-->
@3RU7AL
So you don’t believe in facts?
What I realized
Posts
Total:
449
-->
@Tarik
So what about the example I just used, is the earth being round a fact?
The earth is apparently an "Oblate Spheroid".
This assessment is empirically verifiable and as such does qualify as a FACT.
hOWeVer,
It is NOT an "objective" fact, because all of the concepts and observations required to verify that FACT human-centric and are NOT extant, "regardless of humans and their experiences."
In other words, without humans there is no concept of "shape" and there is no concept of "earth".
-->
@Tarik
So you don’t believe in facts?
It's really quite simple.
A FACT must be empirically verifiable and or logically-necessary.
-->
@3RU7AL
In other words, without humans there is no concept of "shape" and there is no concept of "earth".
Why does that matter? Facts exist regardless of whether or not humans can verify them.
-->
@3RU7AL
its yours because you i herited it
-->
@Dr.Franklin
its yours because you i herited it
I'm very very proud of all the free stuff I was given when I was born.
-->
@Tarik
In other words, without humans there is no concept of "shape" and there is no concept of "earth".Why does that matter? Facts exist regardless of whether or not humans can verify them.
No, no they don't.
Statements and concepts like "shape" and arbitrary names like "earth" do not exist without humans, they do not exist "independently of a human mind".
Now, you might imagine, that THE OBJECT we call "earth" might "exist" "independently of a human mind", but really, isn't that just another unfalsifiable claim?
I mean, think about it.
You VERIFY EXISTENCE with YOUR MIND.
How do you know if something exists?
YOU VERIFY IT.
WITH YOUR MIND.
-->
@3RU7AL
ok.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It's like being "proud" of a free gift bag.
-->
@3RU7AL
Statements and concepts like "shape" and arbitrary names like "earth" do not exist without humans, they do not exist "independently of a human mind".
Facts is more than a statement or concept, it’s truth and the truth always exists.
-->
@Tarik
Statements and concepts like "shape" and arbitrary names like "earth" do not exist without humans, they do not exist "independently of a human mind".Facts is more than a statement or concept, it’s truth and the truth always exists.
How do you clearly distinguish between FACT and OPINION?
FACT is a concept.
A FACTUAL STATEMENT must be phrased and presented as a STATEMENT.
TRUTH = FACT
FACT = TRUTH
REAL = FACT
FACT = REAL
REAL = TRUTH
TRUTH = REAL
REAL = TRUE = FACT
-->
@3RU7AL
FACT is a concept.
It can be but it’s not limited to.
A FACTUAL STATEMENT must be phrased and presented as a STATEMENT.
Yes but facts aren’t limited as statements, simply stating something doesn’t make it fact.
-->
@Tarik
FACT is a concept.It can be but it’s not limited to.
Please explain exactly when and exactly where a FACT is NOT a concept.
-->
@Tarik
Yes but facts aren’t limited as statements, simply stating something doesn’t make it fact.
I AGREE.
A statement of FACT is actually an implicit CLAIM.
(IFF) that CLAIM (statement of fact) is not "empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary" (THEN) it is absolutely NOT a fact.
-->
@3RU7AL
There’s no when and where in regards to this fact but the shape of the earth was a fact before it was a concept or a statement for that matter.
-->
@3RU7AL
no it is not
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It's like being "proud" of a free gift bag.no it is not
Please explain the difference.
-->
@Tarik
There’s no when and where in regards to this fact but the shape of the earth was a fact before it was a concept or a statement for that matter.
How do you know this?
-->
@3RU7AL
I don’t but you don’t know that it wasn’t either, which was your initial claim that humans had to approve facts.
-->
@Tarik
There’s no when and where in regards to this fact but the shape of the earth was a fact before it was a concept or a statement for that matter.How do you know this?I don’t but you don’t know that it wasn’t either, which was your initial claim that humans had to approve facts.
What I do know is that FACTS can only be statements which are implicit claims.
I also know that statements which are implicit claims did not exist before humans.
Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
-->
@3RU7AL
What I do know is that FACTS can only be statements which are implicit claims.
How do you know this?
-->
@Tarik
What I do know is that FACTS can only be statements which are implicit claims.How do you know this?
BECAUSE IT IS TAUTOLOGICAL.
IT IS TRUE BY DEFINITION.
-->
@3RU7AL
a gift bag is an arbitary gift
ancestory is something that is handed own only to you and precious
-->
@3RU7AL
BECAUSE IT IS TAUTOLOGICAL.
How do you know this? Anybody can call a false claim tautological, what do you think fallacies are?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
a gift bag is an arbitary giftancestory is something that is handed own only to you and precious
Ancestry is purely accidental.
-->
@Tarik
BECAUSE IT IS TAUTOLOGICAL.How do you know this? Anybody can call a false claim tautological, what do you think fallacies are?
A TAUTOLOGICAL STATEMENT IS A STATEMENT THAT IS TRUE BY DEFINITION.
FOR EXAMPLE,
A FACT MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY-NECESSARY.
EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION REQUIRES PHYSICAL SENSORS ATTACHED TO A HUMAN BRAIN.
LOGICAL-NECESSITY IS DETERMINED BY CAREFUL RATIONAL ANALYSIS OF AN IDEA'S COHERENCE.
RATIONAL ANALYSIS REQUIRES A HUMAN BRAIN.
THEREFORE, IT FOLLOWS, BY DEFINITION, THAT A FACT REQUIRES A HUMAN BRAIN.
THERE IS NO WAY TO MAKE A FACTUAL STATEMENT WITHOUT A HUMAN BRAIN.
THERE IS NO WAY TO VERIFY A FACTUAL STATEMENT WITHOUT A HUMAN BRAIN.
-->
@3RU7AL
A FACT MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY-NECESSARY.
Where'd you get this definition?
-->
@Tarik
A FACT MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY-NECESSARY.Where'd you get this definition?
Coherent analysis.
-->
@3RU7AL
LOGICAL-NECESSITY IS DETERMINED
It doesn't matter how it's determined, that's my point it's still a fact regardless of whether or not we can determine if it is, what's so special about human involvement that dictates whether of not something is fact?
-->
@Tarik
it's still a fact regardless of whether or not we can determine if it is,
GRENBALDI + QUENRAK = TRALICON
Is this a factual statement?
Is this statement "true" regardless of whether you verify it or not?