TeacherOfPhilosophy

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,915

3

2

11.29.2020 02:39AM

3

2

11.29.2020 02:39AM

-->

@fauxlaw

Your question assumes all unknowns are counterintuitive.

To being part of facts.

Merely by my reference to geo- and heliocentrism, you are shown two cases of unknowns that were intuitive once known; intuitively false.

Would you have considered them to be factual without evidence? Or do you actually need data backing a claim to come anywhere near approaching a fact?

How would you know about other unknowns unless they are not unknown? Unknown means, well, isn't it self-evident?
Don't ask me. Ask Someone for whom there are no unknowns

Like I’ve said, a fact exists regardless of unknowns. You said the opposite. You said “unknowns must also apply.”

It’s almost as if you’re refuting your own claim.

I’ll ask again. Can you please give me an example of a fact which consists of unknowns?

#32

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,299

3

6

11.29.2020 07:07AM

3

6

11.29.2020 07:07AM

-->

@Reece101

The misinterpretation and misuse of words, or straying form formal definition is commonplace.

Primarily, a fact is a known truth.

Though we have the ability to assume that there are unknown facts.

And a string of factors that make up a statement can be incorrectly regarded as being a fact...Such as, the Cat sat on the mat wearing a hat whilst, eating a Rat.

We assume that External reality is.....And internal data processing, though amazing, is inconsistent.

#33

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

4

7

10

11.29.2020 08:06AM

4

7

10

11.29.2020 08:06AM

-->

@3RU7AL

Your argument of logical necessity is merely a convenient personal limitation to prevent the personal stretch of what you do not believe because you cannot empirically demonstrate what you do not believe. But who said you are limited to only five senses to demonstrate logical and necessary evidence? Argue for your limitations; they're yours.

If I have forgotten anything? Premature questions are kind of like premature efactulation. Patience. All will be restored in due time, but not by your clock.

#34

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

4

7

10

11.29.2020 08:25AM

4

7

10

11.29.2020 08:25AM

-->

@FLRW

So you want to use objective correlative

All that precedes this comment is descriptive of the current chaos of the human brain. It will not always be so just because that is currently descriptive. When it is perfectly organized, as all things must ultimately be, then currency no longer endures as is. Eternity is a such a long time, it is no longer measured by a clock. There will be no clock. Perfection is the ultimate consequence. Then, your descriptive is no longer and all is restored to its perfection.

As conceived by Washington Allston? No, and not even as further explored by TS Eliot, or George Santayana. No, as perceived by Ani, the resilient scribe of The Egyptian Book of the Dead, on scrolled papyrus in the nineteenth new kingdom dynasty [13th century BCE], transliterated from temple wall texts dating from old kingdom 27th century BCE], in which languages I am fluent.

#35

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

4

7

10

11.29.2020 08:32AM

4

7

10

11.29.2020 08:32AM

-->

@Reece101

It’s almost as if you’re refuting your own claim.

Go ahead and ask again. The answer will be the same. There are facts not yet in evidence among things which are unknown. How do I demonstrate that which is unknown? As I said, it's self-evident. If something is known, it is known to be fact, or it is folly. the unknown has no such distinction. Therefore, it cannot be demonstrated. But the fact remains that among things unknown there are facts. Otherwise, the joke that the Patent Office pulled in 1899 that the office would close as of 1900 because all things had already been invented would have been a sad truth.

#36

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,915

3

2

11.29.2020 08:34AM

3

2

11.29.2020 08:34AM

-->

@zedvictor4

The misinterpretation and misuse of words, or straying form formal definition is commonplace.

Truth: the quality or state of being true

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true

Do you agree with the definitions? If so...

Primarily, a fact is a known truth.

Though we have the ability to assume that there are unknown facts.

Wrong. It’s self-evident by the definitions. But would you like me to clarify just in case?

#37

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,915

3

2

11.29.2020 08:37AM

3

2

11.29.2020 08:37AM

-->

@fauxlaw

Do you agree with the above definitions?

Topic's author

#38

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,538

3

4

9

11.29.2020 11:40AM

3

4

9

11.29.2020 11:40AM

-->

@Reece101

Merely by my reference to geo- and heliocentrism, you are shown two cases of unknowns that were intuitive once known; intuitively false.
Would you have considered them to be factual without evidence? Or do you actually need data backing a claim to come anywhere near approaching a fact?

Good point.

It seems that @fauxlaw is actually suggesting that the COMMON definition of FACT is "not rigorous enough".

Topic's author

#39

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,538

3

4

9

11.29.2020 11:45AM

3

4

9

11.29.2020 11:45AM

-->

@fauxlaw

There are facts not yet in evidence among things which are unknown.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise.

There may be any number of "undiscovered facts".

But we can't declare any SPECIFIC CLAIM "is a fact" UNTIL IT IS SHOWN TO BE either empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary.

Topic's author

#40

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,538

3

4

9

11.29.2020 11:50AM

3

4

9

11.29.2020 11:50AM

-->

@fauxlaw

Your argument of logical necessity is merely a convenient personal limitation to prevent the personal stretch of what you do not believe because you cannot empirically demonstrate what you do not believe.

I didn't invent the concept of logical-necessity.

Please attempt to address the arguments themselves and avoid ad hominem attacks.

Topic's author

#41

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,538

3

4

9

11.29.2020 11:53AM

3

4

9

11.29.2020 11:53AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Though we have the ability to assume that there are unknown facts.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise.

