In the light of your comments, how do you contextualize a phenomenon like, say, climate change and what to do?

Hmm. I'll invite T Clark and @Olivier5 to respond to Ennui, given what they have claimed here. — Banno

It is far preferable to be beaten up by you. — Ennui Elucidator

I don't understand what EE has written well enough to figure out whether I agree or disagree.

That's not my claim. The world is always and already interpreted. — Banno

So if I say your cat is on the mat and you look over and see that it isn’t, your interpretation makes me wrong?

I don't understand what EE has written well enough to figure out whether I agree or disagree. — T Clark

I don’t understand what I have written well enough for me to know if I agree or disagree. I was hoping @Banno would tell me.

1.4 Facts, Intentionality, Semantics and Truthmaking
We have mentioned the view that facts may explain actions and mental states and the view that facts are what we know. Facts are also invoked in the philosophy of mind by philosophers who claim that judgments or beliefs enjoy the property of intentionality, of being “directed towards” something, because they represent states of affairs or are psychological relations to states of affairs and that judgments and beliefs are correct or satisfied only if states of affairs obtain, that is, if facts exist. Versions of these claims are given by many philosophers from Meinong, the early Husserl and Russell to Searle (Searle 1983). Analogous claims in semantics are sometimes made about propositions or other truth-bearers: the proposition that Sam is sad represents the state of affairs that Sam is sad and is true only if this state of affairs obtains. Versions of this view are given by Husserl, Wittgenstein and Carnap. See the supplementary document on the History of Philosophies of Facts.

. . .

Does the proposition that Sam is sad represent the state of affairs that Sam is sad? It may be objected that the proposition does not refer to anything as a state of affairs. And once again the friend of states of affairs may retreat to the safer claims that the proposition that Sam is sad is true only if the state of affairs that Sam is sad obtains and that if the proposition that Sam is sad is true, it is true because the state of affairs obtains. Facts make propositions true.

Facts, then, are perhaps qualified to play the role of what makes judgments correct and propositions true. But the theory of correctness and of truth does not require us to accept that there are facts. Indeed it may be thought that the requirements of such a theory are satisfied by the observations that a judgment that p is correct only if p, and that the proposition that P is true only if p. If arguments in metaphysics or epistemology persuade us that there are facts, then we may perhaps appeal to facts in giving accounts of correctness and of truth. In the case of the theory of correctness conditions for judgment and belief the argument that knowledge is of facts together with the view that, contrary to a long and influential tradition, the theory of belief and of judgment presupposes a theory of knowledge (Williamson 2000) may persuade us that facts make judgments and beliefs correct.

The view that facts make propositions or other truth-bearers true is one theory among many of truthmaking. The theory of truthmaking deals with questions at the intersection between ontology, metaphysics and semantics. The view that facts are what make truth-bearers true is the oldest theory of truthmaking. — “SEP on Facts”

SEP on Facts and Truthmaking

I don’t understand what I have written well enough for me to know if I agree or disagree. I was hoping “Banno” would tell me. — Ennui Elucidator

That @Banno, he knows everything. What would we ever do without him?

Ennui Elucidator In the light of your comments, how do you contextualize a phenomenon like, say, climate change and what to do? — Tom Storm

Philosophically or pragmatically?

Pragmatically I defer to the experts and rely on the system as constructed since it generally gives me stuff that I prefer (even if I find the circumstance distasteful). Radicalism does not actually advance social agenda so far as I know, but it may be a nice counter-point to help people remember there is another way.

Philosophically it depends on the issue (climate change policy, which always seems to be steeped in racism and colonialist profit taking/hoarding, is different than vaccine policy, which seems less steeped in racism and often driven by more immediate concerns of the individuals/communities effected), but in a meta sort of way, the metaphysics don’t matter. I am unconcerned with whether a state of affairs obtains or if I am wrong if my epistemology cannot account for such. I am much closer to using ideas as tools to help obtain my ends and those of people/things within my scope of moral regard (to whatever level they fall within it). Either acting as if is efficacious or it is not. The world imposes itself on me and I try to mold it to my desires using whatever contrivance available. All “facts” are understood contingently and abandoned/modified as necessary. Facts are understood in a political context (all speech is political speech) and assertions of fact which you insist other people acknowledge as being such is a ploy.

I doubt this answers your question, but I am happy to try again if you give me a bit more direction in what kind of an answer you are looking for.

I was concerned that I was straying out of the limits of philosophy but philosophy does draw on all fields of study. However, the discussion today has not been the fun I was I having until today, so I will leave.

Nah. Your topic. I will leave. If people want to know my thoughts, we can start a new topic.

That's helpful, thanks. I was asking exactly this - both.

it generally gives me stuff that I prefer (even if I find the circumstance distasteful). — Ennui Elucidator

I'm assuming you mean the geopolitics of oligarchical capitalism?

The world imposes itself on me and I try to mold it to my desires using whatever contrivance available. All “facts” are understood contingently and abandoned/modified as necessary. — Ennui Elucidator

Fair point. So in the unlikely occasion that you could be having a debate with an Islamic fundamentalist about not allowing females to attend university, how might you go about providing a counter narrative?

