Guiliani Shrugs Off The Difference Between Fact and Opinion...
So, Rudy Guiliani was being interviewed when asked why he once presented something as fact that he now(at that time) was presenting as mere opinion. I cannot remember the specific details, but that doesn't matter to the larger point. I'm sure it could be googled if one wants to know. For certain, he was using a narrative aiming at the exoneration of Trump. He was arguing against some charge or other against Trump.
I am just astounded at the idea that the President of the United States has an attorney, who in the public sphere, just shrugged off the difference between fact and opinion as if it doesn't matter at all. It does matter. It matters regarding the content of Rudy's narrative, particularly whether or not he believed what he said. It matters that one in his position shrugs off the difference between his presenting something as fact compared/contrasted to his presenting something as just opinion. This is the President of the United States' attorney that we're talking about!
:gasp:
I am just astounded at the idea that the President of the United States has an attorney, who in the public sphere, just shrugged off the difference between fact and opinion as if it doesn't matter at all. It does matter. It matters regarding the content of Rudy's narrative, particularly whether or not he believed what he said. It matters that one in his position shrugs off the difference between his presenting something as fact compared/contrasted to his presenting something as just opinion. This is the President of the United States' attorney that we're talking about!
:gasp:
Comments (79)
This week’s David Brooks column nails it.
There’s a great quote further down:
‘As Daniel Boorstin understood back in 1962, you can’t refute an image with a fact.’
That explains so much about Trump.
People misrepresent facts, omit them etc. all the time in their endeavor to skew others' opinions in ways they find to be favorable to their - or their group's - agenda and interests, especially politicians. Trump and his cohorts have no special monopoly on this tactic, although I'd concede that he (they) seems much less interested in concealing this 'fact' than his more polished competitors.
Ultimately that's what it came down to last time around if I recall correctly: consensus was reached that politicians of all eras and political parties lie, but those who predated Trump at least had the decency to acknowledge such a thing as truth (facts) even as they distorted it. Trump and Guiliani, on the other hand, will not concede that fundamental distinction.
Nothing can drag you down when you can fly to neverland at any moment on the power of bullshit alone.
I think you may be referring to Giuliani's implicit self refutation of this own statement regarding the subpoenaing of a president. In 1998 Charlie Rose asked Guiliani if President Clinton could be subpoenaed and Giuliani said yes, but now that Trump is President he says no, a President can't be subpoenaed.
So rather than saying he had changed his mind he doubles down on his current position, which is the preferred Republican way of presenting an opinion as if it were a fact, since it plays well to their constituency.
Thank you for the (possible) contex, Michael.
In many cases I think this statement of Guiliani's is true. I got into a verbal altercation with a fellow employee a while back, for example, and our versions of what transpired - of the "facts" - were significantly different. And I don't think the person I had the issue with was intentionally lying; we just saw things from a different perspective.
Some things are obviously less subject to this sort of wiggle room than others, such as determining whether more people attended Obama's inauguration than Trump's, but I think there's some "truth" to Giuliani's claim. Doesn't mean that anything goes, of course, but people don't always see or interpret things in the same way. There's a huge difference, however, between honest disagreement, faulty memory, partial (and biased) perspective, etc. and lying to save your ass or gain some advantage.
That's another matter, and it is equally important here. Michael actually put the interview forth in a link. The words... by themselves... do not offer the context as well as watching and hearing Rudy's language and behaviour during...
Here is where philosophy and narrative are important...
Belief is not truth. All folk may have their own belief about the facts. They do not have their own truth. Belief can be false. Truth cannot. Facts cannot.
The difference between opinion and fact is simple. All opinion is based in belief about events that have happened, are happening, or will happen with the last of these being predictive/expectation. Those events that have happened or are happening are facts. One's opinion about the facts can be true or false. The facts are precisely what makes them so. Facts cannot be either, true or false. They are what makes opinions truth apt. When an opinion is true, it corresponds to the relevant facts. When it is false, it does not.
Too often, far too often...
The media doesn't have someone making the case as it ought be made to the American people. Obfuscation and distraction reigns. The about-face Giuliani did on subpoena of the President is a fine example. Cava mentioned it above.
Regarding Giuliani's 'truth'...
