There are many kinds of facts; statistical facts, scientific facts, artistic facts, historical facts, all kinds. All facts have one thing in common. They are social constructs. A group of people agree that this or that will be a fact, and so it is. A bit of information, is considered consistent with reality. They do not do this without considerable consideration. They believe the 'fact' is 'true', consistent with reality. It may turn out, in the future, that the fact changes (such as statistical facts). It may not change, simply be shown to be false. All sane people believed the earth was flat, so this was a fact. Believed to be true by social constructs, but false nonetheless. For any fact that we accept as true, we may have it right, or we may have it wrong, but it is a fact, so it is treated as true. It is fine to treat facts as being truthful, but not good if we do not realize facts are, after all, social agreements.
No, no. This is not about epistemology, it is about language. There is no need to understand what is truthful, only what the word 'fact' means. Linguistics.
I would say the fact people believed the world was flat didn't make it a fact. They were mistaken. . .
What bit of knowledge is it that you can prove, demonstrate that there is no possible way for any sane person to deny, the veracity of that bit of information? I say there is no such proof. There is no bit of information that might not be an hallucination, delusion, mass hysteria, alien mind trick, etc. Bits of information are believed to be truthful, so are named as facts, but in reality, some new awarness or knowledge may show it to be false. Facts are facts, until they are shown to be not consistent with reality. Then they are facts no more.
Ah, you have me at a disadvantage. It would seem to me these 'entailments' have to do with the meaning of words. How is it these entailments do not have to do with the meaning of words?
In a sense, they do. But linguistics per se is too limited in its scope to deal with that, hence there is the discipline of philosophy of language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_language), for starters. Bottomline, a regular dictionary definition of "fact" cannot help to clear up the problems around the meaning and use of this word.
A fact isn't a fact because one group of individuals believe it. Aliens in a different galaxy knew that planets were'nt flat before we did. Are you saying facts are relative? Seems you are just playing with the dictionary list of of possible interpretations for the meaning of the word fact, which differ slightly in their categorisation. I personally would go for the first in the list and use that as a basis. It's all terminology not astronomy. . .
Though of course it is any individuals choice to choose to look at any given subject from any given angle, therefore allowing oneself to see the world from others viewpoints, that to me is freedom of thought. . .
Well, at least we can agree on the uslessness of dictionaries when the word is framiliar to all parties. Tell me, I do not understand this connection between epistemology and the philosophy of language. And since language is a study of linguistics, are you not, after all, agreeing with me, dispite your best efforts to the contrary?
I play with no dictionaries. Well, if I had no toilet paper, might be useful. Facts are social constructs. You have not told me of some fact you are aware of, that cannot be doubted, and may not be show to be false, by some more knowledgable society.
It isn't my responsibility to pander to your requests lol. I don't wish to be pulled into a philosophical menagerie of solipsistic thought processes. Facts may be social constructs to you, but I view it differently. For me facts are data that is true: <fact /fækt/ Show Spelled[fakt] Show IPA –noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.> Like I have already stated, I choose the primary meaning of the word.
It is my right to do so. Using a word in context fixes down its meaning. I have made plain my desire to use the word in this manner. I have no interest in your desire to sway me away to a different view at this time. . . lol
There is certainly no need for you to act or think logically. Simply because you can name no 'fact', does not mean they do not exist, we probably agree on that.
universaldistress I seem to be low on toilet paper, can I borrow your. . . .oh, never mind. You're probably using a digital one anyway, and they scratch.
I can choose my own mode of thought surely? I don't push my parameters onto you, simply exercise my right to free thought. "You" said I can name no fact. Just because I didn't doesn't necessarily prove I can or can't.
Maybe I should wipe mine on the philosophy books you have allowed to forge your mind. I have never read one, didn't want my philosophy to be tainted/fixed down. Adaptability of thought/viewpoint is something I hold very dear.
