Suspicion, Proof and Fact

[Eodnhoj7]

If multitude of people suspect the same thing then a multitude "suspect" the same thing. Proof requires argumentation as a definition of what a phenomenon is or is not. If a multitude prove the same thing, as in give definition, then it is fact. Fact requires definition, not suspicion. Suspicion is an absence of definition as an absence of evidence.

Intuition alone can be faulty when not merged with reason.

A simple "I believe you are wrong because I feel so" is far from any rational discussion and promotes an inherent subjectivity in determining what is true and what is false.

This subjectivity, where multiple people feel the same thing yet are unable to give proof to it, is not far from being a bandwagon fallacy. Objectivity is multiple people observing the same thing through "
proof.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I agree with the above except the point about 'fact'.

Note my thread;

• What is Fact.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

What is fact [and also its referent] are conclusions and emergences generated from a specific Framework and System [F/S] of Knowledge which has its relative degrees of objectivity corresponding to the quality of its justifications methods.

Example, the Scientific F/S produce and regulate scientific facts.
The legal F/S generate legal facts, i.e. laws, judgments, etc.
The economic F/S generate economic facts,
as so on.

[Eodnhoj7]

I agree with the above except the point about 'fact'.

Note my thread;

• What is Fact.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

What is fact [and also its referent] are conclusions and emergences generated from a specific Framework and System [F/S] of Knowledge which has its relative degrees of objectivity corresponding to the quality of its justifications methods.

Example, the Scientific F/S produce and regulate scientific facts.
The legal F/S generate legal facts, i.e. laws, judgments, etc.
The economic F/S generate economic facts,
as so on.

Fact is just the recursion of assertions given that the framework which is required to determine a fact is in itself a fact in the respect is results in facts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I agree with the above except the point about 'fact'.

Note my thread;

• What is Fact.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

What is fact [and also its referent] are conclusions and emergences generated from a specific Framework and System [F/S] of Knowledge which has its relative degrees of objectivity corresponding to the quality of its justifications methods.

Example, the Scientific F/S produce and regulate scientific facts.
The legal F/S generate legal facts, i.e. laws, judgments, etc.
The economic F/S generate economic facts,
as so on.

Fact is just the recursion of assertions given that the framework which is required to determine a fact is in itself a fact in the respect is results in facts.

Nope!

Whatever the subsequent 'recursion' i.e. "a fact is in itself a fact" must be reduced to a major premise [the ground] that is justified with evidences and philosophical reasoning.

One cannot start without justifications, say;

• 1. God exists
  2. God given command are facts.
  3. Therefore facts exists.

And thereupon relied upon to claim other "facts" as justified.

[Eodnhoj7]

I agree with the above except the point about 'fact'.

Note my thread;

• What is Fact.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

What is fact [and also its referent] are conclusions and emergences generated from a specific Framework and System [F/S] of Knowledge which has its relative degrees of objectivity corresponding to the quality of its justifications methods.

Example, the Scientific F/S produce and regulate scientific facts.
The legal F/S generate legal facts, i.e. laws, judgments, etc.
The economic F/S generate economic facts,
as so on.

Fact is just the recursion of assertions given that the framework which is required to determine a fact is in itself a fact in the respect is results in facts.

Nope!

Whatever the subsequent 'recursion' i.e. "a fact is in itself a fact" must be reduced to a major premise [the ground] that is justified with evidences and philosophical reasoning.

One cannot start without justifications, say;

• 1. God exists
  2. God given command are facts.
  3. Therefore facts exists.

And thereupon relied upon to claim other "facts" as justified.

Any framework of reasoning, which results in a fact, is in itself a fact in the respect it produces facts. It is a fact the framework produces facts. The fact is reduced to a fact as anything subsequent mode of reasoning beyond it is also a fact. The regress results in the recursion of the very same conclusion or premise it is trying to justify.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Fact is just the recursion of assertions given that the framework which is required to determine a fact is in itself a fact in the respect is results in facts.

Nope!

Whatever the subsequent 'recursion' i.e. "a fact is in itself a fact" must be reduced to a major premise [the ground] that is justified with evidences and philosophical reasoning.

One cannot start without justifications, say;

• 1. God exists
  2. God given command are facts.
  3. Therefore facts exists.

And thereupon relied upon to claim other "facts" as justified.