People have conflicting opinions about what happened or is happening(the facts). It does not follow from that that truth is relative. That is to conflate truth and opinion. Rudy did just that. Unfortunately, there may be enough other people who use those terms in a similar enough manner to also think that "there is some 'truth'" to Giuliani's claims.
Rudy also conflated truth with fact, when he said that people have their own version of 'truth'...
Sad that he's not called out for either being insincere or just plain not knowing what the hell he's talking about. Neither is acceptable.
I made that point earlier so I'm not sure why you seem to be ascribing a position to me that I don't hold. Maybe it's just a benign oversight but it doesn't seem truthful at all, which is interesting since you're here defending the sanctity of truth against sophistry.
Here's what I said and you can tell me how it differs from your basic position, in a more general sense than the specific case of Guiliani.
"Some things are obviously less subject to this sort of wiggle room than others, such as determining whether more people attended Obama's inauguration than Trump's, but I think there's some "truth" to Giuliani's claim. Doesn't mean that anything goes, of course, but people don't always see or interpret things in the same way. There's a huge difference, however, between honest disagreement, faulty memory, partial (and biased) perspective, etc. and lying to save your ass or gain some advantage.
I read an article a while ago concerning how the interpretation of carpetbaggers - northerners who went down south to help with Reconstruction after the Civil War - had significantly shifted historically. At first they were almost unanimously perceived as shameless, self-serving opportunists who sought to take advantage of the chaos in the postwar South to enrich themselves. That lasted for 30-40 years and then it underwent a change to the notion that, while they may have been deeply flawed human beings who made many mistakes, they nevertheless sought to do good by helping emancipated slaves in a bad situation. And much later, during the 1960's civil rights era, the interpretation altered to the point where they were seen as essentially flawless figures heroically willing to risk their lives to battle forces of racism and corruption on behalf of the oppressed.
Which interpretation is true? What are the facts? How do we separate fact from belief or opinion, fact from value, objective from subjective? Do our current background assumptions and interests influence the way we perceive and understand things? Do they contribute to the way we determine which facts are relevant and which aren't? Etc.
I watched my son's baseball game last week and there was a disputed play at 2nd base, a throw down form the catcher to get the runner stealing. The runner was called out and the fans on one side were enraged by the ruling. The other side's fans agreed with the call and couldn't believe there would even be any argument. My point is that even factual matters - and in this case replay would have shown which side was right - seem subject to dispute based on personal interest, perspective, and a number of additional things which make the ostensibly simple distinction between fact and opinion a bit more complex in all but the most mundane matters (e.g., is there a cat on the mat?), or in scientific matters which disclose beings in a particular way. The same thing can show itself from a number of standpoints, each revealing it from a particular perspective but also hiding other possible aspects. Thinking of Wittgenstein's duck-rabbit or Heidegger's distinction between present-at-hand, ready-to-hand, etc. A hammer can be both a material object investigated scientifically and an everyday object of human use within a context of other pieces of equipment, human projects, etc.
In other words, in many cases truth appears to be more a more complex matter than simple correspondence, especially when involving past events, guiding assumptions, personal interests, and the like which influence the way things show up for us. Imo of course. You may very well be right about Trump and Giuliani - I would extend my personal cynicism towards politicians to include pretty much all of them - but, as mentioned, I think this wider topic of truth/belief/opinion may not be as simple as it appears on the surface. And while I'd concede that they shouldn't be purposely conflated, it is often hard to completely disentangle them. Again, this doesn't necessarily lead to an absurd and imo indefensible form of relativism.
Quoting Erik
You've missed the point. How we come to terms with things directly affects/effects our thought, belief, and subsequent behaviour(s). Using terms in the way that Giuliani has can cause one to agree with what he says, believe that there is some 'truth' in it, and not be able to denounce it for what it is.
Quoting Erik
The above works from a few questionable presuppositions. It is a mistake to think that all re-constructionists had the same motives. Thus, it is equally mistaken to ascribe a single set of operative beliefs(motives) to all of them. Yet that is precisely what's been done here. So, none of the "interpretations" are true.
The facts are whatever happened and/or was happening at the time. We separate fact, belief, opinion, value, objective, and subjective by using the words to talk about different things. It is when we use those words to talk about the same things that inevitably leads to confusion, self-contradiction, or just plain ole' nonsense.
