Guide wrote:{Low pigs of no sense such as "Meno" and "Mr. Reasonable" need not answer, please.}
The word fact is rather of recent origin, as is the European science. Whatever one says, it does seem the general opinion admits the greatness of the Eruopean, now the planatary science, because everyone tries to argue by backing themselves up with testable regularities, i.e., with so-called facts. The older word was truthing and truths. Truth, of course, has fallen on evil days.
MagsJ wrote:Guide wrote:The word fact is rather of recent origin, as is the European science. Whatever one says, it does seem the general opinion admits the greatness of the Eruopean, now the planatary science, because everyone tries to argue by backing themselves up with testable regularities, i.e., with so-called facts. The older word was truthing and truths. Truth, of course, has fallen on evil days.
Does changing the label change the meaning? i.e. fact/truth..
attano wrote:MagsJ wrote:Guide wrote:The word fact is rather of recent origin, as is the European science. Whatever one says, it does seem the general opinion admits the greatness of the Eruopean, now the planatary science, because everyone tries to argue by backing themselves up with testable regularities, i.e., with so-called facts. The older word was truthing and truths. Truth, of course, has fallen on evil days.
Does changing the label change the meaning? i.e. fact/truth..
I am not certain about what the OP actually means, yet I suppose that Guide is implying something different, which is indeed related to meaning.
It could be that truth used to provide a 'meaning', while facts don't, not the same kind of meaning, at least.
Science does not provide 'meaning' either. Yet, as facts are basically fiction and are rooted in interpretations, science provide an interpretation that can be, more or less directly, confuted.
Jakob wrote:The question is rather which type of reality it is that scientific facts make evident.
Jakob wrote:There are different approaches to the world that all have their class of facts. [...] But they dont apply everywhere, because they require a great precision.
Jakob wrote:Scientific facts are very tyrannical. [...] Note that by "fact" I do not mean "law".
Laws are consistencies in the appearance of certain classes of facts with respect to each other. So not all situations lend themselves for facts to be used to derive laws. Many situations are quite lawless, at least in how one has to approach them.
At CERN one even seeks to create a lawless state to discern isolated properties.
attano wrote:Jakob wrote:There are different approaches to the world that all have their class of facts. [...] But they dont apply everywhere, because they require a great precision.
Yes. This is probably what some would call 'regional ontologies'. Still I guess they share that a common methodology, which definitely implies a great precision, but before that it's about discerning what may allow this precision to take place.
attano wrote:MagsJ wrote:Guide wrote:The word fact is rather of recent origin, as is the European science. Whatever one says, it does seem the general opinion admits the greatness of the Eruopean, now the planatary science, because everyone tries to argue by backing themselves up with testable regularities, i.e., with so-called facts. The older word was truthing and truths. Truth, of course, has fallen on evil days.
Does changing the label change the meaning? i.e. fact/truth..
I am not certain about what the OP actually means, yet I suppose that Guide is implying something different, which is indeed related to meaning.
It could be that truth used to provide a 'meaning', while facts don't, not the same kind of meaning, at least.
Science does not provide 'meaning' either. Yet, as facts are basically fiction and are rooted in interpretations, science provide an interpretation that can be, more or less directly, confuted.
Antithesis wrote:Actually, European science (or the empirical, systematic study of nature) goes all the way back to at least classical antiquity (although its methods underwent some refinement during the renaissance and enlightenment era), so it's rather old, and so is the word fact.
Jakob wrote:I mean that seeking scientific correspondences is a type of culture, and this culture once it takes hold of a world is very hard to ignore. Whereas a world of say poetic correspondences is also a type of culture, but it is much harder for it to exclude other forms, as it is naturally hospitable to open ended ideas.
This relates to the case that poetry tends to convey meaning whereas science does not. Not unless exactitude itself is experienced as meaningful - which is actually very much the case. This, again, is that cultural aspect, of value judgments actually being very pertinent to science.
Does changing the label change the meaning? i.e. fact/truth..
Guide wrote:Truthing, telling the truth, was never a scientific statement. One tells the truth, for instance, when one says one's opinion truly. Opinion was not set off against "facts" (which always in former times meant acts or deeds) until quite recently.
attano wrote:Guide wrote:Truthing, telling the truth, was never a scientific statement. One tells the truth, for instance, when one says one's opinion truly. Opinion was not set off against "facts" (which always in former times meant acts or deeds) until quite recently.
Probably Gorgias would argue that's not so recent, after all - but that's not relevant.
I guess we can agree that it is not because I say that I state the truth that it makes it truthful.
So, what is it, exactly, "when one says one's opinion truly"?
No. There is no theory of facts in antiquity. Or, of "neutral" / "objective" truth. Gorgias understands rhetoric (or what he teaches) to improve human beings. Underlying this is the naive view that truth must be good. Never was the view that truth is good challenged in antiquity or even imagined as a question at least until Lucretius, and there only half consciously. As, much later, Nietsche finally said it, the truth might be deadly (leaving out the "might be", in his statement: truth is deadly)."Probably Gorgias would argue that's not so recent, after all - but that's not relevant."
surreptitious75 wrote:To be absolutely pedantic science does not deal in truth or reality which are philosophical terms
All science deals in is observable phenomena and their properties / capabilities and nothing else
"To be absolutely pedantic science does not deal in truth or reality which are philosophical terms
All science deals in is observable phenomena and their properties / capabilities and nothing else"
Guide wrote:No. There is no theory of facts in antiquity.
Guide wrote:[...] Gorgias understands rhetoric (or what he teaches) to improve human beings. Underlying this is the naive view that truth must be good. Never was the view that truth is good challenged in antiquity or even imagined as a question at least until Lucretius, and there only half consciously. As, much later, Nietsche finally said it, the truth might be deadly (leaving out the "might be", in his statement: truth is deadly).
first, and to begin with, that nothing exists;
second, that even if there is something, man can not know it;
third, that even if it can be known, it can not be formulated or explained to others.
Guide wrote:A specific theory of un-concealment in the Greek aletheia, appears in the Gorgias, aletheia translated: truth. Our word truth is not "un-concealment" (e.g., of the good). For us, truth is tacitly thought as "neutral", e.g., scientific in the modern sense of true or valid outside of (mere human) thought. For the Greeks, truth means the same as "inside" human thought (at least thinking it backwards from ourselves), perfection of the "unconcealed" as human truth. The Greeks assume the world exists for, essentially concerns, humans.
"Guide wrote:
No. There is no theory of facts in antiquity.
Is there a “theory of facts”? I did not know that. It should be interesting. Is it something like how a set of loose observations comes to constitute a ‘fact’? Would you expand on this, please? I suspect it must be very recent, as you have insisted on that. How recent? When was it started? Any reference you can point me to?"
attano wrote:Is there a “theory of facts”? I did not know that. It should be interesting. Is it something like how a set of loose observations comes to constitute a ‘fact’? Would you expand on this, please?
"1. there are no facts, only interpretations"
"A fact is given by consensus.
Science does not produce facts but truths, which are given in (not by) experience."
The overgrowth of description by way of meaning is the inescapable result of searching meaning by usage.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]