There may be any number of "undiscovered facts".

But we can't declare any SPECIFIC CLAIM "is a fact" UNTIL IT IS SHOWN TO BE either empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary.

Topic's author

#42

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,538

3

4

9

11.29.2020 11:55AM

3

4

9

11.29.2020 11:55AM

-->

@Reece101

I’ll ask again. Can you please give me an example of a fact which consists of unknowns?

Well stated.

#43

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,915

3

2

11.29.2020 01:09PM

3

2

11.29.2020 01:09PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Thanks although we’re not entirely on the same page.

#44

Debates: 37

Posts: 1,014

4

9

11.29.2020 01:28PM

4

9

11.29.2020 01:28PM

-->

@Reece101

I’ll ask again. Can you please give me an example of a fact which consists of unknowns?

I havent been reading this thread so forgive me if Im just completely missing the mark, but when we shoot photons at glass, for every 100, between 0 and 16 of them reflect. The percent of reflection depends on the thickness of the glass. This is factual, But it is completely unknown how or which photons will reflect.

#45

Debates: 37

Posts: 1,014

4

9

11.29.2020 01:30PM

4

9

11.29.2020 01:30PM

-->

@3RU7AL

...and or logically-necessary.

I'm not sure I agree that something that is logically necessary is a fact. Could you perhaps elaborate

Topic's author

#46

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,538

3

4

9

11.29.2020 01:48PM

3

4

9

11.29.2020 01:48PM

-->

@Sum1hugme

I'm not sure I agree that something that is logically necessary is a fact. Could you perhaps elaborate

Your grandmother had at least one genetic mother and at least one genetic father. This is a FACT.

This FACT is NOT (necessarily) empirically demonstrable, but it is LOGICALLY-NECESSARY.

Topic's author

#47

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,538

3

4

9

11.29.2020 01:51PM

3

4

9

11.29.2020 01:51PM

-->

@Sum1hugme

This is factual, But it is completely unknown how or which photons will reflect.

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.

#48

Debates: 37

Posts: 1,014

4

9

11.29.2020 01:52PM

4

9

11.29.2020 01:52PM

-->

@3RU7AL

I think the ontological argument for god is a good example. I think it's logically sound, but it doesn't make gods existence a fact by any means

Topic's author

#49

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,538

3

4

9

11.29.2020 01:54PM

3

4

9

11.29.2020 01:54PM

-->

@Sum1hugme

I think the ontological argument for bigfootlochnessspacealiens is a good example. I think it's logically sound, but it doesn't make bigfootlochnessspacealiens existence a fact by any means

#50

Debates: 37

Posts: 1,014

4

9

11.29.2020 01:55PM

4

9

11.29.2020 01:55PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Exactly.

Topic's author

#51

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,538

3

4

9

11.29.2020 02:08PM

3

4

9

11.29.2020 02:08PM

-->

@Sum1hugme

I think the ontological argument for god is a good example. I think it's logically sound, but it doesn't make gods existence a fact by any means

Do you perhaps mean "logically valid" and not "logically sound"?

#52

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,915

3

2

11.29.2020 02:21PM

3

2

11.29.2020 02:21PM

-->

@Sum1hugme

I should have worded it the same as my original question.

My bad.

Original question: Can you please give me an example of a fact that applies unknowns?

“Apply” is the common word fauxlaw and I used which we agreed on.

My argument is “a fact exists regardless of unknowns.”

While fauxlaw argues that “unknowns must also apply.”

Now in regards to your inquest... unknown variations don’t create a fact, known ones do, correct?

#53

Debates: 37

Posts: 1,014

4

9

11.29.2020 03:58PM

4

9

11.29.2020 03:58PM

-->

@3RU7AL

I'm not sure of the difference between the two

#54

Debates: 37

Posts: 1,014

4

9

11.29.2020 04:00PM

4

9

11.29.2020 04:00PM

-->

@Reece101

Well the variation is perfectly known, 0-16% reflection. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding "apply".

Topic's author

#55

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,538

3

4

9

11.29.2020 04:20PM

3

4

9

11.29.2020 04:20PM

-->

@Sum1hugme

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. [**]

#56

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,915

3

2

11.29.2020 04:51PM

3

2

11.29.2020 04:51PM

-->

@Sum1hugme

Well the variation is perfectly known, 0-16% reflection.

Variation is an ambiguous word. It isn’t just to do with certain percentages.

But I’m not sure how that refutes my statement if at all.

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding "apply".

I suppose we’ll first need to agree on what the definition of a fact is.

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Do you agree? If so, it’s safe to say a fact is knowledge/evidence based.

There for facts exist irrespective of unknowns (unknowns do not apply). Correct?

#57

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,299

3

6

11.30.2020 06:19AM

3

6

11.30.2020 06:19AM

-->

@Reece101

I'm fully aware of the words "truth" and "fact" and the definitions thereof.

But did you also take into account every other pertinent definition. Such as assume, ability and unknown.

You're breaking statements down into their component parts and scrutinizing components separately, rather that scrutinizing the whole.

This becomes a lexical semantics argument, rather than a philosophical argument.

#58

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,915

3

2

11.30.2020 06:37AM

3

2

11.30.2020 06:37AM

-->

@zedvictor4

As I recall you were the first to bring attention to definitions.
I have no problem with it, but suddenly you do?
Besides, it’s important to build a common understanding.
Don’t be a hypocrite.

#59

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,299

3

6