The runner was either safe or not. The opinions differ accordingly and they are what's subject for dispute. What happened is indisputable. The distinction between facts and opinions about the facts is not complex, nor need it be.
I agree with the point that folk have different opinions about what happened. That doesn't change what happened.
They way things show up for us(what one believes happened) is not equivalent to the way things are(what happened). Word use matters. The term "truth" has many accepted uses. Some lead to confusion/conflation, and some do not.
The wider topic of truth, belief, and opinion is actually more complex on it's surface as a result of so many people conflating them, along with fact. Word use matters.
Why assume that they aren't?
They clearly are, otherwise they wouldn't neglect to speak about the ones they find damaging, and openly espouse the one's they find helpful...
This is as aside, however, Trump has shown some flaws of American politics and culture(for that matter) to those capable of noticing. Most don't.
Trump hasn't turned us into loons. Trump is not the problem. He is the result of long-standing ones. Unfortunately, I have little hope that those problems will ever become believed or known by enough people for the right kinds of change to take place. American culture has long glorified all sorts of things that are damaging to the great experiment, while condemning all sorts of things that are essential to it's long-term success. In short, there are not enough people on the same page to fix what needs fixed. Given the influence of money on American government, *ahem*... the affects/effects of legitimized bribery... I'm not even sure that it's possible to get enough people on the same page...
More to the point of the thread...
The confusion of fact and opinion is fostered by so many people using the terms "fact", "opinion", "truth", and "belief" as synonyms for one another. "Your truth", "my truth", "his truth", "her truth":Phrases such as these, while often used for admirable purposes, are damaging to one's understanding of themselves and the world. They do no justice to the ideal of accepting different beliefs, values, and preferences.
Conflating fact, opinion, truth, and belief results in the utter incapability of knowing what to believe, who to believe, and why one ought believe. Some public schools have curriculums which actuslly teach this sort of conflation. It's really sad...
Many, if not most, Americans will believe just about anything that people/politicians they agree with on some matters say about other matters. Amongst other reasons, that is a direct result of not knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so:The inevitable consequence of the aforementioned conflations...
Well, perhaps they are not totally irrelevant to a politicians, my remark was a reference to the tendency of a politicians to consider facts way less important than public opinion. So sure, if a fact influences or can influence public opinion, then it becomes important to a politicians. However, the point is, that if the fact has no possible influence on the public opinion (for instance when it's a secret, or too complicated to understand by most people, or just doesn't get attention from the public) a politicians usually doesn't seem interested in it at all.
What was that Stalinistic statement? Something like "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear"?
Well we do, and should, have things we should hide. It comes under the heading of 'Privacy'.
Everyone is, or should be, entitled to privacy where there is no harm to others. Was someone harmed by an alleged orgasm?
If a president must be seen as different than any other citizen, with regard to privacy and personal family matters, then the flip side is that he can also be different enough to be above the same laws as all those other citizens - and we shouldn't want that.
No.
All things one wants to hide ought be protected under privacy?
Red Herring.
It's not the orgasm that is harmful when an elected official is unfaithful to his/her spouse.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
The thread is about how the public narrative affects/effects the public thought, belief, and subsequent action(s).
There's much to be said about government officials lying to the American people, including but most certainly not limited to cases of lying during a campaign in order to get elected.
What constitutes committing fraud against the American people?
:yikes:
So what is it about then?
quote="creativesoul;183940"] .All things one wants to hide ought be protected under privacy?[/quote]
Personal relationships including private family matters, yes of course. It is nobody else's business.
Quoting creativesoul
We are supposedly all "equal under the law". What is there not to understand about that? An agent of the government has no right to ask you anything about your personal and consensual arrangements and certainly not expect answers to such inappropriate questions.
Would you like an agent of the government to demand such answers from you?
Quoting creativesoul
It is therefore up to voters to decide. It is not a legal matter. Government agencies are not supposed to be partaking in partisan politics.
Quoting creativesoul
Well that will be a very long list. You may list these yourself if you wish.
I'm reminded of something I read towards the beginning of Robert Nozick's Philosophical Explanations (which in general is a double misnomer for that work, but that's another topic) in which he says that there really is nothing one can do just with words to persuade someone who, when faced with a choice between abandoning consistency or giving up their position, will prefer to abandon consistency.
