On my view, facts are events. Events cannot be false. I proposed having a set of facts that everyone agrees to. The agreement doesn't make them facts. The agreement makes them uncontroversial. — creativesoul

Sure, events cannot be false, however when we think we observe an event, we don't know wether we actually observe an event, or are just delusional or hallucinating. Hence human reports of events are not nessesarily consistent with the events, but we can only discuss human reports of events. To treat those as facts, means that we already apply the axiom that the human reports of events can be treated as facts as if enough humans provide the samer report of events.

Facts cannot be false.

Do you agree?

however when we think we observe an event, we don't know wether we actually observe an event, or are just delusional or hallucinating. — Tomseltje

I'm curious to see what criterion you've employed for knowledge. If we could not know then there would be no difference in the meaning of the words describing those three possibilities. But there is such a difference, and we know that difference, so thus... we do.

A delusional creature does not know it is delusional. It does not follow from that that others cannot tell whether or not they act the same way.

:wink:

Take your pick...

:cool:

...human reports of events are not nessesarily consistent with the events, but we can only discuss human reports of events... — Tomseltje

Everything is human report?

Nah. Horrible form of monism...

To treat those as facts, means that we already apply the axiom that the human reports of events can be treated as facts as if enough humans provide the samer report of events. — Tomseltje

Well, if we mixed our frameworks(axioms?)...

Strictly speaking from my own, human reports are statements about the facts. Statements can be true/false. Facts cannot.

Strictly speaking from my own, human reports are statements about the facts. Statements can be true/false. Facts cannot. — creativesoul

But all we talk about are human reports. What I say is my report to you, what you say is your report to me. Humans use their senses to observe the world, but there is not a 100% guarantee they will accurately represent what is happening 100% of the time. Alcohol can make you see more things than that are actually there for instance.

Are you familiar with the evil genius concept in classic philosophy? Or the movie the matrix?

Everything is human report?

Nah. Horrible form of monism... — creativesoul

Such an obvious strawman, really? I didn't say everything is human report, I said everything discussed is human report, there is a difference.

I discuss trees. Trees are a part of everything discussed. Therefore, not everything discussed is human report.

But all we talk about are human reports. What I say is my report to you, what you say is your report to me. — Tomseltje

I talk about trees.

I discuss trees. Trees are a part of everything discussed. Therefore, not everything discussed is human report. — creativesoul

Nope, to discuss is to report, and you don't know about trees, you merely know about your concept of trees. Hence you report about your concept of trees.

Guiliani may be a lawyer:lol:

What's that over there------------------>

Looks like a tree to me. My conception is made out of language and stuff. The tree is not. Conceptions can be wrong. Trees cannot.

Humans use their senses to observe the world, but there is not a 100% guarantee they will accurately represent what is happening 100% of the time. — Tomseltje

So, the argument is we can be certain that it is possible for us to be mistaken, therefore...

What?

Looks like a tree to me. My conception is made out of language and stuff. The tree is not. Conceptions can be wrong. Trees cannot. — creativesoul

All that tells me is that what you are looking at fits with your conception of a tree, under the assumption your report is an honest one. The fact that conceptions can be 'wrong' or at least, can differ from person to person, it's by no means a guarantee that your report of witnessing a tree will cause me to see a tree when I look at the same thing. Since I could have a different concept of what a tree is, and event though I look at the same thing, it may not fit my concept. If such a difference occurs, it can be usefull to elaborate on each others concept, so both of us get the oppertunity expand our concepts of things.

So, the argument is we can be certain that it is possible for us to be mistaken, therefore... — creativesoul

Therefore we can only talk about our concept of something, not about the actual something itself. This even goes for ourselves. We can only talk about how we perceive ourselves, not about our actual self. This difference is one of the causes of the dunning-kruger effect. If we would know our actual self, rather than just know our perception of our self, the dunning-kruger effect would not exist.

We're not looking at a concept. We're looking at a tree. In normal parlance we're not talking about our concept of a tree, we're talking about the tree. You and I can talk about our conceptions. We can compare them to each others' and the tree(your aforementioned "same thing").

Your position is untenable, perhaps. I'm being reminded of Kant's Noumena.

You're lost brother. Go pick on someone smaller. I'll kick your ass. That's my MO. As I've already said, your posts are an exercise in spotting fallacy in the wild. — creativesoul

Oh dear. You just lost IT right there by pretending to be threatening. Don't look now, your consciousness is showing.