The idea that there's no such thing as facts is anti-intellectual bullshit. If you can empirically establish the truth of a particular assertion, it's a fact. A fact is just a truth claim that's objectively true. If I say it's 50°F outside, that's not an opinion. I can look at a thermometer and verify that it is, in fact, 50°F. In that moment, the claim that it's 50°F is an objective fact. Facts exist, and their truth forms the basis of our understanding of reality. People who claim there's no such thing as objective truth are either ignorant of what they're talking about, or they're dishonest and pushing an agenda.
Discussion
💯
I see some of that here and it’s quite boring. Anti-intellectual bs.
I can verify by observation that the sun does, in fact, revolve around the Earth.
People can get mad and assert that my empirical observation does not mean what it looks like.
Their assertion is correct from a particular frame of reference, but so is mine.
Many disagreements are of this nature. See Sir Thomas Kuhn's little book for famous examples.
Other disagreements are where one side is dogmatic and faith-based. Those ought to be approached with observation and possibly experiment.
It doesn't matter if someone is dogmatic and faith based. Either what they're claiming is true or it's not. And just because there are people who "disagree" and the truth of a fact doesn't mean the jury is out. All that shit exists seperately from the objective truth of an assertion.
Have a read of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and then see if you still believe that! :D
There are no facts. Only observation and hypothesis. Some hypotheses are better supported by evidence than others. Those we call theories, and accept as provisionally true. Any other approach is inherently dogmatic.
I don't really care what some book says on the topic. There's nothing anyone can say to refute what I'm saying. Because what I'm saying is objectively true and not subject to different beliefs and perspectives.
Bro, but it’s in a book! 🤣
Jk…
You were complaining about anti-intellectuals just now, right? :D
You know exactly what he means or … maybe you don’t? 🤷♂️ in which case I dgaf 🤣
Entertaining nonsense isn't the mark or an intellectual. Just because that nonsense is in a book doesn't give it validity. There are lots of books that are pure rubbish. This is exactly the sort of fallacious reasoning I'm talking about. It's ignorance masquerading as wisdom.
Dismissing nonsense using evidence and logic is the mark of an intellectual.
And so is being mindful that one many be wrong, or at least no more correct than another.
Non-intellectuals resort to assertions, fallacies, and Community Notes.
Do I have be mindful that maybe 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4? Or is that absurd? And if someone wrote a book making that claim, would I have to suspend judgement until I thoroughly investigated their argument? No! Because there is no argument that ends with the notion of 2+2 equaling anything other than 4.
2 + 2 equals 4 by definition, for the set of real numbers.
There are other mathematical domains where addition has different properties. Some of these are useful, and used in cryptography.
I could argue: 2+2=4 is only an anlogy that works in our macroscopic observable world. Numbers are just an invention of humans to describe what say are observing. But in a quantum world where everything is uncertain (to our minds) we actually don’t know if terms like this make really sense.
The problem is, there is no way to proof that 2+2=4. But the fact we haven’t found a way to proof it wrong makes it a very likely assumption.
Actually in the very basis it’s „not even wrong“
My hot take on this:
Observation and hypotheses support a fact.
A fact then exists until observation and hypotheses disprove the fact in a robust replicable, and rational scientific manner (generally by people far more educated than me).
Until then a fact is a fact.
Beliefs do not come into this argument.
Beliefs are based on attitudes and thoughts. Our thoughts are limitless and not bound by science, or even right and wrong. (For example I think I look great dancing… factually that is unlikely to be the case especially if I have been drinking alcohol)
Philosophically speaking there is no single truth, there are no simple facts and everything can exist everywhere all at once based on arguments and theories, including the possibility that we could be living in a universe that resides in a God’s navel. (Also potentially true of quantum mechanics and someone more knowledgeable on the subject than me, may have a much more eloquent view. Ditto re philosophy, and the scientific method).
I wasn’t expecting this kind of discussion when I Nostr’ed today but I’m here for it!! 🤩
That’s the great thing about nostr. It is what people are doing with it, so it can be anything. News, memes, philosophy….
I see it a bit critical to say sth is a fact until someone proofs it’s not. That would mean the definition of a fact is just the best assumption we have.
But I guess most people understand a fact as something that is 100% true.
So this could cause a lot of misunderstanding.
Sure this is just a discussion about naming/definition. Anyhow I am avoiding the word fact in general.
I would say we can‘t find THE truth (e.g. we could still live in a simulation) but we can find facts according to specific assumptions.
And some assumptions are so deep connected to our society that we don‘t even mention these assumptions.
That’s why in sience it is common to use sayings like „according to einsteins theory of relativitiy“
You're misusing "anti-intellectual" to support your fallacious arguments. It doesn't mean what you're implying. Please, just stop with crap. There's no reason to continue arguing this novel idea. You're not going to present a case that compells me to reconsider the notion of objective truth. So, there's no point in continuing.
I think there's some nuance, most things have a truth, some things have an opinion.
Energy is a truth, Beliefs are an opinion.
Somewhere between those two everything else conflates.
You're conflating a bunch of different things, and engaging in fallacious reasoning to support the idea the facts depend on what different people believe.
Thanks for arguing this so I don’t have to 🤣
I don’t have every for bullshit.
Point out the fallacious reasoning, my friend :p
I'm done with this conversation. I've said all there is to. You apparently not subscribe to the concept of objective truth, which is your prerogative. But I'm not going entertain it. Let's just say we agree to disagree on this subject.
But it's true: "facts" do depend on what you believe.
For example, you believe that a fact is immutable and cannot be proven wrong, whereas on this conversation many other people repeatedly told you that it depends on the context and the convictions of the people.
Even your temperature case was discredited. Who validate your observation of temperature, why should we believe you? Is the thermometer really working well, what are other thermometers recording?
So yes, you present a "fact" but doesn't really present a full picture and governments often cherry pick biased facts to convey their own interests.
Lol what?
There's no hard facts chief. Those hard facts you claim was reached from consensus that's defined over centuries. 50F has little to no bearing to anyone using the metric system. .
These are not hard facts. Even physics "hard facts" likBbe Gravity is reached by consensus. Newton didn't come out swinging with facts.
That's just not how "facts work"
That's like saying there's only one truth. Even science has consensus, not these so called hard facts you claim.
What's intellectual bullshit is you not understanding this. Even community notes are consensus public facing so that "fact" can be reached via community consensus.
Did you know that 50 degrees F has an equivalent in other measuring systems?
Did you also know that Celsius is meant to measure water temp and Fahrenheit is meant for gas temperatures?
The Theory of Gravity was accepted because of the large amount of data it explains.
How can there be more than one truth? Water freezes at sea level at 0 Celsius, but also at 20 celsius?