If all you meant was "equal under the law" then we've no disagreement. Keep in mind here that not all law applies to all people. Some laws apply to the financial district. Others apply to business owner responsibility. Others still apply to elected officials.
On a personal level, one could argue that it's none of anyone's business if someone running for office has had multiple extra-marital affairs replete with non-disclosure agreements as a means to keep them secret. On another level, one could argue that it is most certainly the business of the American people to know about the people running for office. How else does the public form their opinion about them?
For example, many folk hold moral values, such as abortion and other civil rights of the utmost importance. If a candidate for office holds contradictory values to a voter, then that voter has every right to know about that, for those are the kinds of things that many people use to decide how to vote.
Note here that these are veins of thought that are tangential to the spirit of the thread. To make this line of thought more germane...
Say a candidate says 'X', but does not believe that 'X' is true. Further suppose that 'X' is something that a very large swathe of the population holds as of the utmost importance regarding which candidate will get their vote. The candidate is quite aware of all this, and in fact, s/he has asserted 'X' for no other reason than to acquire the votes of the people in question here(of those particular voters).
I would strongly argue that that candidate has committed fraud against the American people.
Such people are irrational and ok with it. If enough people are ok with being irrational, then being irrational becomes the accepted known norm...
That's a dangerous place. Banno has said on several occasions that the problem with "Anything goes" is that "Anything stays"... That has never seemed more relevant than today...
Yup. Particularly when digging with certain kinds of schemes(linguistic frameworks; schools of thought;etc.) It seems quite clear to me at least, that that blurring is the inevitable consequence of how one uses words. The blurring is not inevitable however. Given the overwhelming amount of insincerity that is actually expected by the rest of the American population from politicians and attorneys(most politicians are attorneys), there has never been a better time to shed much needed light upon the difference between fact and opinion. The American judicial system actually conflates truth and belief. Perhaps this be better put differently:The American judicial system is based upon language which conflates truth and belief.
That is a huge problem. "I swear to tell 'the truth'..."
I am of the well-considered position that there are many times when insincerity can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem is that understanding how the proof works requires understanding that material evidence isn't the only kind that warrants being 'hard' enough for such certainty. That's another matter altogether, however it's relevant here in many ways...
Indeed, imagine what the world would be like if we no longer allowed politicians to get away with committing fraud against the American people. I can hear the defense of the Noble Lie in the background...
Trust and the presupposition of truth inherent within all thought, belief, and the statements which follow... no two things are more crucial to understand when it comes to the human condition.
The rules that elected officials must follow are most certainly a legal matter. The last statement needs a thorough unpacking. There is no clear connection between it and what counts as acceptable and/or unacceptable elected official behaviour. I don't even know what the name 'partisan politics' is referring to.
Feel free, then, to define which actual law it is under which an agent of the government demands answers for the allegation that we have been discussing.
The public "forms opinions" also from mere opinions and falsehoods. It is very common that falsehoods come from government agents involving themselves in partisan politics.
This has never stopped any politician from saying one thing and then adopting the opposite position when it comes to agreements with other official players.
There is also no law against this. So, as I have already alluded, leave things to voters and keep politicians and government agents from weaponizing their politics through usurping the laws which are supposed to treat all citizens equal under them.
When placed with my immediately prior response this appears therefore to suggest every candidate and holder of any political office has committed fraud and is committing fraud.
This will be my only attempt to get this conversation going in the direction it ought be, according to the main thrust of the thread. Laws governing the behaviour of folk running for public office are not applicable to those who are not. "Equal under the law" is irrelevant to the thread. That is about laws that apply to everyone's behaviour. In particular, it is about applying those laws to everyone equally. We are not discussing those laws.
The thread is not about how laws apply to extra-marital affairs - in general. It is not about a consensual sexual relationship involving Trump. It is about the effects/affects of language use - in general - with particular attention being paid to cases where candidates deliberately and knowingly misrepresent their own thought and belief as a means to lead the public to believe things about them that are not true. That is committing fraud against the American people. The people are buying into false pretense. The extra-marital affair part was invoked by you. While it is covered by what I've been discussing, it's not the only thing that is.
With that in mind...
