A Brute Fact ?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
But it does make you bias.

Everyone is biased as you already pointed out and I agreed to, so no, it doesn't make me biased, I was biased already - and everyone knew that - which begs the question why you had the need to point it out.
Obviously, you thought, rather illogically, that it made me wrong, which it doesn't.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Everyone is biased as you already pointed out and I agreed to, so no, it doesn't make me biased, I was biased already - and everyone knew that - which begs the question why you had the need to point it out.
Obviously, you thought, rather illogically, that it made me wrong, which it doesn't.

LOL. No a "neutral 3rd party" would not be biased. So you are wrong about everyone being biased. So let's see if you were lying when you said you would admit that you are wrong when you are wrong.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
LOL. No a "neutral 3rd party" would not be biased.

Except there is no such thing as a 'neutral 3rd party'. You are attempting to dodge the problem of bias by defining it away. Sorry, but that just demonstrates you are not very logical.

So you are wrong about everyone being biased.
I am not wrong.

So let's see if you were lying when you said you would admit that you are wrong when you are wrong.
I was not lying.
Now lets see if you can admit that you were wrong that I was wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Except there is no such thing as a 'neutral 3rd party'. You are attempting to dodge the problem of bias by defining it away. Sorry, but that just demonstrates you are not very logical.

[b]So you are wrong about everyone being biased.
I am not wrong.

So let's see if you were lying when you said you would admit that you are wrong when you are ...[text shortened]... rong.
I was not lying.
Now lets see if you can admit that you were wrong that I was wrong.[/b]

Except there is no such thing as a 'neutral 3rd party'.

I guess you will deny the existence of 3rd party conflict resolution next.

"Third-party conflict resolution involves the use of a neutral third party to either help in the resolution of a dispute or to resolve the dispute."

http://study.com/academy/lesson/third-party-conflict-resolution-strategies-lesson-quiz.html

Originally posted by twhitehead

twhitehead, you wrote:

A fact is something that is so. Facts aren't necessarily known, and facts are not 'true'.

Then you provided this definition from your "better" dictionary after a comment.

No, I just use better dictionaries than you. I note you failed to give the source of your definition. Did you make it up?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
* something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
* a true piece of information

[I bolded]

1.) Is something that "truly exists" true ?

2.) If a fact is "a true piece of information" how can you say -

.... and facts are not 'true'.

?

Originally posted by sonship
twhitehead, you wrote:

A fact is something that is so. Facts aren't necessarily known, and facts are not 'true'.

Then you provided this definition from your "better" dictionary after a comment.

No, I just use better dictionaries than you. I note you failed to give the source of your definition. Did you make it up?

[b] ...[text shortened]... e of information" how can you say -

[quote] .... and facts are not 'true'.

?[/b]

I have pointed this out to him multiple times. He is in denial...

Originally posted by sonship
1.) Is something that "truly exists" true ?

I see you haven't been following the thread. Are you 'true'? Do you 'truly exist'? Think about it for a moment.

As you rightly note, the dictionary I quoted gave two distinct definitions. Under one definition, facts are things in the universe, under the other they are true statements about the universe.
If we take the former definition, then no, facts are not 'true'. It is nonsensical to call something that exists 'true' (except in very special cases).

If we take the latter definition, then Fetchmyjunk's original question 'So is a brute fact true?' doesn't make sense does it? It's like asking 'is a true statement true?'

Originally posted by twhitehead

I see you haven't been following the thread.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I followed it and sometimes I could not believe what I was reading.


Are you 'true'? Do you 'truly exist'? Think about it for a moment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am more TRUE than Spider Man.
Whereas I TRULY exist Spider Man does not TRULY exist.

Your "better" definitions of FACTS:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
* something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
* a true piece of information

As you rightly note, the dictionary I quoted gave two distinct definitions. Under one definition, facts are things in the universe, under the other they are true statements about the universe.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not see the phrase "things in the universe" in the first definition.

I do not see the phrase " about the universe " in the second definition.

