TeacherOfPhilosophy

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
Philosophy
logiczombie
intp
Information War

Posts

Total: 133
#31
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
Your question assumes all unknowns are counterintuitive.
To being part of facts. 

Merely by my reference to geo- and heliocentrism, you are shown two cases of unknowns that were intuitive once known; intuitively false.
Would you have considered them to be factual without evidence? Or do you actually need data backing a claim to come anywhere near approaching a fact?

How would you know about other unknowns unless they are not unknown? Unknown means, well, isn't it self-evident? 
Don't ask me. Ask Someone for whom there are no unknowns
Like I’ve said, a fact exists regardless of unknowns. You said the opposite. You said “unknowns must also apply.”
It’s almost as if you’re refuting your own claim.

I’ll ask again. Can you please give me an example of a fact which consists of unknowns?



#32
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
The misinterpretation and misuse of words, or straying form formal definition is  commonplace.

Primarily, a fact is a known truth.

Though we have the ability to assume that there are unknown facts.

And a string of factors that make up a statement can be incorrectly regarded as being a fact...Such as, the Cat sat on the mat wearing a hat whilst, eating a Rat.



We assume that External reality is.....And internal data processing, though amazing, is inconsistent. 


#33
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Your argument of logical necessity is merely a convenient personal limitation to prevent the personal stretch of what you do not believe because you cannot empirically demonstrate what you do not believe. But who said you are limited to only five senses to demonstrate logical and necessary evidence?  Argue for your limitations; they're yours.

If I have forgotten anything? Premature questions are kind of like premature efactulation. Patience. All will be restored in due time, but not by your clock.
#34
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
So  you want to use objective correlative
All that precedes this comment is descriptive of the current chaos of the human brain. It will not always be so just because that is currently descriptive. When it is perfectly organized, as all things must ultimately be, then currency no longer endures as is. Eternity is a such a  long time, it is no longer measured by a clock. There will be no clock. Perfection is the ultimate consequence. Then, your descriptive is no longer and all is restored to its perfection.

As conceived by Washington Allston? No, and not even as further explored by TS Eliot, or George Santayana. No, as perceived by Ani, the resilient scribe of The Egyptian Book of the Dead, on scrolled papyrus in the nineteenth new kingdom dynasty [13th century BCE], transliterated from temple wall texts dating from old kingdom 27th century BCE],  in which languages I am fluent.
#35
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
It’s almost as if you’re refuting your own claim.
Go ahead and ask again. The answer will be the same. There are facts not yet in evidence among things which are unknown. How do I demonstrate that which is unknown? As I said, it's self-evident. If something is known, it is known to be fact, or it is folly. the unknown has no such distinction. Therefore, it cannot be demonstrated. But the fact remains that among things unknown there are facts. Otherwise, the joke that the Patent Office pulled in 1899 that the office would close as of 1900 because all things had already been invented would have been a sad truth.
#36
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
The misinterpretation and misuse of words, or straying form formal definition is commonplace.
Truth: the quality or state of being true

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true

Do you agree with the definitions? If so...
 
Primarily, a fact is a known truth.

Though we have the ability to assume that there are unknown facts.
Wrong. It’s self-evident by the definitions. But would you like me to clarify just in case?
 

#37
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you agree with the above definitions? 

Topic's author
#38
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Reece101
Merely by my reference to geo- and heliocentrism, you are shown two cases of unknowns that were intuitive once known; intuitively false.
Would you have considered them to be factual without evidence? Or do you actually need data backing a claim to come anywhere near approaching a fact?
Good point.

It seems that @fauxlaw is actually suggesting that the COMMON definition of FACT is "not rigorous enough".

Topic's author
#39
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
There are facts not yet in evidence among things which are unknown.
Nobody is suggesting otherwise.

There may be any number of "undiscovered facts".

