thr19

The similar issue was brought up at Nuremberg trials. 

Certain Logical propositions are axiomatically true, because of their structure. The fallacies occur when the content is wrong or something else except true. As an example,

p -> q

p

therefore, q.

Now returning to the deduction, the conclusion of the deduction is always true given the premises are true. But if the premises are based on the induction or even an assumption, then the truth of conclusion is dependent on the truth of the premise. Best option would be to apply probabilistic reasoning. Sometimes that can be unrealistic, unnecessary or even stupid.

"Conclusions can be separate from facts, and often are."

Is above statement a fact? Or is it an assumption? The fact is above statement can be scrutinized at so many levels.

Let's assume your definition of fact is factual. The problem is given any set of observations you can arrive at multiple different conclusions and some of the conclusions can be mutually exclusive. Can those conclusions be considered facts?

For example, we observe evolution, and the conclusion are multiple theories of evolution. Same with quantum mechanics, dark matter, psychopaths, and etc.

Mathematically, given set of axioms, you can with certainty claim all conclusions to be a fact. Can we expand such certainty to other fields? 

I acknowledge that, even the mathematics got a big problem in its fundamentals (formore info read about Mathematical Formalism and Godel).

"One thing to consider is that there's not much argument with facts, so most of the space is devoted to the hypotheses," - Greyparrot

Statement above is so wrong.

Firstly, what is your definition of the fact? Do you mean the fact as it is understood by general populace in daily conversation, like statements which set in stone, or do you mean as it is understood by a scientist, like the observations and experimentally verified theories, or do you mean as it is understood by a mathematician, like axioms (of a system) and set of propositions deduced from given axioms. 

Depending on the topic, the term "fact" can be used to mean either of above but using them inter-changebly can lead to fallacies. As an example, if you posit the statement "sun rises from same direction" as a fact, as it is understood as general populace, then move to posit existence of dark matter as the same could be fallacious, even though both of them are "factually" observable. But one of is observed directly by human eyes, and other one is observed using instruments and calculations.

Basically, no fact is a fact, except God exists and ZFC axioms.

I understand the concept behind + icon. But, there is none to click on. Maybe I should see a doctor.

Best regards...

I have a question. Why I can't post a topic on the forum? There is no post topic button.

The categories of Rationalism and Empiricism have been developed by the human mind to facilitate the organization, simplification, and comprehension of external or internal observations. They are based on a consensus of opinion among some or all humans and lack any fundamental basis. At their core, any collective agreement is simply an assumption. All assumptions are equally true and false, as Truth and Falsehood are themselves merely assumptions. The act of assigning one assumption to another is also an assumption. This creates a circular pattern in which all elements are interconnected.