Is the point you wish to make severely damaged by the elimination of these phrases which you have applied TO the words in those definitions ?


If we take the former definition, then no, facts are not 'true'. It is nonsensical to call something that exists 'true' (except in very special cases).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what are those "very special cases" ? Can you give three examples ?

Is Mount Everest TRUER than, say, Never-never Land ?
Is the Rock of Gibraltar TRUER than, say, Narnia ?

If you were standing at the Airport and a tourist stepped off the plane, and said to you and a friend -

"I would like to see the city of Johannesburg "

And your friend speaks up and says "I am sorry, but Johannesburg is NOT true."
Would you nod in agreement?
Or might you say something to correct the sentence just uttered by your friend to the effect that the opposite was the case - Johannesburg IS true ?

Or might you say "Well, Johannesburg is not true, as my friend just said. But I will show you how to get there." ?

Do you object to this sentence?

"The country of South Africa is a TRUE place whereas the land of Oz is a fictional place, ie. not true. "

Or is this more to your liking ?

"Both the country of South Africa and the Land called Oz are equally NOT TRUE."

Originally posted by sonship
I followed it and sometimes I could not believe what I was reading.

Knowing you, you couldn't believe what you imagined you were reading.

I am more TRUE than Spider Man.

Whereas I TRULY exist Spider Man does not TRULY exist.
I note the question dodge. So can we say you are partially true? We know you are relatively more TRUE than Spider Man. Are you perhaps LESS TRUE than Obama?

Your "better" definitions of FACTS:

I do not see the phrase "things in the universe" in the first definition.

I do not see the phrase " about the universe " in the second definition.
What do you see?

Is the point you wish to make severely damaged by the elimination of these phrases which you have applied TO the words in those definitions ?
Wow, you really know how to try your best to bury reality in complexity. I can't answer that question because I honestly have no clue what you are asking, and suspect you don't either.

And what are those "very special cases" ? Can you give three examples ?
A statement could be said to both exist in reality and be true. To be less disputable, it could be written down, preferably in stone. But the stone itself? No, a stone is not 'true'.

Is Mount Everest TRUER than, say, Never-never Land ?
Is the Rock of Gibraltar TRUER than, say, Narnia ?
No and no.

Do you object to this sentence?

"The country of South Africa is a TRUE place whereas the land of Oz is a fictional place, ie. not true. "
Funny how you just couldn't bring yourself to use 'not true' in the second half of the sentence. Even you know that you are reaching.

Or is this more to your liking ?
False dichotomy.

Knowing you, you couldn't believe what you imagined you were reading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Knowing you, your imagined superior powers of rationality will not be demonstrated.

ss:
I am more TRUE than Spider Man.

Whereas I TRULY exist Spider Man does not TRULY exist.

tw:
I note the question dodge. So can we say you are partially true?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spider Man is not true.
I am true.

The opposite is not the case:
Spider Man is true.
I am not true.

You're playing word games.
You are not demonstrating your imagined superior rational skills.

Either way - I am truer than Spider Man or I am true and Spider Man is not, are better representations of the facts.


We know you are relatively more TRUE than Spider Man. Are you perhaps LESS TRUE than Obama?

I am true.
Obama is true.
Spider Man is not true.

Spider Man is less true that either I or Obama.

Your "better" definitions of FACTS:

I do not see the phrase "things in the universe" in the first definition.

I do not see the phrase " about the universe " in the second definition.
What do you see?

Is the point you wish to make severely damaged by the elimination of these phrases which you have applied TO the words in those definitions ?

Wow, you really know how to try your best to bury reality in complexity.

You really know how to delay a straightforward answer with special effects.


I can't answer that question because I honestly have no clue what you are asking, and suspect you don't either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that you know what I am talking about.
You revized the definition and added words about the universe.
I wanted to know why you suddenly felt it necessary to add these words about the universe.

You say I don't know what I am talking about in asking these questions.
No I am trying to find out what YOU are talking about when you further qualified the definition in your "better" dictionary with your addition about "in the universe".

