Ranvier wrote:I'd say that most, if not all facts, could be argued in a crafty way to be just opinions.
To Murphy's law books, edited and published in the early seventies, someone sent in the "Physics of Knowledge"
- Facts are solidified opinions
- Facts weaken under extreme heat and pressure
- truth is elastic.
I thought at the time that this was brilliant. I still think so. (AND it wasn't even ME who penned it originally. Imagine.)
I think the seventies were freer, they had creative sciences and philosophy meld better with each other then than they do today. Today we are all straight-faced, cut-and-dried, rigorously behaving, philosophically apartheid(*) robots.
(*) Meaning we don't mingle or allow to come into our realms those who are different by colour of belief.
I think it all boils down to the Sexual Revolution being over. We all had a smile on our faces; now everyone is glum, bum, drum, and faithfoul to their spouses, AND make it believe that it's a virtue.
-- Updated 2017 March 16th, 11:37 am to add the following --
Dolphin42 wrote:Does anybody here strongly agree or disagree that this kind of context is relevant to a judicial decision like this?
I don't think there had been an immigration ban on Muslims before. ("this kind of context.")
I don't think there had been a context on muslims before at all.
I don't think the judicial system is where it's at.
How close do you mean to be to "this kind"? Philosophically speaking it's like asking how long is a string. You can be close, you can be far, but there is always farther away then far, and there is always (sometimes) closer than close.
So please specify the outer limit of how far away you want to include judicial decisions to be similar to this. Within half a mile? Within five kilograms? within twenty-five parsecs per fortnight?
-- Updated 2017 March 16th, 11:48 am to add the following --
Dolphin42 wrote:The reason for choosing the number 3 stems ultimately from the Roman Republic, and from there through Enlightenment Europe via European colonialism to other parts of the world, such as the USA and Australia.
The Three actually comes from the rock-scissors-paper game of chance. I ain't kiddin'.
Parliament makes rules to be applied by the courts.
The courts apply the laws to regulate the people (including corporate bodies.)
The people elect the parliament.
Parliament can't jail people, and the judiciary (ideally) can't revise the parliament's decisions, even as much as rejecting them as valid or accepting them. People can't tell the judiciary to suspend or alter a law.
This is where the rock-scissor-paper analogy fails. Because in the USA, the judges can throw a parliamentary (created by the congress and the senate) law out, while in the rock-scissor-paper game scissors can't cut a rock.
This is actually the biggest flaw in the system, and it has been duly criticized for it over and over throughout the ages.
-- Updated 2017 March 16th, 12:01 pm to add the following --
Syamsu wrote:Intellectually there is a clear cut distinction between fact and opinion, I wonder if you know what it is.
Lark, don't go in there! It's a trap!
Lark_Truth wrote:I agree, fact is truth and is always right, while opinion may be true for certain individuals but depends on the perspective of them and others to be determined right and wrong.
Syamsu wrote:That's not it.
And certainly the majority of proposed facts are false.
So what IS the clear cut distinction between fact and opinion, pray tell us, Syamsu.
Plus, you altered your own question to suit your answer; you asked what facts were, and then you switched to talking about proposed facts. The two are not the same, not even close. But you made a comparison based on what something is not. A mix of equivocation fallacy with a strawman thrown in for good measure.
So please stick to the facts, I beg of you. What IS the clear cut distinction between fact and opinion?
(Beware of Plato / Socrates, please, Syamsu, and of the post-modernist, post-structuralist, post-normativist, post-naturalist neo-Neanderthals.)
-- Updated 2017 March 16th, 12:17 pm to add the following --
Rr6 wrote:Fact } there can exist only 5 regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe, or any alleged multiverse scenarios.
Opinion } the above appears to be an absolute truth.
Your fact is wrong. If you meant your "/" to mean "or" which is the usual and customary meaning of it.
There are an infinite number of symmetrical polyhedra in the universe. ("Of" the universe? What do you mean? But better still, please don't explain.)
I never counted them, but I shan't contest your claim, that there are 5 regular polyhedra in the universe.