I wasn't aware that images weren't allowed in this debate. For my original argument, which almost depends on these images, see here.https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/27699/#Comment_27699
What if I weren't lying? What if I had just a penny more, and was just mistaken? It still doesn't make the maths fact. And we see our conundrum as you have stated yourself: "This is based on the further truism... the comprehension of what =, - and + represent." whether they be dollars miles, apples, etc. If they don't accurately represent something in reality, they can not be held as fact.
Maybe my example was a bad one. A better example would be to say "sometimes, it rains" or, "rainbows are in the sky opposite the sun" In the context of a debate, this is an empirically validatable fact. Something that is commonly accepted as fact is empirically validatable, for example, "You can see the Chicago skyline from across lake Michigan" would be validatable. A commonly accepted fact, for those in or around Michigan, and anyone can empirically validate that fact, if they so felt necessary, aside from unbiased accounts.I could even take a picture of it raining. It's 2018, and there's not one single way to empirically validate any facts that conclusively point to a spherical earth? Didn't they go in 1969 with the 8 bit room size computer that we can fit several times squared that into our pocket? We should all be able to empirically validate the spherical earth by now, while drinking a McDonald's Frappe on the moon.
I disagree, in any case other than solipsism, and any other obscure projected reality btheories you might cook up, facts exist. I can walk in to a room and say "It is raining outside" you can take several steps to determine "beyond ALL doubt", that is it raining outside. Empirically observable facts are what makes reality.
I agree, but stress that what those numbers represent must also be facts. For example, I have $1,724.84 in my bank account. If I go and buy a $324.76 stove, what's left in my bank account is only as true as what I have in my bank account, here, you make an assumption that my bank account was exactly as I said: $1,724.84 But in reality, this is not the amount that is my account. So from a purely mathematical standpoint, I would be correct to say that my account is left with $1400.08, but this does not represent reality, so it isn't true, and I don't have a bank account.
I mean, lot's of people consider the spherical earth a fact. A truism. It shouldn't be hard to prove something beyand all doubt that is taught to children from the first day of school.
How was conduct awarded?
I wasn't aware that images weren't allowed in this debate. For my original argument, which almost depends on these images, see here.https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/27699/#Comment_27699
Truth is an abstract quality meant to describe something concrete.
Then you have no distinct relationship to anything in reality, therefore, it is an abstract thought, and cannot be true.
Right, either way, the math, even though it adds up, because it doesn't accurately represent a physical object(s) is not truth beyond all doubt.
Someone, right?
What if I weren't lying? What if I had just a penny more, and was just mistaken? It still doesn't make the maths fact. And we see our conundrum as you have stated yourself: "This is based on the further truism... the comprehension of what =, - and + represent." whether they be dollars miles, apples, etc. If they don't accurately represent something in reality, they can not be held as fact.
So there are no facts in your life, you're a solipsist.
Maybe my example was a bad one. A better example would be to say "sometimes, it rains" or, "rainbows are in the sky opposite the sun" In the context of a debate, this is an empirically validatable fact. Something that is commonly accepted as fact is empirically validatable, for example, "You can see the Chicago skyline from across lake Michigan" would be validatable. A commonly accepted fact, for those in or around Michigan, and anyone can empirically validate that fact, if they so felt necessary, aside from unbiased accounts.I could even take a picture of it raining. It's 2018, and there's not one single way to empirically validate any facts that conclusively point to a spherical earth? Didn't they go in 1969 with the 8 bit room size computer that we can fit several times squared that into our pocket? We should all be able to empirically validate the spherical earth by now, while drinking a McDonald's Frappe on the moon.
I disagree, in any case other than solipsism, and any other obscure projected reality btheories you might cook up, facts exist. I can walk in to a room and say "It is raining outside" you can take several steps to determine "beyond ALL doubt", that is it raining outside. Empirically observable facts are what makes reality.
I agree, but stress that what those numbers represent must also be facts. For example, I have $1,724.84 in my bank account. If I go and buy a $324.76 stove, what's left in my bank account is only as true as what I have in my bank account, here, you make an assumption that my bank account was exactly as I said: $1,724.84 But in reality, this is not the amount that is my account. So from a purely mathematical standpoint, I would be correct to say that my account is left with $1400.08, but this does not represent reality, so it isn't true, and I don't have a bank account.
Would you like to debate your statement? Give an example of a true and purely mathematical statement.
So you're saying that there are no facts. You are suggesting solypsism?
Small Correction: by inhabitants, I mean humans.
I mean, lot's of people consider the spherical earth a fact. A truism. It shouldn't be hard to prove something beyand all doubt that is taught to children from the first day of school.
What would be a more reasonable way to state that?