A Brute Fact ?

Originally posted by apathist
Basic math facts are certainly true.

Except 1+1 is not a 'basic math fact', nor is it true.

You've kinda become a parody, tw.
When you have something sensible to contribute, let us know.

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

Yes actually, it does. Once again, I beat you on logic.

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

Sir, I strongly object to your use of reason in an argument.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Sir, I strongly object to your use of reason in an argument.

Thank you... ?


the opposite of a backhanded compliment?

Originally posted by apathist
[quote][b] 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 ...[text shortened]... t of the paragraph, though, because it exemplifies the method for making our facts bullet-proof![/b]

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 the map/terrain metaphor differently: facts are the territory/terrain (as it currently exists, mapped or not); our representations of/about the terrain are maps. As new facts emerge, the terrain changes.

Following Wittgenstein (if I understand him rightly), a fact is a kind of “that” relation. And maybe this moves us closer together. The “fact” is not the table—the table is a thing. The fact is “that the table is there.” But I do not see just why that is not the terrain—what is the case. My mapping of the fact may or may not be accurate: Perhaps I wrongly say, “There is no table there”. Am I claiming that the table is not there (but perhaps somewhere else)? Or am I claiming that that table is nonexistent? (The ordinary-language statement is doubtless clear by context; but is not clear absent some context.)

The reason why W. said the world (the terrain) is made up of “facts, not things” is because no thing stands of itself, absent context/relation. Another metaphor that I like is that of a figure/ground gestalt.

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

I think I misunderstood you. I took your maps to be mental representations—about the world, to be sure. I retract that. My maps, however, are representations of the world—and there is a world of facts that is (accurately or inaccurately) represented.

Your first sentence doesn’t work – just substitute the map vs terrain idea to see why.

I think my first sentence works perfectly well under the map/terrain metaphor (which I like, and have used myself many times)—our maps (representations) may or may not accurately reflect the territory (the facts).

I’m not saying that your usage is wrong—but I find it confusing.

To sum up, as I see it, there are these elements:

1. Things (which do not exist except in some “gestalt” relation).

2. Facts: That there are these things; that these things are such and such (i.e., what is the case for these things)--the "territory".

3. Representations of fact (e.g., statements/propositions about facts, that can be true or false)--the "maps".

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes actually, it does. Once again, I beat you on logic.

By your own admission an example doesn't prove a rule. You can't have it both ways.

(Your example proves your rule but my example doesn't prove my rule?)

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
By your own admission an example doesn't prove a rule.

That depends on the rule.

You can't have it both ways.
Yes, actually, I can. I see you still haven't learned your lesson from 'facts' being both 'true' and 'not true'.

(Your example proves your rule but my example doesn't prove my rule?)
Yes. That's a fact.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That depends on the rule.

[b]You can't have it both ways.
Yes, actually, I can. I see you still haven't learned your lesson from 'facts' being both 'true' and 'not true'.

(Your example proves your rule but my example doesn't prove my rule?)
Yes. That's a fact.[/b]

If it's not true it's not a fact. That is a fact. If something does exist, then it is TRUE that that thing exists. It's never NOT TRUE that something exists if it does exist. If you want to believe otherwise you may, that is your choice. But your belief is still false.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If it's not true it's not a fact. That is a fact.

You just never give up do you?
You have already conceded that my originally quoted definition for 'fact' includes two possible meanings for the word. Under the first meaning, sonship is a fact. You have also conceded that sonship is not true. You lost. Live with it.

If something does exist, then it is true that something exists. It's never NOT TRUE that something exists if it does exist. If you want to believe otherwise you may. But your belief is false.
If you want to believe that that is what I believe, then your belief is false. But I don't believe that is what you believe, I believe you are dishonest and a sore looser.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You just never give up do you?
You have already conceded that my originally quoted definition for 'fact' includes two possible meanings for the word. Under the first meaning, sonship is a fact. You have also conceded that sonship is not true. You lost. Live with it.

[b]If something does exist, then it is true that something exists. It's never NOT TRUE ...[text shortened]... se. But I don't believe that is what you believe, I believe you are dishonest and a sore looser.

When did I concede that Sonship is not true? Ironic that you are saying I am dishonest. You said sonship is not true. I never did. I said the way you worded your question doesn't make sense. You should know that you are desperate to win when you proclaim yourself a winner and call your opponent a sore loser and dishonest without backing up your statements.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
When did I concede that Sonship is not true?

When you said:

So you could say "Sonship is neither true nor false".

I recommend you look up the word 'neither' in a dictionary.

Originally posted by twhitehead
When you said:

So you could say "Sonship is neither true nor false".

I recommend you look up the word 'neither' in a dictionary.

So when you say "Sonship is not true" you are essentially saying "Sonship is not a fact". 😀

So in your mind "neither true nor false" = "not true"?

If I were to say "a fact is neither true nor false" then I would be saying a fact is "not true"?

I refer you to vistesd's post on the other thread :

A fact is a fact—what is the case, whether I know it or not. A fact is neither true not false—it is a fact. (To say something like “all facts are true” would be to say nothing more than, “All facts are facts”. To say something like, “This fact is not true” would be to say nothing more than, “This is not a fact”.)

So when you say "Sonship is not true" you are essentially saying "Sonship is not a fact". 😀

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So in your mind "neither true nor false" = "not true"?

If I were to say "a fact is neither true nor false" then I would be saying a fact is "not true"?

I refer you to vistesd's post on the other thread :

[quote]A fact is a fact—what is the case, whether I know it or not. A fact is neither true not false—it is a fact. (To say something like “al ...[text shortened]...

So when you say "Sonship is not true" you are essentially saying "Sonship is not a fact". 😀

Did you take my advice and look up the word 'neither' yet?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Did you take my advice and look up the word 'neither' yet?

Have you completed your victory lap and air punches just to find out you actually lost?

I actually feel sorry for you. My condolences.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Have you completed your victory lap and air punches just to find out you actually lost? :%

I'll take that as an 'I'm too scared to look in a dictionary because I might learn something'.