Guide wrote:"A fact is given by consensus.
Science does not produce facts but truths, which are given in (not by) experience."
Give a example.
Facts are definitions of
shared attributes:
I am such and such a person, because so many people have set opinion about me, irrespective of what I think of myself. How do I know? Because people have said the same thing to my face. Sure, I can deny it, but the FACT is, it wouldn't make sense for me to think that.
The fact is, I would like to think otherwise, and so, I'd rather find a mirror which would be more conducive to produce a more suitable image more apt to represent my own desired self image than the one gathered by the consensus. The meaning of this difference is such that:
It is my opinion that I appear more like I would like to, rather then how others describe how I appear to them. (not personally, but par example)
Description is logically more tied to consensus. of set notions then the construction of the self through recomposition of abstracted elements.
Why? Because our self image usually selects desirable parts, and not ones which recompose from decomposed parts.
Opinion and facts are most striking in and through this difference between new and set usage of perceived and / or known parts, where usage, perception, and consensus are all related and formulated. They never were intended to be differentiated in sets of reified content, the whole object of Nietzsche's studies into unearthing meaning had that attribute in mind.
Though what You are suggesting may implicate a subtlety, which consists oi the effect of seeing images in mirrors which are again are reflective in other images . This may implicate a reduction of phenomena limited only to a perceptual limit.
Set theory can understand this abysmal possibility , but perception can not, so that the next logical link will be based on the idea of l determinancy based on expectation.
I chose the self, as the best example to this query, because it is the paradigm search for a general search to the question of the difference between opinion and fact. The basic mechanism is one of representing the most common attributes which construct it, and such construction. furthers applicability of inferring other objects of perception. All objects will transform into perceptions of fact once its repeated into some formal arrangement.
Generally, though, the proposition stands without a need for a deconstruction because the reconsruction does not entail a need for it.
Other practical derivatives, such as certain mathematical formulas , have been thought with the idea, that for practical purposes it is enough to learn once how to derive them, usage need not require a constant need for it.
Nowadays, computer function makes this clear, where use and derivation of process totally negates the possibility of deriving language from function. It would be a total countereffective waste of time.
But less generally, accountability between the facts and opinions gears down to the question of when the opinions set in as facts?
In larger sets, at what point do determining the exact number of parts within that set become determined more accurately as the set becomes smaller?
It is easier to account for 12 members in a set then in a set of 1000. At what point does determinancy become less certain in any set?
Or in other words, in a roomful of people , how can one participant try to determine the outcome of dissension or cohesion within the group , given the knowledge of their behavior? The task becomes more need of consensual interaction as the numbers go up, and t he task becomes more undetermined. Reliance on other perceptions becomes more necessary, and here is where the contradiction. starts to appear, between the necessity of determination and the reliance for other's view of facts surfaces.
The very.contradiction. between necessity of inducing more Preception. Into perception and vica versa. The induction of higher symbolic rhetoric into description.
At what t point does opinion turn indeterminate using old symbolic representation? When there is a breakdown in the overall opinion toward the considered objects and objectives . at the point where the objectives can not be approximated as intended. Where self determination may overcome set limits of possible effects of foreseeable determinants in causation.
In other words, based on an eidectoc reduction, phenomenal reality reduced to its factual essences per intuitive processes.