Countering that with "no you didn't" isn't particularly effective. If you want to convince someone that their religious experience is not what they think it is, you have to offer them a different framework, and indeed people sometimes come to see their own experiences in a different light. — Srap Tasmaner
There is an exact figure — Tom Storm
(How tall was Socrates?) — Srap Tasmaner
But I might drop a link here to an article that came up in an earlier thread in determinism.
Indeterminism, causality and information: Has physics ever been deterministic? — Banno
But is it inaccessible in principle, or only as a practical matter? — Srap Tasmaner
This has always struck me. How many leaves are there on the trees in my state right now? There is an exact figure but we cannot access this. — Tom Storm
There is an exact figure — Tom Storm
...maybe not. — Banno
Problem? — Srap Tasmaner
if determination of the truth is not possible then that still rules out the definition that Olivier5 gave that a fact is an accurate observation it seems. — Janus
And as Olivier5 pointed out, there are sound statistical techniques for estimating this sort of thing, if for some reason you need an actual number. My simple little argument only shows that there's nothing incoherent -- to me, anyway -- about talking about such a number we'll never be able to know. — Srap Tasmaner
Look at creationism. At some point they figured out they weren't making much progress just disagreeing with the top line claims of biologists and paleontologists, so they started attacking radio-carbon dating — Srap Tasmaner
Once more, a fact is more than just something true. It is a statement known to be true, established, that only a madman or a liar would deny. That level of certainty can't be based on conjectures. It must be empirical. — Olivier5
. It remains a fact, I would say, that he didn't murder Miss Rabbit, even though it will never be established as such. — Janus
The only reason you can say this is that, in your story, it IS established that the dude is innocent. — Olivier5
No, it's not. — Janus
Both Banno and I have acknowledged that there are two common usages regarding the term 'fact'. The first established facts are in accordance with the ordinary parlance of "the encyclopedia is full of facts" and the other common usage is facts as actualities or states of affairs. Obviously dictionaries are not full of worldly states of affairs..... if you don't acknowledge these usages which are contra your definition, it's no skin off my nose. — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.