If the "better" dictionary is so good you sure felt it needed some improvement.



A statement could be said to both exist in reality and be true. To be less disputable, it could be written down, preferably in stone. But the stone itself? No, a stone is not 'true'.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Writing something in stone makes it less disputable ?
That's absurd.

You know when you spice your explanations with little put downs and ad homs I realize that probably don't have much in the way of content.

ss:
Is Mount Everest TRUER than, say, Never-never Land ?
Is the Rock of Gibraltar TRUER than, say, Narnia ?

tw:
No and no.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes and yes.


ss:
Do you object to this sentence?

"The country of South Africa is a TRUE place whereas the land of Oz is a fictional place, ie. not true. "

tw:
Funny how you just couldn't bring yourself to use 'not true' in the second half of the sentence. Even you know that you are reaching.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Funny how instead of an answer you harp on some other detail as a distraction.


Or is this more to your liking ?
False dichotomy.
------------------------------------------

Bail out. Do that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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?

Not being able to explain a fact does not mean a fact cannot be true, because facts are not dependent on our ability to explain them. If we are aware of something that consistently proves to be true, then it is true... regardless of whether we can explain it or not. So whether you like it or not, simply calling something a 'Brute' fact does not have the power to determine whether a fact is true or not.

But if this 'debate' is actually an exercise in semantics and splitting hairs, then I believe you've succeeded in cutting it down to the molecular level. You've painted yourself into a corner and there's no where for you to go, unless you try painting a door or window on the wall and try escaping through it.

Originally posted by sonship
Spider Man is not true.
I am true.

What happened to LESS TRUE and MORE TRUE?

You're playing word games.
So says the poster who has just changed from LESS TRUE and MORE TRUE to 'true' and 'not true'. And you even lost the CAPITALS, presumably because you are not quite so sure any more?

You really know how to delay a straightforward answer with special effects.
Give me a straight forward question.

I believe that you know what I am talking about.
Wrong as usual.

You revized the definition and added words about the universe.
No, I didn't. I merely said it in different words.

I wanted to know why you suddenly felt it necessary to add these words about the universe.
Because you obviously couldn't understand the version in the dictionary, so I rephrased it for you, hoping it might improve your reading comprehension. Sadly, you don't seem interested in actually understanding the dictionary and just think you can score some points by claiming I 'changed the words'. Sorry, no points for you.

Writing something in stone makes it less disputable ?
That's absurd.
So is your argument. The funny part is, that your attempt disagrees with that of Fetchmyjunk's so you are actually hurting his case.

Funny how instead of an answer you harp on some other detail as a distraction.
I have told you many times, I do not answer fill in the blank loaded questions the way you want them filled in.

Bail out. Do that.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Now, lets see if you can cite a single source that uses 'true' in the way you claim it can be used. Show me a source that says a person can reasonably call himself 'true' just because he exists. Better yet, show me one where someone calls himself MORE TRUE than a fictional character.

And finally, is there anyone who is MORE TRUE than you?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]Except there is no such thing as a 'neutral 3rd party'.

I guess you will deny the existence of 3rd party conflict resolution next.

"Third-party conflict resolution involves the use of a neutral third party to either help in the resolution of a dispute or to resolve the dispute."

http://study.com/academy/lesson/third-party-conflict-resolution-strategies-lesson-quiz.html[/b]

Just pretend this post doesn't exist, that what you don't have to admit that you are wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see you haven't been following the thread. Are you 'true'? Do you 'truly exist'? Think about it for a moment.

As you rightly note, the dictionary I quoted gave two distinct definitions. Under one definition, facts are things in the universe, under the other they are true statements about the universe.
If we take the former definition, then no, facts ...[text shortened]... is a brute fact true?' doesn't make sense does it? It's like asking 'is a true statement true?'

What you obstinately fail to admit is that your statement "facts are not true" is wrong. You did not even say "certain facts". (which is what you now seem to be arguing for) All I have to do is produce one fact that is true and your statement, "facts are not true" is wrong.(Which has been done multiple times).