A Brute Fact ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And once again, you miss the subtleties of the English language.

An appology needn't be subtle. But yours was so subtle that I missed it.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
One of the cupboard doors in my kitchen is not true (it doesn't hang straight and catches when closed). By your reasoning, is my cupboard door also false? (Is it actually a flat hedgehog? )

But "not true" CAN mean "false". And does more often than not.

Twhitehead said : "No it doesn't". So he was wrong.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
But "not true" CAN mean "false". And does more often than not.

Twhitehead said : "No it doesn't". So he was wrong.

Twhitehead said:

'False means something is not true, but not all not true things are false.'

Please take the time to think on that before responding.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Twhitehead said:

'False means something is not true, but not all not true things are false.'

Please take the time to think on that before responding.

Before that he categorically stated that "not true" doesn't mean "false". Clearly there are cases where it does.

He made the same booboo when he said categorically stated that facts are not true. Sadly he still thinks he is right.

Originally posted by vistesd

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. Rep ...[text shortened]... ions of fact (e.g., statements/propositions about facts, that can be true or false)--the "maps".[/b]

I find your usage confusing, too. I'm trying to parse your three elements and its hopelessy muddled. Here's my view:

1. The world exists. The stuff that exists regardless of whether anyone knows about it or not. Its made of matter/energy in spacetime. Molecules, gamma rays, physical objects, gravitation waves. Rocks, planets, germs.

2. We are sentient beings. We are aware of the world. We learn about it. What we learn (hey, that's a rock! also, I like rocks!) are "facts".

Your 1 and 3 sort of look like my 1 and 2, but I have no idea what your 2 is about.

Maybe this insight will get at the root of the matter. Facts can certainly be wrong. Is your method trying to ensure that facts are necessarily true? The world itself is true enough, but our understanding of it will always be fallible.

Originally posted by apathist
I find your usage confusing, too. I'm trying to parse your three elements and its hopelessy muddled. Here's my view:

1. The world exists. [b]The stuff that exists regardless of whether anyone knows about it or not. Its made of matter/energy in spacetime. Molecules, gamma rays, physical objects, gravitation waves. Rocks, planets, germs.

2. We are ...[text shortened]... rily true? The world itself is true enough, but our understanding of it will always be fallible.[/b]

Facts can certainly be wrong. Is your method trying to ensure that facts are necessarily true? The world itself is true enough, but our understanding of it will always be fallible.

A fact cannot be wrong. A statement as to factuality can be wrong; a belief that X is a fact can be wrong. A believed fact can only turn out to actually be a fact—or not to have been a fact after all.

My 2. was explained in the 2nd paragraph of my response.

The world of facts—e.g., that it is raining today in Harbortown—is what it is, whether we are aware of it or not. The things of the world stand in relation to other things of the world; there is nothing of the world that stands relationless. The facts are those relations. A stone and a tree are things of the world—that this stone is beside this tree is a fact. This is sometimes symbolically represented by the formula s-R-t, where R is the relation (in this case “beside” ).

A rock is not a fact; a rock is a thing.

You are, to my mind, confusing what is actually a fact of the world with what we understand is a fact of the world. Of course our understanding (our maps) can be fallible. But to take the terrain as just made up of things, rather than how those things hang together, would be to say that there are no actual relationships among the things of the world (that we perceive rightly or wrongly), but that all such relationships (facts) are constructs of our consciousness. (At that point, why not go “whole hog” and allow that all the things of the world are also just constructs of our consciousness.)

Basically, what it comes down to is this: either you allow things to comprise the “terrain”, but put any relationships between those things in the realm of the “maps”—or you allow relationships (e.g., that the stone is beside the tree) to be part of the terrain, but want to call them “what-is-the-cases”, or some such, instead of facts.

My usage is simple, straightforward, and has the advantage of being, I think, a more common usage (at least a usage familiar in analytical philosophy since Wittgenstein). Things are things; facts are how those things stand in relation in the actual world; our maps are representations (perceptions, beliefs, etc.) of those facts—representation which may or may not be accurate. Facts are the terrain; our representations are the maps.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Facts can certainly be wrong. Is your method trying to ensure that facts are necessarily true? The world itself is true enough, but our understanding of it will always be fallible.

A fact cannot be wrong. A statement as to factuality can be wrong; a belief that X is a fact can be wrong. A believed fact can only turn out to actually be a ...[text shortened]... ion which may or may not be accurate. Facts are the terrain; our representations are the maps.[/b]

I notice that you usually attempt to put some explanation on things rather than just drop little minimalist bombshells which are suppose to be so obvious.

Originally posted by vistesd...
Things are things; facts are how those things stand in relation in the actual world; our maps are representations (perceptions, beliefs, etc.) of those facts—representation which may or may not be accurate. Facts are the terrain; our representations are the maps.[/b]

I think that was a better explanation, thx. I don't see any advantage over the view that the world is the terrain, our understandings of the world are the facts. The relations between things in the world are part of the world. We see this when we map it.

Any single "thing" is full of internal things that stand in relation to everything else (just like every other thing!). A molecule is a collection of atoms, eg. So any thing is a bundle of your facts. I say a thing is made of atoms. How is your view more useful?

Originally posted by apathist
I think that was a better explanation, thx. I don't see any advantage over the view that the world is the terrain, our understandings of the world are the facts. The relations between things in the world are part of the world. We see this when we map it.