Any framework of reasoning, which results in a fact, is in itself a fact in the respect it produces facts. It is a fact the framework produces facts. The fact is reduced to a fact as anything subsequent mode of reasoning beyond it is also a fact. The regress results in the recursion of the very same conclusion or premise it is trying to justify.

The regress is not the issue here.

What is critical is whether the fact as claimed is justified within a specific Framework & System of Knowledge and the degree of veracity is considered and 'weighed'.

"It is a fact the framework produces facts."
What is the issue here?
As long as the Framework and System is credible, e.g. the Scientific Framework, then the facts it justified and produced will be reliable and useful.
Accepted scientific facts has been proven to be credible and useful in most [not all] cases.

Scientific facts are also subjected to a regress issue, problem of induction, and they are at best merely polished conjectures, but would you reject scientific facts due to these limitations?

[Eodnhoj7]

Nope!

Whatever the subsequent 'recursion' i.e. "a fact is in itself a fact" must be reduced to a major premise [the ground] that is justified with evidences and philosophical reasoning.

One cannot start without justifications, say;

• 1. God exists
  2. God given command are facts.
  3. Therefore facts exists.

And thereupon relied upon to claim other "facts" as justified.

Any framework of reasoning, which results in a fact, is in itself a fact in the respect it produces facts. It is a fact the framework produces facts. The fact is reduced to a fact as anything subsequent mode of reasoning beyond it is also a fact. The regress results in the recursion of the very same conclusion or premise it is trying to justify.

The regress is not the issue here.

What is critical is whether the fact as claimed is justified within a specific Framework & System of Knowledge and the degree of veracity is considered and 'weighed'.

"It is a fact the framework produces facts."
What is the issue here?

A recursion occurs. The framework must be proven, but what constitutes as proof must be a fact prior to the induction of the framework as a body of facts. What is considered a fact must exist outside of the framework. Not all facts can be proven given there must be a factual way in which proof exists that exists prior to proof.
As long as the Framework and System is credible, e.g. the Scientific Framework, then the facts it justified and produced will be reliable and useful.
Accepted scientific facts has been proven to be credible and useful in most [not all] cases.

Scientific facts are also subjected to a regress issue, problem of induction, and they are at best merely polished conjectures, but would you reject scientific facts due to these limitations?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Any framework of reasoning, which results in a fact, is in itself a fact in the respect it produces facts. It is a fact the framework produces facts. The fact is reduced to a fact as anything subsequent mode of reasoning beyond it is also a fact. The regress results in the recursion of the very same conclusion or premise it is trying to justify.

The regress is not the issue here.

What is critical is whether the fact as claimed is justified within a specific Framework & System of Knowledge and the degree of veracity is considered and 'weighed'.

"It is a fact the framework produces facts."
What is the issue here?

A recursion occurs. The framework must be proven, but what constitutes as proof must be a fact prior to the induction of the framework as a body of facts. What is considered a fact must exist outside of the framework. Not all facts can be proven given there must be a factual way in which proof exists that exists prior to proof.
As long as the Framework and System is credible, e.g. the Scientific Framework, then the facts it justified and produced will be reliable and useful.
Accepted scientific facts has been proven to be credible and useful in most [not all] cases.

Scientific facts are also subjected to a regress issue, problem of induction, and they are at best merely polished conjectures, but would you reject scientific facts due to these limitations?

You are very lost and is stuck in a loop.

Note this?
Must we prove the Scientific Framework exists as real/fact?
Note the Framework is not a 'thing' but essentially a system with its input, structure, processes and output within a controlled environment.

The proof of the Scientific Framework is whether the scientific facts are objective and most of all whether the facts produced and regulated are useful to humanity.

[Eodnhoj7]

The regress is not the issue here.

What is critical is whether the fact as claimed is justified within a specific Framework & System of Knowledge and the degree of veracity is considered and 'weighed'.

"It is a fact the framework produces facts."
What is the issue here?

A recursion occurs. The framework must be proven, but what constitutes as proof must be a fact prior to the induction of the framework as a body of facts. What is considered a fact must exist outside of the framework. Not all facts can be proven given there must be a factual way in which proof exists that exists prior to proof.
As long as the Framework and System is credible, e.g. the Scientific Framework, then the facts it justified and produced will be reliable and useful.
Accepted scientific facts has been proven to be credible and useful in most [not all] cases.