There are no laws that I'm aware of that are enforced when a candidate lies to the American people. There are laws that are enforced when banks lie, when retailers lie, when manufacturer lie, when drug companies lie, when investment firms lie, etc. In short, there are all sorts of laws regarding committing fraud against people. There used to be more. There are no such laws concerning a lying candidate.
There ought be.
One reason, I suspect, that there are not has to do with how the situation is framed in language. Another reason, I strongly suspect, is that the overwhelming majority of Americans actually expect politicians to lie, and the idea itself doesn't cause the outrage necessary for taking action to change that accepted norm.
Quoting Dalai Dahmer
You're missing something very very important to consider. Voters do not write the laws which govern political behaviour. Voters could change the entire landscape and end up with the same problem if the laws are not changed accordingly.
Well, how convenient. And how inconvenient it was of me to press you on what you yourself introduced regarding the different laws for different circumstances. This is a law argument, after all. Lawyers are involved with this case.
So now, apparently, it is NOT about a different law for a different circumstance but about "laws" plural that apply to "everyone's" behavior.
So what is this "everyone's" laws that are applied to ONE area of behavior? You know? The behavior which is the discussion point of this entire thread?
"We", however, are apparently not discussing law or laws now. Need I inconveniently remind you that even within this thread's title is the name Giuliani. Yes, that is a LAW-yer.
The thread is about what is introduced into the thread. What is introduced IS the thread. There is the opining post. But the opening post is not the thread.
The "effects/affects" of language use is predicated upon whether it was ever legally appropriate for a government agent to involve themselves, for public consumption using the force of special powers, to look into the consensual sexual affairs of a private citizen. Not a president. Not a person holding any public office.
Consequently no answers are appropriate to be heard. And I argue that wrong answers are AS appropriate as no answers, and I think this will be how it gets legally resolved because this "case" (it is not a "legal" case, remember) is merely about a negative popularity contest of usual partisan political strategy.
It is not a "legal case" because no law has been identified.
But there is no law, I think, that makes a case of a bank worker's or bank executive's consensual sex life PRIOR to them even becoming a bank worker or bank executive. That is the only equivalence I see there. Again possibly inconvenient of me. A bank executive has the right to more or less indicate "f**k off" to any law body looking into such personal and private matters. A way to say "f**k off" is to obfuscate. I recommend obfuscation to nosy Stalinist tactics.
Are you advocating for law change with regard to this thread topic?
If so, then it is really an admission that a law body should not be involving itself into this circumstance. If law somehow requires change to fit one's argument as it stands now then in as it stands now should not involve the law.
It's politics. That is all it is. It is political strategy to sway voters for the midterms and usurping state powers for this purpose.
You're confused.
The thread is about how language effects/affects thought, belief, and behaviour, with an initial aim on how Giuliani used the terms "opinion" and "fact" and "truth" as synonyms for one another, and the inevitable affects/effects that doing so has on public opinion for those who trust his truthfulness in 'testimony'.
Your invocation of "equal under the law" is and was irrelevant. Different laws apply to government officials. These laws do no apply to average citizens. A prima facie example is campaign finance law. Those do not apply to those not running a campaign.
I would argue that there ought be, if there is not already, laws governing a candidates' behaviour; particularly... laws governing their sincerity in speech. There ought be laws against a candidate knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting their own thought and belief. That would be to misrepresent themselves, their motives, and hence their actual intentions. Misrepresenting oneself to the public, when you're a candidate for public office, is a clear case of committing fraud against the American people.
You're not making any sense at all. In order to change law a law body must be involved.
You do not even know there is such a law and then you argue for a government agency to legally pursue something you acknowledge you do not even know whether it is something they can legally pursue.
That's confusion right there.
No confusion my friend. I've not argued for anyone in particular to pursue anything in particular. You're either dishonest or wrong. Neither is acceptable. The discussion with you is an exercise in spotting fallacy in the wild... I've been ignoring them out loud...
I'm not confused about whether or not there are laws pertaining to the honesty of a candidate's public speech. I'm not confused about whether or not there ought be. I'm also not confused about the paths by which such laws could be written and/or enforced, whether there are or aren't such laws currently on the books. All of this is rather irrelevant.
The argument here is a philosophical one. I suspect you know this, and are neglecting it as a result. It has to do with the effects/affects of language, with the use of terms such as "truth", "belief", "fact", and "opinion" at the forefront for the obvious reasons of relevancy to a candidate's committing fraud against the American people.
