Is there such a thing as a 'fact'?

[Mark1955]

What is an error if not a discrepancy between the information obtained and the facts of the matter?

OK on this basis then there are facts but you may never know them. If you choose to believe there is an underlying 'reality' that you observe then facts are useless because they are not what we see, hear etc.

[Fooloso4]

Mark1955:

OK on this basis then there are facts but you may never know them.

I have no doubt that there are facts that I know nothing of.

If you choose to believe there is an underlying 'reality' that you observe …

This is not something I believe, and I do not think that is simply a matter of choice. It makes no sense to posit an “underlying ‘reality’” and I have no experience of such an observation.

… then facts are useless because they are not what we see, hear etc.

The establishment of facts is based on what is observed, an underlying reality is not. You can choose to ignore the facts but there may be unfortunate consequences. If I tell you not to touch the stove because it is hot, you might quibble and point out that ‘hot’ is an imprecise term, but if you think this is sufficient reason to ignore the warning you might end up getting burned.

[Sy Borg]

But for most of human existence the cosmos revolved around the earth, for millennia you would have been, at best, laughed at for what you are saying. One day we may find out how to go to all these heavenly bodies because E does not = mc2, and we may then discover that all our observations based on e=mc2 to work out distances, sizes etc. was completed hokum. History is littered with evidence of the facts the human race knew that we now think is rubbish, so how can you tell that any fact that you think you know now won't be rubbish in a 100 years time?

That doesn't change the fact of their existence, no matter what we might believe them to be.

Cosmic bodies are hard facts. You might think the Earth is flat but you can't deny its existence. It doesn't matter if you think the Moon is made of cheese or that the Sun is the god, Ra, they remain undeniably existent. As I say, they are far more solidly "present" in reality than we are.

[Present awareness]

There are no facts, and that's a fact!

[Sy Borg]

There are no facts, and that's a fact!

So the existence of stars, planets and moons is a figment of our imagination?

[Whitedragon]

Greta said: “So the existence of stars, planets and moons is a figment of our imagination?”

No, they are not a figment of our imagination, but our perception of them is not the same as other beings, which does not necessarily lend us superiority. Different perceptions do not only vary in quality, but also different perceptions perceive different important information of the same thing.

But to say there are no facts is incorrect, there is only different perceptions; a more complete perception will unfold more of the same thing, combining and filtering noise so more accurate facts can take shape. I am sure we only perceive in part. Maybe that is the lesson of this thread ?

[Present awareness]

My statement is a contradiction. If it is a fact that there are no facts, then there is at lest one fact, which makes the statement wrong. Contradictions are the things which make life interesting.

[Mark1955]

That doesn't change the fact of their existence, no matter what we might believe them to be.

Cosmic bodies are hard facts. You might think the Earth is flat but you can't deny its existence. It doesn't matter if you think the Moon is made of cheese or that the Sun is the god, Ra, they remain undeniably existent. As I say, they are far more solidly "present" in reality than we are.

If all our beliefs are based on our sensory input and we know our senses can be wrong; inaccurate, ignoring what we don't want to see and seeing what we want to; then we cannot be certain of anything we sense. So all 'facts' are only 'our best observations to date'.

I think it is highly likely that there is what I described above as 'an underlying reality' behind our imperfect sensory input [I can't prove it but it seems more likely than not. The idea that my world is all a figment of my imagination is not a good hypothesis in view of the fairly negative view I have of what goes on in the world.]

-- Updated 12 Aug 2015 19:30 to add the following --

My statement is a contradiction. If it is a fact that there are no facts, then there is at lest one fact, which makes the statement wrong. Contradictions are the things which make life interesting.

I think your original statement is only a contradictory statement, unless the definition of a fact is "what I say it is".

[Sy Borg]

My statement is a contradiction. If it is a fact that there are no facts, then there is at lest one fact, which makes the statement wrong. Contradictions are the things which make life interesting.

sorry. It sailed right over my head.

-- Updated 12 Aug 2015, 17:46 to add the following --

That doesn't change the fact of their existence, no matter what we might believe them to be.

Cosmic bodies are hard facts. You might think the Earth is flat but you can't deny its existence. It doesn't matter if you think the Moon is made of cheese or that the Sun is the god, Ra, they remain undeniably existent. As I say, they are far more solidly "present" in reality than we are.

If all our beliefs are based on our sensory input and we know our senses can be wrong; inaccurate, ignoring what we don't want to see and seeing what we want to; then we cannot be certain of anything we sense. So all 'facts' are only 'our best observations to date'.

I think it is highly likely that there is what I described above as 'an underlying reality' behind our imperfect sensory input [I can't prove it but it seems more likely than not. The idea that my world is all a figment of my imagination is not a good hypothesis in view of the fairly negative view I have of what goes on in the world.]

I often favour agnosticism but cosmic bodies are so substantial and fundamental that I think we have to treat them as a different level of reality, undeniably present in their effects regardless of observation or senses.

Everything else is up for grabs but the existence of the Earth, Sun, Moon and other cosmic bodies are undeniable facts. I doubt there is a logical argument against this.

