Journal Chacham's Journal: Philosophical: Actual Fact as opposed to Believed Fact 18
I was wondering what fact was. I came to the realization that people rely on their senses. But those can never be proven to be factual. But people rely on them. Why? Because it makes sense.
Thus, the general definition of fact, it that which makes sense. But makes sense to one person may not to another. So, it would have to be a universally agreed upon opinion. But, that's nearly impossible. So, it would have to be the plausible to the majority of people. But fact is many times not plausible to anyone (even if they believe it to be true). So, that leads to
The problem is, that is not what people believe fact to mean. So, (IIRC) one day I was driving, I saw my younger brother, I rolled down the window and asked him, "what is fact?" He replied, "that which is". *Poof* I was enlightened.
So, fact is what is. But, noone can *prove* that what they believe to be fact is acutally fact. The proof for that is that many people believe incorrect things. And if you'll say, "they're in the minority", I'll reply, "so the majority defines that which is?"
That leads to two forms of fact. Actual Fact, or that which (actually) is. And Believed Fact, or that which is believed to be fact. (Until now I personally, have been using the terms "Real Truth" and "Human Truth", but I am open on that.)
Actual Fact can be known, but people don't know that it is known. Unless "know" is in quotes, but that is belief anyway.
Believed Fact is per person. And Believed Fact may also be Actual Fact, but that cannot be known.
Hmm...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But what about reality? (Score:2)
Personally, I try to learn as much as possible that my Believed Reality may coincide with the Actual as much as possible.
Nice topic, Chacham!
Re:But what about reality? (Score:2)
Thanx.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But what about reality? (Score:2)
That is a good point. However, the responce can be on so many different levels it is nearly impossible to give an answer on the subject. What you could do, however, is explain the question more deeply, so as to set the "realm" for the question, so we can give a reply.
In my belief, the normal answer is yes. The ultimate answer is no. But, there's too much to say. I'll leave it at that for now.
If there is no one to do the perceiving, or catalog it a
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But what about reality? (Score:2)
You can go all Schroedinger-ish and claim that a thing's state isn't certain until it's observed, but Schroedinger only applies to probability. There's no -real- way for a cat to be both alive and dead.
Of course, we assume we're the only ones around to do any observing. Ever read Terry Pratchett? According to his Discworld books, the "missing mass" of the universe is paperwor
Re:But what about reality? (Score:2)
I both agree and disagree. But without further explanation of what I call the "realm" of the question, I cannot possibly give an answer. Simply, because the answer is both "yes" and "no", depending on the realm. You must explain it in great detail. Basically, your perceiving of how people interreact and what "do" means. Only with those definitio
Re:But what about reality? (Score:1)
Nothing as far as the collective consciousness perceives, I suppose. Though the Big Bang was not perceived by us until very recently, but that does not mean it was there.
An interesting case, though, would be: what happens if something happens that simply could not be observed in the future, and nobody was there to observe it.
The collective "us" is a rather scary concept - in a lot of societies that promotes group sol
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But what about reality? (Score:1)
Oops, yes. That's what I meant. Interesting though - rest assured I don't think you're trolling - if we go far enough, everything is to do with perception. Does it matter that we are aided by telescopes? Although, good point, the existence of an original singularity is derived by extrapolating our observations of an expanding universe to the past.
Animal perception.. interesting. Different species have different range of vision, so they could sense things that for al
sense (Score:1)
In life, everyone is walking through the fog, and we can only speculate as to what is really there. It's just that some people must endure more dense fog than others.
David Hume (Score:2)
Re:David Hume (Score:2)
An example I thought of (Score:1)
A
Re:An example I thought of (Score:2)
True.
Even if the statement seems to be born out by history
Whih actually would make it an historical fact, but not a real fact. Which may be subtypes of Believed Fact. Other types of facts are scientific, philosophical, and religious. Which means that first the designated group must be deemed by the individual as capable of providing fact. Many scientists "believe" in science (or Evolutionism [slashdot.org], as I like to call it). Philosophers believe
Re:An example I thought of (Score:1)
1). My senses are mostly accurate.
2). The physical universe is generally consistant.
It is with these two assumptions that I function. If these things were not true, there would be no point in me studying copmuter engineering. If the transistors in an IC behave according to whim and not law then what point is there is designing an
Re:An example I thought of (Score:2)
Exactly. And that is the definition of Believed Fact.
My question therefore is: So what?
So what if I'm wrong, can I know this, and how does it affect the way I live my life?
While it does not change the facts that things are based on, it does change our perception of others. To say that our "facts" disprove someone else's "facts" is incorrect, since in reality, we both have Believed Fact on our side.