (another person who you believe is thinking) as not being a thing-in-itself?

no, there is no thinker-in-itself...

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

this creation is not a thing-in-itself?

can the thinker think about the thinker-in-itself?

no there is no thinker-in-itself...

do you think about the thinker (another person who you believe is thinking) as not being a thing-in-itself?

no, there is no thinker-in-itself...

-Imp

I think therefore I-AM.
The "I-AM" is claimed by many to the thinker-in-itself.
To the theist, the I-AM, the thinker-in-itself is an independent entity that will survive physical death which will either go the heaven [if believer] or Hell [if non-believer or an forgivable sinner].

What is really going on with "I think therefore I-AM" is;
I [the thinker] thinks of 'therefore I-AM [thinker-in-itself]',
As such the "I -AM" [thinker in itself] is merely a thought/idea thought by the thinker.

The 'I-Think' that is thinking can be verified and justified empirically by the "I-think' itself based on its own experience which is empirical and externally by others and science as a human being that think with its "I-Think" self.

The "I-AM" as the thinker-in-itself is merely a thought and to think it is real is illusory.
Theists reify the illusory "I-AM' -thinker-in-itself as an independent soul that will survive physical death to either heaven or hell.

Re What is Fact,
People like PH, the situation is as follows;

PH is the experiencer of something, but his "I think" thinks there is a thing-in-itself or a fact-in-itself.
What I am saying is, the fact-in-itself or thing-in-itself is merely a thought by his I-think, it is never a real thing that can be verified nor justified empirically.

What is the more real fact is the 'experiencer-experiencing-of-something' which in totality is the fact.
It is not merely the thing-experienced is the fact, the real fact is the totality of experiencer-experiencing-of-something'. In a way, this is a subjective fact.

In this case, for something-X, say an apple,
in reference to humanity there would be > 8 billion different [experiencer-experiencing-of-something]s.
To have a shared common fact, we put those experiences [or a sample of it] through a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
The most reliable FSK is the science-FSK, which enable a scientific fact.

What is critical to note, this scientific fact is not a scientific-fact-in-itself because the scientific FSK inevitably is grounded upon human conditions.

What is a scientific fact is the whole "experiencer-experiencing-of-something plus conditioned upon the scientific FSK" wherein those who are not the specific scientists doing the experiment are in the process of exercising trust the scientific facts are indeed facts.

This scientific-fact as conditioned upon the scientific FSK is objective because it is not dependent on any individual's opinion, beliefs or judgment but conditioned upon the collective-of-subjects.

Thereafter whatever is known or described is not the whole scientific-fact per se.

[Impenitent]

this creation is not a thing-in-itself?

can the thinker think about the thinker-in-itself?

no there is no thinker-in-itself...

do you think about the thinker (another person who you believe is thinking) as not being a thing-in-itself?

no, there is no thinker-in-itself...

-Imp

I think therefore I-AM.
The "I-AM" is claimed by many to the thinker-in-itself.
To the theist, the I-AM, the thinker-in-itself is an independent entity that will survive physical death which will either go the heaven [if believer] or Hell [if non-believer or an forgivable sinner].

What is really going on with "I think therefore I-AM" is;
I [the thinker] thinks of 'therefore I-AM [thinker-in-itself]',
As such the "I -AM" [thinker in itself] is merely a thought/idea thought by the thinker.

The 'I-Think' that is thinking can be verified and justified empirically by the "I-think' itself based on its own experience which is empirical and externally by others and science as a human being that think with its "I-Think" self.

The "I-AM" as the thinker-in-itself is merely a thought and to think it is real is illusory.
Theists reify the illusory "I-AM' -thinker-in-itself as an independent soul that will survive physical death to either heaven or hell.

Re What is Fact,
People like PH, the situation is as follows;

PH is the experiencer of something, but his "I think" thinks there is a thing-in-itself or a fact-in-itself.
What I am saying is, the fact-in-itself or thing-in-itself is merely a thought by his I-think, it is never a real thing that can be verified nor justified empirically.

What is the more real fact is the 'experiencer-experiencing-of-something' which in totality is the fact.
It is not merely the thing-experienced is the fact, the real fact is the totality of experiencer-experiencing-of-something'. In a way, this is a subjective fact.

In this case, for something-X, say an apple,
in reference to humanity there would be > 8 billion different [experiencer-experiencing-of-something]s.
To have a shared common fact, we put those experiences [or a sample of it] through a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
The most reliable FSK is the science-FSK, which enable a scientific fact.

What is critical to note, this scientific fact is not a scientific-fact-in-itself because the scientific FSK inevitably is grounded upon human conditions.

What is a scientific fact is the whole "experiencer-experiencing-of-something plus conditioned upon the scientific FSK" wherein those who are not the specific scientists doing the experiment are in the process of exercising trust the scientific facts are indeed facts.

This scientific-fact as conditioned upon the scientific FSK is objective because it is not dependent on any individual's opinion, beliefs or judgment but conditioned upon the collective-of-subjects.

Thereafter whatever is known or described is not the whole scientific-fact per se.

the " the "I -AM" [thinker in itself] is merely a thought/idea thought by the thinker" as claimed by an "external" thinker using this immaculate fsk?

you don't exist until someone else says you do?

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

the " the "I -AM" [thinker in itself] is merely a thought/idea thought by the thinker" as claimed by an "external" thinker using this immaculate fsk?

The "I-AM" [thinker in itself] is claimed to exist independent of the body in itself, that is commonly claimed as the 'soul' that will survive physical death, thus capable to ending up in heaven or hell.

Such a thinker-in-itself or soul is thought, i.e. an illusion and can never be real; however, it is a useful illusion for many; it has salvific value that can soothe the inherent existential pains.

you don't exist until someone else says you do?

-Imp

Not 'says'.

In this more realistic perspective [not every], you exists physically to someone only when that someone had cognized 'you'.

You exist to your cognitive set up when it cognized your self, i.e. self-consciousness.

A dead body cannot do that.
A person is deep coma cannot cognized one's existing self.
Even a person who has serious Alzheimer's will not recognize any existing personal self.
So, "you" don't exist to one who is in deep coma, has serious Alzheimer's or is dead.

[Impenitent]

the " the "I -AM" [thinker in itself] is merely a thought/idea thought by the thinker" as claimed by an "external" thinker using this immaculate fsk?

The "I-AM" [thinker in itself] is claimed to exist independent of the body in itself, that is commonly claimed as the 'soul' that will survive physical death, thus capable to ending up in heaven or hell.

Such a thinker-in-itself or soul is thought, i.e. an illusion and can never be real; however, it is a useful illusion for many; it has salvific value that can soothe the inherent existential pains.

I don't think you can definitively reduce that which thinks to illusion... noncorporeal existence is not necessarily illusory...

you don't exist until someone else says you do?

-Imp

Not 'says'.

In this more realistic perspective [not every], you exists physically to someone only when that someone had cognized 'you'.

You exist to your cognitive set up when it cognized your self, i.e. self-consciousness.

A dead body cannot do that.
A person is deep coma cannot cognized one's existing self.
Even a person who has serious Alzheimer's will not recognize any existing personal self.
So, "you" don't exist to one who is in deep coma, has serious Alzheimer's or is dead.

that was never Rene's point

-Imp