I am unconcerned with whether a state of affairs obtains or if I am wrong if my epistemology cannot account for such. I am much closer to using ideas as tools to help obtain my ends and those of people/things within my scope of moral regard (to whatever level they fall within it). Either acting as if is efficacious or it is not. The world imposes itself on me and I try to mold it to my desires using whatever contrivance available. All “facts” are understood contingently and abandoned/modified as necessary. Facts are understood in a political context (all speech is political speech) and assertions of fact which you insist other people acknowledge as being such is a ploy. — Ennui Elucidator

I find myself agreeing with this, although differences in our language make that agreement tentative.

fact, belief, knowledge, and truth are all pretty much the same thing. — T Clark

Hanged for one hanged for any, no difference to you?

A smart person puts a motor on that boat. :rofl: — Athena

Yes, and keeps his oars.

fact, belief, knowledge, and truth are all pretty much the same thing.
— T Clark

Hanged for one hanged for any, no difference to you? — tim wood

I'm on the golf course. I look at my lie. I look at the flag. I turn to my caddy and say "What do you think?" He reaches in the bag, pulls out a club, and hands it to me. I turn to make the shot. Now... What do I care about? I don't care if he believes it's the right club. I don't care if he knows it's the right club. I don't care if it's a fact it's the right club. I don't care if it's the truth it's the right club. Just give me the fucking club.

I don't play golf. Everything in this scenario is based on my understanding of golf based on watching "Caddyshack."

your definition of fact still relies on truth; just dishonestly. — Banno

Of course, and so does yours. And there no dishonesty about it. You should try and relax a bit.

And why insist that there is a territory for our map when all we can deal in is maps?
— Ennui Elucidator

Hmm. I'll invite T Clark and @Olivier5 to respond to Ennui, given what they have claimed here. — Banno

Why, he got you into a twist?

Maps without territories are simply not maps; they are drawings.

A fact is a true statement. — Banno

Or an actual state of affairs.

Or an actual state of affairs — Janus

Like the creation of the world by the gods.

A fact is a true statement.
— Banno

Or an actual state of affairs. — Janus

Or an accurate observation.

I'm on the golf course. I look at my lie. I look at the flag. I turn to my caddy and say "What do you think?" He reaches in the bag, pulls out a club, and hands it to me. I turn to make the shot. Now... What do I care about? I don't care if he believes it's the right club. I don't care if he knows it's the right club. I don't care if it's a fact it's the right club. I don't care if it's the truth it's the right club. Just give me the fucking club. — T Clark

Not trying to be a dick but how about this? My daughter has a one year old son. She has embraced an Evangelical form of Christianity and believes vaccination is a conspiracy and prayer will suffice to keep her and her boy safe. I believe in vaccination. Do I care and accept this situation as 'her version of truth/facts'? Do I care if it's the right decision? What would you do?

Do I accept this as 'her version of truth/facts' or do I take issue with her decision? — Tom Storm

Yes.

What would you do?

I'd talk it through with her as much as she's willing without badgering or taking issue with her "faith" directly in order to maintain a trusting open relationship (assuming that's what we have) which, I think, makes persuasion more likely than not.

And failing that I might kidnap my grandchild and disappear until I know either that she's gotten the jab or herd immunity throughout the country has been achieved.

I don't know why I dropped my two bitcoins on this question – I'm neither a father nor grandfather, but I have been gnawing on this very same bone with one of my nephews about his unvaccinated baby mama and his nine year old daughter all summer. It's not been good for my blood pressure trying to reason with this obstinate young fool (with whom, fortunately, I'm still on good terms). Wtf :mask:

I hear you. It's a tough scenario. Sorry, by the way, I should have been clearer this is a hypothetical (like the golf example but more's at stake) my daughter's not in this situation... I do have people around me in similar positions.

Or an actual state of affairs. — Janus

Yep:

It is also the state of affairs set out by a true statement. — Banno

It is also the state of affairs set out by a true statement. — Banno

Who determines if the statement is true? Don't say: "reality"....

Well, no. You can decide for yourself.

But what you decide is not what makes it true.

It's a point of grammar.

Actually, scratch that. You mean the other sense of "determine".

"the cat is in a hat" is true iff the cat is in a hat.

That's the whole of it.

Or an accurate observation. — Olivier5

And an accurate observation is... one that is true, perhaps? — Banno

Did you reply to this? If you did I missed it.

And an accurate observation is... one that is true, perhaps? — Banno

Yes, and vice versa: a statement claiming to be true must be based on some observation or another. Otherwise you cannot know what is true and what isn't...

the cat is in a hat" is true iff the cat is in a hat.

That's the whole of it. — Banno

That's a fact. But what if the cat finds herself in Schrödingers box?

Or an accurate observation. — Olivier5

So being accurate is just being true?

Then an accurate observation is just a true observation.

How do you tell the observation is true?

THis by way of asking, what progress has been made?

So being accurate is just being true? — Banno

Rather, being true is being accurate.

Rather, being true is being accurate. — Olivier5

And an accurate observation is... one that is true, perhaps?
— Banno

Yes, and vice versa: — Olivier5

SO, what is accuracy? What makes one measurement more accurate than another?