Originally posted by black beetle "What actually is", is impossible to exist inherently and in no dependence on the language-World bond. "What actually is" gets a meaning solely through a conceptual or non-conceptual state of affairs😵
Are you suggesting that without conscious minds there would be no universe?
Originally posted by DeepThought Are you suggesting that without conscious minds there would be no universe?
No, my feer; in this case the observer universe would be existent but, since it would be non-graspable by minds with conceptual and/ or non-conceptual awareness, methinks no sentient being would be aware of its existence and thus no sentient being could affirm or negate the existence of that observer😵
Originally posted by black beetle No, my feer; in this case the observer universe would be existent but, since it would be non-graspable by minds with conceptual and/ or non-conceptual awareness, methinks no sentient being would be aware of its existence and thus no sentient being could affirm or negate the existence of that observer😵
So your point is epistemological rather than ontological? If so we are probably in agreement (except I damn well know I exist). Namaste.
Originally posted by DeepThought So your point is epistemological rather than ontological? If so we are probably in agreement (except I damn well know I exist). Namaste.
Originally posted by DeepThought So your point is epistemological rather than ontological? If so we are probably in agreement (except I damn well know I exist). Namaste.
I happen to read again your last post and I think you misunderstood me, so I clarify what I said:
"In this case the observer universe would be existent but, since it [the existence of the universe, that is] would be non-graspable by minds with conceptual and/ or non-conceptual awareness, methinks no sentient being would be aware of its existence [I mean: no sentient being would be aware of the existence of the universe] and thus no sentient being could affirm or negate the existence of that observer [I mean: no sentient being could affirm or negate the existence of the universe].
😵
Originally posted by karoly aczel ",,does not outweigh science.."
I'm sorry but that is not a slam dunk.
Just because most people think something does not make it any more truer. More evidence than that is needed for a jam . Perhaps you made a sound block instead?
I didn't appeal to popularity, I appealed to authority. Which isn't a fallacy when the authority proves their case. Science knowledge outweighs the opinions of philosophers (and the simplistic standard dictionaries) all day long.
originally posted by vistesd “In science, a fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.
“In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]”
—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact (My emphasis)
You confirm my position. The sentence you bolded asserts that a 'fact' is the observation or measurement; the thing being studied is not claimed to be the fact!
originally posted by vistesd Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Again, you confirm that the observation is the fact; the thing being observed is not claimed to be the fact!
NOTE: Observations are observations of what is the case in the natural world, the “terrain”—i.e. empirical evidence; hypotheses and theories are the interpretations—the “map”. An observation can of course be in error--but that does not change the facts; it just means the observation was factually incorrect..
[/quote]
The natural world is the terrain, yes.
Observations, empirical evidence, the hypotheses and theories, they are the interpretations or the “map”, yes.
Any observation, evidence, hypothesis or theory can of course be in error, yes.
The question is whether the word "fact" identifies what exists in the terrain or instead is found in the map.
originally posted by vistesd As for common usage:...
"Encyclopedia.com has more than 100 trusted sources, including encyclopedias, dictionaries, and thesauruses with facts, definitions, biographies, synonyms, pronunciation keys, word origins, and abbreviations."
That is how the word is commonly used. A fact is something that can, for example, be found in a book!
originally posted by vistesd As for philosophical usage: “A "fact" can be defined as something that is the case—that is, a state of affairs.[12][13]” [From Wiki above]
In philosophy you have a case. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/
But I've shown you are misinterpreting the standard and scientific usage.
Originally posted by vistesd Addendum to above post: If you want to identify facts with observations (in the strict context of scientific discourse), I don’t have as much of a problem as with identifying facts with our understanding/interpretations (e.g., hypotheses)—as you originally presented it. The observations are what embody empirical evidence; there is no other way we can acqui ...[text shortened]... ntist friends if they think they observe facts. Or maybe we could inquire on the Science Forum?
The observations, descriptions, and interpretations are all part of our understandings, they are part of the map. I guess you say that observations are part of the terrain?
15 Jul '16 13:25
A Brute Fact ?
Back to Top