AJJ

You’ll have to be clearer, I can’t make sense of that.

It’s not that our beliefs determine facts. It’s that facts are necessarily things that ought to be believed, but not that what they are is determined ...

If “is the case” means the same as “is a fact”, then something that “is the case” (since that just means “is a fact”) neither is nor is not the case, ...

I’ll be honest and say I don’t entirely know what you’re on about, and I’m quite tired now. You seem to think the argument is that beliefs determine f...

This doesn’t answer my question of how it is that a proposition can match something that neither is nor is not the case.

Right. So facts are states of affairs, and are neither true nor false. But then if it’s a fact that the cat is sitting on the mat, then we must say th...

You’re giving “the matching” the name “true” there, not the proposition.

That’s precisely what is under discussion mate. You can’t just assert your own view and expect that to convince anyone.

That is absurd, but I don’t see what bearing this has on the OP argument. It seems to me that if you asserted both those things you’d simply be lying ...

It would have to be part of the objective Truth. You haven’t actually answered my question. How is that a proposition is true when it matches somethin...

So states of affairs can be considered things, good. But how is that a proposition is true when it corresponds to something that is neither true or fa...

Aye. So facts are states of affairs. Are states of affairs not things and true?

You say, ignoring the summary I just gave of my reasoning.

It seems to me that facts are things, and that they’re true. That’s the definition I’ve been assuming for this argument. Swapping out that definition ...

I was just bloody answering your questions.

This is truly astonishing. I mean... look back over the thread mate, bloody hell.

Whatever man. Here’s the OED’s first definition: “thing that is known or proved to be true.”

Yeah, like I said.

And the bit people are getting hung up over is whether we ought to believe facts. And so this is mainly what the discussion has been about. “Difficult...

I explain the context of my remark. You quote my remark back at me without the context. I explain the context again. You continue to ignore the contex...

Aye, whatever you say mate.

Ohh! So it’s not a sound argument. It doesn’t hold water as a philosophical argument. Right, my mistake everyone, I had no idea this was so simple.

I know it is true that I should help you when you’re having a heart attack, therefore I help you. Like I’ve said, goodness and truth - or how we perce...

Yeah, you should be aware that at this point you’re just repeating what you think without considering what I’m saying. No, because it’s not true that ...

Aye, well maybe it is true mate, but don’t worry about it. No one is going to force you to be a Christian.

What? I explain the context of my remark, you quote my remark back to me without the context. I was responding to a statement that denied what you rig...

I understand our actions are based on our beliefs. I understand you as saying that this means it can be the case that we ought to believe certain lies...

It was said that we do not judge our beliefs in relation to the truth, but base them on probability. I said that we can only judge something to be pro...

I don’t know what you’re struggling with. We can only judge that a coin has a 50/50 chance of landing on tails by referring to the mathematical truth ...

If I’m lied to and told there is no erupting volcano but I need to leave the area for some other innocuous reason, then I won’t panic and run over peo...

I’m saying the ought resides in the actions, and not the belief in the lie. It would be possible to take the same actions without believing the lie, s...

But then it seems to me it isn’t that we ought to believe the lie, but rather that we ought to behave in the way that the lie facilitates. If you cons...

Yeah, I think we should part ways now in this argument. I don’t want to discuss this with anyone who can’t see why the below statement makes no sense:

As in nonsensical.

I was using the word insensible rather than senseless. My mistake.

The issue is continually inviting the question, which in effect makes a senseless statement, the one I just gave. Because it invites the question, “Ou...

Because you’re in effect saying “there is nothing that we ought to believe, including the proposition that there is nothing we ought to believe.”

Here’s the definition from my Dictionary app: “utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably...

If it is the case that facts are things we ought to believe, then the OP argument works. The reason I’ve given that it is the case that we ought to be...

It’s absurd to deny that we ought to take facts to be true, whether that means believing or accepting, for the reason I gave in my OP. I don’t see how...

Well, I care. You could swap “believe” for “accept” and it seems to me the argument works the same.

Bottom of 108 to 109

Your bridge example is a practical illustration of why it is we ought to believe facts, but I’m simply saying we ought to believe facts because they’r...

Thanks for the cordial replies. I’ll try to respond to both here. Facts don’t depend on whether or not we believe them, sure, but I don’t see how that...

I know mate. Again: that is what makes them objective, rather than subjective. That is why we ought to believe them. You’re just getting objective and...

No mate. Here’s what you said: So you should first of all explain that. And... You should explain how I was using the word, since you’ve claimed to kn...

Believe it or not, I wasn’t interested in having this type of argument. If there’s a clear objection to the argument in my original post, I would love...

And so the absurdity of your premise 2 was actually my point, you’ve made it again for me.

So it’s actually a paradox, right?