Scientific facts are also subjected to a regress issue, problem of induction, and they are at best merely polished conjectures, but would you reject scientific facts due to these limitations?

You are very lost and is stuck in a loop.

Note this?
Must we prove the Scientific Framework exists as real/fact?
Note the Framework is not a 'thing' but essentially a system with its input, structure, processes and output within a controlled environment.

The proof of the Scientific Framework is whether the scientific facts are objective and most of all whether the facts produced and regulated are useful to humanity.

If the results of the scientific method are factual, it must be factual that it results in fact. This necessitates the scientific method as existing outside of factuality where what is and is not a fact is determined by something beyond the method.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are very lost and is stuck in a loop.

Note this?
Must we prove the Scientific Framework exists as real/fact?
Note the Framework is not a 'thing' but essentially a system with its input, structure, processes and output within a controlled environment.

The proof of the Scientific Framework is whether the scientific facts are objective and most of all whether the facts produced and regulated are useful to humanity.

If the results of the scientific method are factual, it must be factual that it results in fact. This necessitates the scientific method as existing outside of factuality where what is and is not a fact is determined by something beyond the method.

Nope.
The scientific method do not exist outside of factuality.
Scientific factuality and facts are conditioned upon the Scientific Method, as such the scientific facts cannot exist outside or independent of the scientific method.

In the common and conventional perspective, the referent of the fact 'appear' to exists outside the scientific method.

From a finer perspective of reality, I will ague, even the supposedly independent referent of the fact is conditioned by the scientific method plus human conditions.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are very lost and is stuck in a loop.

Note this?
Must we prove the Scientific Framework exists as real/fact?
Note the Framework is not a 'thing' but essentially a system with its input, structure, processes and output within a controlled environment.

The proof of the Scientific Framework is whether the scientific facts are objective and most of all whether the facts produced and regulated are useful to humanity.

If the results of the scientific method are factual, it must be factual that it results in fact. This necessitates the scientific method as existing outside of factuality where what is and is not a fact is determined by something beyond the method.

Nope.
The scientific method do not exist outside of factuality.
Scientific factuality and facts are conditioned upon the Scientific Method, as such the scientific facts cannot exist outside or independent of the scientific method.

In the common and conventional perspective, the referent of the fact 'appear' to exists outside the scientific method.

From a finer perspective of reality, I will ague, even the supposedly independent referent of the fact is conditioned by the scientific method plus human conditions.

My bad, what determines the scientific method as fact is determined by what constitutes a fact outside of the method. The scientific method, while producing facts, does not define what a fact is other than the repeatability of a phenomenon. Facts are defined through a recursion and the actual abstraction of fact cannot be tested. It is just strictly assumed. A fact can be tested, but what constitutes what an actual fact is cannot be tested.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If the results of the scientific method are factual, it must be factual that it results in fact. This necessitates the scientific method as existing outside of factuality where what is and is not a fact is determined by something beyond the method.

Nope.
The scientific method do not exist outside of factuality.
Scientific factuality and facts are conditioned upon the Scientific Method, as such the scientific facts cannot exist outside or independent of the scientific method.

In the common and conventional perspective, the referent of the fact 'appear' to exists outside the scientific method.

From a finer perspective of reality, I will ague, even the supposedly independent referent of the fact is conditioned by the scientific method plus human conditions.

My bad, what determines the scientific method as fact is determined by what constitutes a fact outside of the method. The scientific method, while producing facts, does not define what a fact is other than the repeatability of a phenomenon. Facts are defined through a recursion and the actual abstraction of fact cannot be tested. It is just strictly assumed.

A fact can be tested, but what constitutes what an actual fact is cannot be tested.

There is no question of "what constitutes what an actual fact is cannot be tested."

Note Wittgenstein's
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Tractatus 7)

As such, whenever 'that what' is raised in your mind, you should just remain silent, i.e. 'shut up' on that question.

So the focus on what is real should only be on the empirical and what is empirically possible.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nope.
The scientific method do not exist outside of factuality.
Scientific factuality and facts are conditioned upon the Scientific Method, as such the scientific facts cannot exist outside or independent of the scientific method.

In the common and conventional perspective, the referent of the fact 'appear' to exists outside the scientific method.

From a finer perspective of reality, I will ague, even the supposedly independent referent of the fact is conditioned by the scientific method plus human conditions.