Any single "thing" is full of internal things that stand in relation to everything else (just like e ...[text shortened]... y thing is a bundle of your facts. I say a thing is made of atoms. How is your view more useful?

(1) Because those relationships (and events) are the terrain--as you state here; things by themselves do not constitute the terrain (including—though I know little of quantum physics—the atomic/subatomic level of the terrain that you point out).

(2) Because making facts just part of the mapping process (our perception and understanding) would lead to the following kind of “facts can be wrong” confusion:

“The chair is in the middle of the room. Isn’t that a fact?”

“Yes, that’s a fact—but you’re wrong, the chair is in the corner of the room.”

(3) You need some useful term to capture the relationship/events nature of the terrain itself (as opposed to just things)—but there already is a term both in common usage and philosophical usage: it’s fact. Why replace it?

Originally posted by vistesd...
My usage is simple, straightforward, and has the advantage of being, I think, a more common usage (at least a usage familiar in analytical philosophy since Wittgenstein). Things are things; facts are how those things stand in relation in the actual world; our maps are representations (perceptions, beliefs, etc.) of those facts—representation which may or may not be accurate. Facts are the terrain; our representations are the maps.[/b]

The disagreement is semantical. I disagree your usage is straightforward. I know stuff about the world, and nothing in science suggests to me that it consists of material objects (I guess that is what you mean by "things"?) and facts. It does of course consist of material and energy, and I suppose it is fair to say it also consists of all the relationships involving the material and energy.

I'd say that we have your things and their relationships and that is the terrain; we have our representations of those things and relationships and that would be the facts.

In your system, the existence of an object would not be a fact, even though it actually exists.

I've learned that understanding Wittgenstein must involve on-the-fly translation from normative usage to some sort re-definition program that has no apparent value.

Originally posted by vistesd...
(3) You need some useful term to capture the relationship/events nature of the terrain itself (as opposed to just things)—but there already is a term both in common usage and philosophical usage: it’s fact. Why replace it?[/b]

What is wrong with saying instead that the relationship/events exist as surely as the objects do, and facts are our understandings of what actually exists?

Originally posted by apathist
What is wrong with saying instead that the relationship/events exist as surely as the objects do, and facts are our understandings of what actually exists?

(2) Because making facts just part of the mapping process (our perception and understanding) would lead to the following kind of “facts can be wrong” confusion:

“The chair is in the middle of the room. Isn’t that a fact?”

“Yes, that’s a fact—but you’re wrong, the chair is in the corner of the room.”

(3) . . . there already is a term both in common usage and philosophical usage: it’s fact. Why replace it?

Originally posted by vistesd
(2) Because making facts just part of the mapping process (our perception and understanding) would lead to the following kind of “facts can be wrong” confusion:

“The chair is in the middle of the room. Isn’t that a fact?”

“Yes, that’s a fact—but you’re wrong, the chair is in the corner of the room.”

(3) . . . there already is a term both in common usage and philosophical usage: it’s fact. Why replace it?

But I understand that our knowledge can be wrong, so your example doesn't disturb me. I'm not an idealist!

Here is why your usage can be rejected: we have a discipline that studies physical reality (the world, the terrain) and has done so well that it separated from philosophy into what we call science. And science does not claim that physical reality consists of objects and facts.

Your usage comes from a source that does not outweigh science when it comes to searching for an explanation of physical reality. Slam dunk by apathist.

If you suppose for a moment that I'm right, you'll find that normative usage of the word completely supports my position.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now I 'made'? Made what?

As always, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. Just because one interpretation of a word is a given phrase, it doesn't make that word mean 'the same as' that phrase.

False means something is not true, but not all not true things are false. I am certain you already know this given that you foolishly want to ...[text shortened]... in to you why you are wrong. They only care about the truth if it involves criticising atheists.

Is it "reading comprehension" or a deliberate attempt to evade or coerce the thread in some way?

Let me be clear here, I haven't read pages 20-25 or so of this thread however I think I'm getting the gist of twhiteheads and fetchmyjunk's to and froing.

Sometimes I've called out posters for not getting into the spirit of my posts. And I do believe that's what is happening here.

While I usually find the atheist orientated posters being very pedantic on smaller points while ignoring the general gist of my posts , I've been finding theists being just as cock-headed.

As there is no TOE and the nature of spirituality and the possibility of life beyond death is unclear (at best), it's very easy to sit back and pick flaws with others posts. But there is a point at which posters automatically dismiss posts based souley on THE POSTER!

So I recommend that everyone take a step back from what they think is true and perhaps work on the assumption that this 'truth' they think they know is only a truism (at best).

With this in mind, a healthy respect for all posters AND most importantly the willingness to get into the spirit of the other posts we should all be better off and maybe even learn something.

Spock out-

Originally posted by apathist
I think that was a better explanation, thx. I don't see any advantage over the view that the world is the terrain, our understandings of the world are the facts. The relations between things in the world are part of the world. We see this when we map it.

Any single "thing" is full of internal things that stand in relation to everything else (just like e ...[text shortened]... y thing is a bundle of your facts. I say a thing is made of atoms. How is your view more useful?

And an atom is made of nothing. Well virtually nothing 🙂

In fact I could say it's made of nothing and that would be more truthful than what most mainstream religions peddle.