But we can't declare any SPECIFIC CLAIM "is a fact" UNTIL IT IS SHOWN TO BE either empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary.
Topic's author
#40
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Your argument of logical necessity is merely a convenient personal limitation to prevent the personal stretch of what you do not believe because you cannot empirically demonstrate what you do not believe.
I didn't invent the concept of logical-necessity.

Please attempt to address the arguments themselves and avoid ad hominem attacks.
Topic's author
#41
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Though we have the ability to assume that there are unknown facts.
Nobody is suggesting otherwise.

There may be any number of "undiscovered facts".

But we can't declare any SPECIFIC CLAIM "is a fact" UNTIL IT IS SHOWN TO BE either empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary.
Topic's author
#42
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Reece101
I’ll ask again. Can you please give me an example of a fact which consists of unknowns?
Well stated.
#43
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Thanks although we’re not entirely on the same page.


#44
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Reece101
I’ll ask again. Can you please give me an example of a fact which consists of unknowns?
  I havent been reading this thread so forgive me if Im just completely missing the mark, but when we shoot photons at glass, for every 100, between 0 and 16 of them reflect. The percent of reflection depends on the thickness of the glass.  This is factual, But it is completely unknown how or which photons will reflect.
#45
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
...and or logically-necessary.
  I'm not sure I agree that something that is logically necessary is a fact. Could you perhaps elaborate
Topic's author
#46
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sum1hugme
I'm not sure I agree that something that is logically necessary is a fact. Could you perhaps elaborate
Your grandmother had at least one genetic mother and at least one genetic father.  This is a FACT.

This FACT is NOT (necessarily) empirically demonstrable, but it is LOGICALLY-NECESSARY.
Topic's author
#47
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sum1hugme
This is factual, But it is completely unknown how or which photons will reflect.
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
#48
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
I think the ontological argument for god is a good example. I think it's logically sound, but it doesn't make gods existence a fact by any means
Topic's author
#49
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sum1hugme
I think the ontological argument for bigfootlochnessspacealiens is a good example. I think it's logically sound, but it doesn't make bigfootlochnessspacealiens existence a fact by any means
#50
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Exactly.
Topic's author
#51
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sum1hugme
I think the ontological argument for god is a good example. I think it's logically sound, but it doesn't make gods existence a fact by any means
Do you perhaps mean "logically valid" and not "logically sound"?
#52
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Sum1hugme
I should have worded it the same as my original question. 
My bad.

Original question: Can you please give me an example of a fact that applies unknowns?
“Apply” is the common word fauxlaw and I used which we agreed on.

My argument is “a fact exists regardless of unknowns.”
While fauxlaw argues that “unknowns must also apply.”

Now in regards to your inquest... unknown variations don’t create a fact, known ones do, correct? 

#53
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not sure of the difference between the two 
#54
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Reece101
Well the variation is perfectly known, 0-16% reflection. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding "apply".
Topic's author
#55
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sum1hugme
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. [**]
#56
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well the variation is perfectly known, 0-16% reflection.
Variation is an ambiguous word. It isn’t just to do with certain percentages.
But I’m not sure how that refutes my statement if at all.

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding "apply".
I suppose we’ll first need to agree on what the definition of a fact is.

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Do you agree? If so, it’s safe to say a fact is knowledge/evidence based. 
There for facts exist irrespective of unknowns (unknowns do not apply). Correct?
 

#57
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
I'm fully aware of the words "truth" and "fact" and the definitions thereof.

But did you also take into account every other pertinent definition. Such as assume, ability and unknown.

You're breaking  statements down into their component parts and scrutinizing components separately, rather that scrutinizing the whole.

This becomes a lexical semantics argument, rather than a philosophical argument.
#58
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
As I recall you were the first to bring attention to definitions.
I have no problem with it, but suddenly you do?
Besides, it’s important to build a common understanding.
Don’t be a hypocrite. 

#59
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
"Hypocrite"...Poor choice of words, in these circumstances.
#60
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
If you have nothing of substance to say the easiest thing to do is stop responding.
I have given my logic in each post I’ve made here, unlike you.
Just stop if you have nothing else to say.