Quoting creativesoul
So you have not argued for the legal pursuit of the former candidate in question for fraud?
Quoting creativesoul
I see.
To me the quest for knowledge starts with Socrates' "To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge.", expanded by Descartes to "I think, therefore I am". That's about where what we can truely know stops and strictly spoken where facts stop. Beond that we need axioms, if the applied axiom gets questioned, what we took as facts based upon that axiom gets reduced to an opinion. As long as the applied axiom doesn't get questioned we can take our opinions based upon that axiom as if they were facts.
That quote is untenable. It makes no sense. It is self-contradictory on it's face. You're conflating conclusions based upon axioms with facts. Facts cannot be false. Conclusions based upon axioms can.
Nope. I'm barely breaching the idea. Is there a problem with your reading comprehension?
There was student who wanted to learn from a great master. After persistently hounding the master, the master finally agrees, but tells the student to follow him, but he is to watch but say nothing.
As they walk, they notice a young child hiding a valuable possession in a hole near a tree. When the child leaves, the master quickly goes down to the tree and digs up the possession and takes it. The student is besides himself. He thought the old man was a great master, but in truth he was nothing but a two bit thief.
The master knows the young man's mind and asks the student what is bothering him? The student tells him. The master then says, you are still young and not ready to learn. The child you saw is the child of a close friend. Where he buried his little treasure, we were not the only ones who saw him. There was also a well known thief hiding in the bushes. I took the item for safe keeping and will return it later.
The facts are tangible but do they are not always reveal the truth. The truth depends on the context of facts and also how one wishes to view that context.
In the case of Trump and Russian collusion, say Trump was innocent and being railroaded by sore losers. The same facts will add differently. Many assume guilty context, so when the innocent gets upset, this means guilt.
Two lawyers presenting the offense and defense of the same case, will each pick the facts, that support a given context. It is easy to prove or disprove facts, but the context can be disguised, especially since lawyers are not required to tell the truth.
Nice story. Shows that it is unwise to draw conclusions based upon too little evidence. Sometimes things aren't as they appear. However, the story doesn't necessarily support what followed...
This is a prima facie example of the kind of confusion that comes as a result of playing fast and loose with the terms "fact" and "truth".
1. How one views the facts(events) does not determine truth.
That claim is virtually common sense understanding. For example, one can view the facts, talk about them using a certain context, or think about them in a certain way, and still arrive at false conclusions. Your story is a fine example of this. Truth cannot be false. Therefore, truth does not depend upon how one wishes to view the context of facts. Forming and holding true belief about the facts does.
2.Facts do not add people do.
Saying that "the facts add up differently" presupposes agency where none exists, and ignores the efficacious nature of human thought and belief, all of which are germane.
3.Facts are events(things that actually happened and/or or happening).
Facts aren't the sort of thing that can be proven or disproven. Claims about the facts can be proven or disproven, beyond a reasonable doubt, by virtue of comparing them to the known facts.
4. I agree that both sides of the case will choose to talk about things in support of their own explanations for what happened(their own explanation of the facts). That doesn't make all those things equal. Relevancy and adequacy/sufficiency matter.
Say we have a set of facts(events that everyone agrees took place).
The things chosen to talk about are not always the facts in current consideration. They can be nothing more than an explanation of/for those facts. Such explanations are not always true. The things chosen can also be other facts that are not the ones in current consideration. If these other facts are used as evidence to support an alternative explanation for the facts in current consideration, then it is up to the one arguing for that explanation to set out exactly how these new facts are relevant and adequate for arriving at the proposed alternative explanation. S/he must argue for how these other facts warrant a certain conclusion(alternative to the other side) about the events that everyone agrees took place.
When there are competing explanations of/for the facts, we must judge which, if either, is believable and what makes it so. We can often just consider what all it would take for each explanation to be true. That is to say that we must consider what would have to happen, or what would have had to have already happened, or what would have to be happening in order for that particular explanation to be true. That adds a much needed temper... a certain level of disinterest... to the understanding of one who partakes in such an exercise.
Sure, you can uphold that strict definition of what a fact is. In wich case there is only one fact that can be supported by the evidence, wich is 'I am'. However, I don't think you actually do, I think you vieuw other things to be 'facts' as well. You simply may not be aware of the axiom(s) you derrived those 'facs' from.
