A Brute Fact ?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
More logical? Something is either logical or illogical. How do you measure more or less logical?

When you have a large collection of statements such as are produced by a human being, some will be logical, some will be illogical and some will be partially logical (statements can consist of multiple claims). You can measure how logical a person is by how often what they say is logical.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
LOL. Fail. So you honestly think fact finding means finding things that are NOT TRUE?

No. I asked you and him to consider what it means, and I see that you have not done so. Instead, you are attempting to guess at what I think it means. What do you think it means?

Originally posted by twhitehead
When you have a large collection of statements such as are produced by a human being, some will be logical, some will be illogical and some will be partially logical (statements can consist of multiple claims). You can measure how logical a person is by how often what they say is logical.

Ok then shouldn't a neutral 3rd party then be the judge of who is more logical? Surely you will always favour yourself over someone else?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have provided two sources that agree with me. Have you read the thread?

In fact, my usage is the more common one, as demonstrated by this sentence.
I also ask you to consider the phrase 'fact finding'.

Umm no, although I see where you are coming from, I think a fact is a sentence which is true. A "fact finding mission" involves asking people things, so the facts are already known to some people, just not the ones doing the fact finding. An original experiment would generate a new fact - although the phenomenon might be fundamental and as old as the universe, our knowledge of it isn't necessarily. That's what I got from the dictionary definitions anyway.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Ok then shouldn't a neutral 3rd party then be the judge of who is more logical? Surely you will always favour yourself over someone else?

Of course I would favour myself. But who would a 3rd party favour? Which 3rd party? You already rejected the opinion of one 3rd party.

Originally posted by DeepThought
That's what I got from the dictionary definitions anyway.

So, when you read:

something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence.

and

A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.

what you got was:
"a fact is a sentence which is true"?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, when you read:

something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence.

and

A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.

what you got was:
"a fact is a sentence which is true"?

When you read that you got "a fact is not true"?

Lets try this sentence and phrase given on Wikipedia

"It is a fact that the cup is blue" or "Matter of fact"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Why doesn't the first say "The fact is 'the cup is blue'"?
Why doesn't the phrase say: "Matter described in fact"?

See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_philosophy

Facts may be understood as information that makes a true sentence true. Facts may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers.

And from the references on that page:

"A fact is, traditionally, the worldly correlate of a true proposition, a state of affairs whose obtaining makes that proposition true." – Fact in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course I would favour myself. But who would a 3rd party favour? Which 3rd party? You already rejected the opinion of one 3rd party.

Of course I would favour myself.

Yes, so when you say you are more logical than someone else you are being bias towards yourself. It would be a different matter if a 'neutral' 3rd party were to say that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Lets try this sentence and phrase given on Wikipedia

"It is a fact that the cup is blue" or "Matter of fact"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Why doesn't the first say "The fact is 'the cup is blue'"?
Why doesn't the phrase say: "Matter described in fact"?

See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_philosophy

Facts may be unders ...[text shortened]... ose obtaining makes that proposition true." – Fact in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy

Once again if anything, all your quotes agree that with me that facts are TRUE. None of them agree with you that facts are NOT TRUE. Why do you keep on clutching at straws? Can't you ever admit that you are wrong?

Now let me draw attention to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_fact

In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is a fact that has no explanation. More narrowly, brute facts may instead be defined as those facts which cannot be explained (as opposed to simply having no explanation).

Are the above sentences saying that the information has no explanation or the thing that information refers to has no explanation?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
It would be a different matter if a 'neutral' 3rd party were to say that.

So? It doesn't make me wrong.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Can't you ever admit that you are wrong?

I will admit I am wrong when I am wrong. I am not wrong.

I note that you are yet to respond to my Bible quote. Having difficulty admitting you are wrong?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Lets try this sentence and phrase given on Wikipedia

"It is a fact that the cup is blue" or "Matter of fact"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Why doesn't the first say "The fact is 'the cup is blue'"?
Why doesn't the phrase say: "Matter described in fact"?

See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_philosophy

Facts may be unders ...[text shortened]... ose obtaining makes that proposition true." – Fact in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy

"It is a fact that the cup is blue"

So you see a blue cup and you state "It is a fact that the cup is blue".

You are saying this means that a fact is NOT TRUE?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So? It doesn't make me wrong.

But it does make you bias.