[Mark1955]

I often favour agnosticism but cosmic bodies are so substantial and fundamental that I think we have to treat them as a different level of reality, undeniably present in their effects regardless of observation or senses.

Everything else is up for grabs but the existence of the Earth, Sun, Moon and other cosmic bodies are undeniable facts. I doubt there is a logical argument against this.

So you're a cosmotheist not an agnostic.

[Sy Borg]

I often favour agnosticism but cosmic bodies are so substantial and fundamental that I think we have to treat them as a different level of reality, undeniably present in their effects regardless of observation or senses.

Everything else is up for grabs but the existence of the Earth, Sun, Moon and other cosmic bodies are undeniable facts. I doubt there is a logical argument against this.

So you're a cosmotheist not an agnostic.

I consider myself more aligned with the agnost-panenth-hylozo-Spinozist school of existential confusion, which I coincidentally started last week and currently has a membership of almost one. I would have asked you to join but since we regularly disagree, I figured you wouldn't be too keen.

Still, there's a serious point to be made. We try to treat all physical entities as fundamentally the same and determine relativities but they simply are not. Cosmic bodies are massive beyond our mind's ability to comprehend and they last for billions of years. They were around long before we turned up and most likely will be present when biological life is long gone. If you are caught in the gravitational or radiation field of a cosmic body then it doesn't much matter what your senses are.

If we are looking for solid philosophical ground we could do worse than to treat the reality of our planet, the Sun and the Moon as solid facts and build a schema from there.

[Mark1955]

So you're a cosmotheist not an agnostic.

I consider myself more aligned with the agnost-panenth-hylozo-Spinozist school of existential confusion, which I coincidentally started last week and currently has a membership of almost one. I would have asked you to join but since we regularly disagree, I figured you wouldn't be too keen.

I've been told I'm a militant agnostic, but I'm not keen on labels.

Still, there's a serious point to be made. We try to treat all physical entities as fundamentally the same and determine relativities but they simply are not. Cosmic bodies are massive beyond our mind's ability to comprehend and they last for billions of years. They were around long before we turned up and most likely will be present when biological life is long gone. If you are caught in the gravitational or radiation field of a cosmic body then it doesn't much matter what your senses are.

If we are looking for solid philosophical ground we could do worse than to treat the reality of our planet, the Sun and the Moon as solid facts and build a schema from there.

[/quote]
I'm not looking for anything solid because as I've explained above I don't think think anything is more than the impression of solidity.

-- Updated 13 Aug 2015 17:05 to add the following --

I consider myself more aligned with the agnost-panenth-hylozo-Spinozist school of existential confusion, which I coincidentally started last week and currently has a membership of almost one. I would have asked you to join but since we regularly disagree, I figured you wouldn't be too keen.

I've been told I'm a militant agnostic, but I'm not keen on labels.

Still, there's a serious point to be made. We try to treat all physical entities as fundamentally the same and determine relativities but they simply are not. Cosmic bodies are massive beyond our mind's ability to comprehend and they last for billions of years. They were around long before we turned up and most likely will be present when biological life is long gone. If you are caught in the gravitational or radiation field of a cosmic body then it doesn't much matter what your senses are.

If we are looking for solid philosophical ground we could do worse than to treat the reality of our planet, the Sun and the Moon as solid facts and build a schema from there.

I'm not looking for anything solid because as I've explained above I don't think think anything is more than the impression of solidity.

[Sy Borg]

If we are looking for solid philosophical ground we could do worse than to treat the reality of our planet, the Sun and the Moon as solid facts and build a schema from there.

I'm not looking for anything solid because as I've explained above I don't think think anything is more than the impression of solidity.

In what circumstance is the existence of the Sun, Earth and Moon not a solid fact?

[Lagayscienza]

[quote=Mark1955]I'm not looking for anything solid because as I've explained above I don't think think anything is more than the impression of solidity.[/quote]

And what is "the impression of solidity"?

Jump off a high building onto a concrete carpark and I think you would be impressed by its solidity.

[Mark1955]

I'm not looking for anything solid because as I've explained above I don't think think anything is more than the impression of solidity.

And what is "the impression of solidity"?

Jump off a high building onto a concrete car park and I think you would be impressed by its solidity.

I strongly suspect you're correct using all the meanings of the word impressed, so strongly that I'm not willing to try it voluntarily, but suppose that someone blew a hole in the car park just as I jumped, I'd probably still suffer a lot of injury but it wouldn't be from the solid car park.

Yesterday I had a stroke and couldn't make myself heard by my wife so I couldn't warn her that there was broken glass on the floor, then I woke up. Maybe when I die I'll discover life was just some sort of, to me at present inexplicable, dream.

The impression of solidity is my senses telling me something is solid, but I've known my senses be wrong so often I cannot as a philosophical principle claim that what I sense is a fact. It's not as thought I'm the first to make this claim.

-- Updated 14 Aug 2015 10:24 to add the following --

In what circumstance is the existence of the Sun, Earth and Moon not a solid fact?

In all the circumstances where I see what I want to see despite the fact it isn't what other people see.

Just think for how long the sun went round the earth, now we think that's just stupid bunkum, for hundreds of years that was solid fact.