A Brute Fact ?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So I ask you again does it make sense to say "Sonship is not true"? You are after all trying to prove that a fact (which you claim to be Sonship) is 'not true'.

Asking again wont change the answer. I have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that under the first definition in the dictionary I quoted, sonship is a fact and is not 'true'.

Pretending that you can't understand that 'not true' does not necessarily mean 'false' is just you being dishonest - especially given that you have conceded that words can have multiple and even contradictory meanings.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Fact: Chameleons change their color to blend in with their surroundings. (Ask 100 people of sound mind and almost all will confirm this as a factual statement).

In reality the above statement is 'not true'. They change color to communicate. (A chameleon’s color is used to signal mood, aggression, territory, and mating behaviour).

In other words ...[text shortened]... round the Sun is actually 'not true.' (It’s revolving around the solar system’s centre of mass).

...the more commonly held fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun is actually 'not true.' (It’s revolving around the solar system’s centre of mass).

The earth's orbit around the sun is influenced by the solar systems center of mass, but this doesn't mean the earth isn't revolving around the Sun.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Asking again wont change the answer. I have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that under the first definition in the dictionary I quoted, sonship is a fact and is not 'true'.

Pretending that you can't understand that 'not true' does not necessarily mean 'false' is just you being dishonest - especially given that you have conceded that words can have multiple and even contradictory meanings.

It does not make sense that "Sonship is true", neither does it make sense that "Sonship is not true". So you could say "Sonship is neither true nor false". How do you make the leap from "Sonship is true" does not make sense to "Sonship is not true"? Neither make sense. And you know it.

vistesd
Hmm. Suppose I define a fact as “what is the case”—regardless of our judgments about it, or our ability to know what the facts actually are? What exists in our minds then is judgment about what are or are not “the facts”. Such judgments might be wrong—or ill-considered. But what does it mean to assert that they are the only (possible? ) facts?

Facts are the map; “what is the case” is the terrain. There exists terrain we haven’t mapped yet. (There also will be new terrain that doesn’t exist yet!)

To define a fact as what “exists” (as a concept, an idea, a representation, an image?) in our minds—or, more to the point—in my mind (since the notion that there are other minds might also be just a judgement that exists in my mind) . . .

Does that not implicitly lead to some sort of solipsism?

A fact is about the world. I don’t see how that implies solipsism.

Suppose I were to rather say that the representations that appear in my mind may or may not reflect “the facts”. Suppose I were to test those representations against my ability to function in the world—with no further assertion/negation? I might end up with something as simple as, “It seems to me that if I eat certain foods, I become healthier” (as measured by certain statistics that I also subsume under that rubric of “seems”—e.g., “It seems to me that these particular measures are, ceteris paribus, reasonable.” )

That kind of approach actually seems to me to be closer to what you generally propose on here (and with which I tend to be in agreement).

Your first sentence doesn’t work – just substitute the map vs terrain idea to see why. I like the rest of the paragraph, though, because it exemplifies the method for making our facts bullet-proof!

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
It does not make sense that "Sonship is true", neither does it make sense that "Sonship is not true". So you could say "Sonship is neither true nor false". How do you make the leap from "Sonship is true" does not make sense to "Sonship is not true"? Neither make sense. And you know it.

You are wrongly equating 'not true' with 'false'. I note that I have pointed this out before and you pretended to be deaf.

Originally posted by apathist
Facts are the map; “what is the case” is the terrain. There exists terrain we haven’t mapped yet. (There also will be new terrain that doesn’t exist yet!)

I see you pretended not to have seen this sentence:

Suppose I define a fact as “what is the case”

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]...the more commonly held fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun is actually 'not true.' (It’s revolving around the solar system’s centre of mass).

The earth's orbit around the sun is influenced by the solar systems center of mass, but this doesn't mean the earth isn't revolving around the Sun.[/b]

Technicality. 😛

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are wrongly equating 'not true' with 'false'. I note that I have pointed this out before and you pretended to be deaf.

'1+1=3' is not true, i.e false

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see you pretended not to have seen this sentence:

Suppose I define a fact as “what is the case”

Suppose I said "what is the case" is not true?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
'1+1=3' is not true, i.e false

An example doesn't prove the rule.
1+1 is not true and not false.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see you pretended not to have seen this sentence:

Suppose I define a fact as “what is the case”

Wow! You are both pugnacious and psychic!

vistesd is willing to explore the idea that facts are mental entities. I labored under that realization.

Originally posted by twhitehead
An example doesn't prove the rule.
1+1 is not true and not false.

Basic math facts are certainly true. Although there are some unspoken assuptions involved - for example, the number base being used. Context usually suffices.

You've kinda become a parody, tw.

Originally posted by twhitehead
An example doesn't prove the rule.
1+1 is not true and not false.

So your example of sonship not being true doesn't prove the rule either then. 😵

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Technicality. 😛

Maybe a technicality, but it's a mistake to presume because A is true then B must be false.

Originally posted by apathist
Wow! You are both pugnacious and psychic!

Reading a post does not require one to be psychic.

vistesd is willing to explore the idea that facts are mental entities. I labored under that realization.
vistesd gave a temporary definition for 'fact' and you proceeded to ignore it.