My bad, what determines the scientific method as fact is determined by what constitutes a fact outside of the method. The scientific method, while producing facts, does not define what a fact is other than the repeatability of a phenomenon. Facts are defined through a recursion and the actual abstraction of fact cannot be tested. It is just strictly assumed.

A fact can be tested, but what constitutes what an actual fact is cannot be tested.

There is no question of "what constitutes what an actual fact is cannot be tested."

Note Wittgenstein's
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Tractatus 7)

As such, whenever 'that what' is raised in your mind, you should just remain silent, i.e. 'shut up' on that question.

So the focus on what is real should only be on the empirical and what is empirically possible.

The empirical is defined by abstractions, and these abstractions, as defining, in turn form and reform the empirical. The connectedness between what is empirical and what is abstract necessitate the abstract as real. This ties in directly to the question of "abstraction?" given the abstraction is real in an of itself. The scientific method does not test abstractions therefore what constitutes a fact lies outside of the method. Dually the scientific method is an abstraction and cannot test itself for validity. The methodology and the empirical, not abstract, facts which form it are strictly assumed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My bad, what determines the scientific method as fact is determined by what constitutes a fact outside of the method. The scientific method, while producing facts, does not define what a fact is other than the repeatability of a phenomenon. Facts are defined through a recursion and the actual abstraction of fact cannot be tested. It is just strictly assumed.

A fact can be tested, but what constitutes what an actual fact is cannot be tested.

There is no question of "what constitutes what an actual fact is cannot be tested."

Note Wittgenstein's
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Tractatus 7)

As such, whenever 'that what' is raised in your mind, you should just remain silent, i.e. 'shut up' on that question.

So the focus on what is real should only be on the empirical and what is empirically possible.

The empirical is defined by abstractions, and these abstractions, as defining, in turn form and reform the empirical. The connectedness between what is empirical and what is abstract necessitate the abstract as real. This ties in directly to the question of "abstraction?" given the abstraction is real in an of itself.

The scientific method does not test abstractions therefore what constitutes a fact lies outside of the method. Dually the scientific method is an abstraction and cannot test itself for validity. The methodology and the empirical, not abstract, facts which form it is strictly assumed.

From the common and conventional perspective, yes, what constitutes a scientific fact lies outside the scientific method.

However, I presumed you are familiar with the Modern Physics of Einstein and Quantum Mechanics where the scientific facts and its referent CANNOT be independent of the Scientific Method, e.g.

• Observer_effect
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
  In physics, the observer effect is the theory that the mere observation of a phenomenon inevitably changes that phenomenon.
  
  Wave function collapse
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
  In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation".

In Modern Physics there is also no absolute reality but rather reality is dependent on the Model used to interact with it.

• 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.[3]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no question of "what constitutes what an actual fact is cannot be tested."

Note Wittgenstein's
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Tractatus 7)

As such, whenever 'that what' is raised in your mind, you should just remain silent, i.e. 'shut up' on that question.

So the focus on what is real should only be on the empirical and what is empirically possible.

The empirical is defined by abstractions, and these abstractions, as defining, in turn form and reform the empirical. The connectedness between what is empirical and what is abstract necessitate the abstract as real. This ties in directly to the question of "abstraction?" given the abstraction is real in an of itself.

The scientific method does not test abstractions therefore what constitutes a fact lies outside of the method. Dually the scientific method is an abstraction and cannot test itself for validity. The methodology and the empirical, not abstract, facts which form it is strictly assumed.

From the common and conventional perspective, yes, what constitutes a scientific fact lies outside the scientific method.

However, I presumed you are familiar with the Modern Physics of Einstein and Quantum Mechanics where the scientific facts and its referent CANNOT be independent of the Scientific Method, e.g.

• Observer_effect
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
  In physics, the observer effect is the theory that the mere observation of a phenomenon inevitably changes that phenomenon.
  
  Observation exists outside the scientific method as well considering much of what is observed does not apply the scientific method. Factuality thus lies outside the method.
  
  Wave function collapse
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
  In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation".

In Modern Physics there is also no absolute reality but rather reality is dependent on the Model used to interact with it.

And models of observation, such as analysis as the break down of a phenomenon to its constituent parts, exist outside of the method.

• 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.[3]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

There is no model that determines the scientific method, except the scientific method which paradoxically is not applied to itself.