Quoting creativesoul
And here is my confirmation, events that everyone agrees took place, are not facts in the strict way you were suggesting facts to be in your post to me. Events that everyone agrees took place can simply be a result of mass delusion. In order to accept those as facts, you already applied the axiom that the universe is real.
On my view, facts are events. Events cannot be false. I proposed having a set of facts that everyone agrees to. The agreement doesn't make them facts. The agreement makes them uncontroversial.
Have no idea how you've arrived at that conclusion...
Call it "breaching" if you must but for intellectual honesty, therefore personal responsibility for one's proposed ideas, saying "the idea", rather than owning your expressions and instead referring to them as your ideas, just doesn't cut it. It's merely evasiveness in order to form an attack from the shadows.
But your form, your modus operandi, is easily distinguishable regardless.
An idea is not an argument. Both are mine.
You're lost brother. Go pick on someone smaller. I'll kick your ass. That's my MO. As I've already said, your posts are an exercise in spotting fallacy in the wild.
If you don't accept any axioms, you won't get beond Descartes "I think, therefor I am". So if you dismiss all 'facts' derrived from axioms, that's about the only fact left.
We've been working from two different conceptions of the term "fact".
Do you understand that and agree?
I considered it a possibility, though if so, I don't understand your objections to my original statement about axiomatic facts.
Perhaps I ought to clarify some more on it:
In general most people would agree that '5+5=10' is a fact. but its only a fact under the axiom of a decimal system, since for instance under the axiom of a hexadecimal system this isn't a fact, its just incorrect, since in a hexadecimal system 5+5=A not 10. 10 in a hexadecimal system translates to 16 in the decimal system.
Sure, events cannot be false, however when we think we observe an event, we don't know wether we actually observe an event, or are just delusional or hallucinating. Hence human reports of events are not nessesarily consistent with the events, but we can only discuss human reports of events. To treat those as facts, means that we already apply the axiom that the human reports of events can be treated as facts as if enough humans provide the samer report of events.
Do you agree?
I'm curious to see what criterion you've employed for knowledge. If we could not know then there would be no difference in the meaning of the words describing those three possibilities. But there is such a difference, and we know that difference, so thus... we do.
:wink:
:cool:
Everything is human report?
Nah. Horrible form of monism...
Well, if we mixed our frameworks(axioms?)...
Strictly speaking from my own, human reports are statements about the facts. Statements can be true/false. Facts cannot.
But all we talk about are human reports. What I say is my report to you, what you say is your report to me. Humans use their senses to observe the world, but there is not a 100% guarantee they will accurately represent what is happening 100% of the time. Alcohol can make you see more things than that are actually there for instance.
Are you familiar with the evil genius concept in classic philosophy? Or the movie the matrix?
Such an obvious strawman, really? I didn't say everything is human report, I said everything discussed is human report, there is a difference.
I talk about trees.
Nope, to discuss is to report, and you don't know about trees, you merely know about your concept of trees. Hence you report about your concept of trees.
What's that over there------------------>
Looks like a tree to me. My conception is made out of language and stuff. The tree is not. Conceptions can be wrong. Trees cannot.
So, the argument is we can be certain that it is possible for us to be mistaken, therefore...
What?
All that tells me is that what you are looking at fits with your conception of a tree, under the assumption your report is an honest one. The fact that conceptions can be 'wrong' or at least, can differ from person to person, it's by no means a guarantee that your report of witnessing a tree will cause me to see a tree when I look at the same thing. Since I could have a different concept of what a tree is, and event though I look at the same thing, it may not fit my concept. If such a difference occurs, it can be usefull to elaborate on each others concept, so both of us get the oppertunity expand our concepts of things.
Therefore we can only talk about our concept of something, not about the actual something itself. This even goes for ourselves. We can only talk about how we perceive ourselves, not about our actual self. This difference is one of the causes of the dunning-kruger effect. If we would know our actual self, rather than just know our perception of our self, the dunning-kruger effect would not exist.
Your position is untenable, perhaps. I'm being reminded of Kant's Noumena.
Oh dear. You just lost IT right there by pretending to be threatening. Don't look now, your consciousness is showing.