Thread: What is a fact II

Your answer is partially true. The premise that is set forth by the OP and the 2.c. definition of 'fact' is that a "fact" is "something believed to be true or real". I did not coin the definition. The problem seems to exist in the minds of those that cannot accept the socially acceptable definition as printed in that dictionary. To those that hold such a reluctance toward accepting that definition, I would suggest that you petition the publisher of that dictionary, and force that publisher to remove that definition and post a statement as to why the definition as been removed from the listing of definitions of 'fact'.

Originally Posted by Swensson

It was something along the lines of "All facts are subjective -> my reality is as good as yours -> you can't say my reality is untrue -> I'm correct" if I understood it correctly.

I think it looks like the problem lies in the OP's assertion that you can't question a claim, no matter how unbelievable, if the claimant believes the claim is true.

Originally Posted by Incorporeal

Your answer is partially true. The premise that is set forth by the OP and the 2.c. definition of 'fact' is that a "fact" is "something believed to be true or real". I did not coin the definition. The problem seems to exist in the minds of those that cannot accept the socially acceptable definition as printed in that dictionary. To those that hold such a reluctance toward accepting that definition, I would suggest that you petition the publisher of that dictionary, and force that publisher to remove that definition and post a statement as to why the definition as been removed from the listing of definitions of 'fact'.

It is also completely acceptable to say things like "I'm now going to use the word 'fridge' to refer to a certain kind of dog", but that means that you leave the accepted definition of a fridge, Ie, your dog being a fridge by the new definition, does not mean that your dog keeps things cool. New debaters entering the discussion should be brought up to speed when they enter to avoid confusion.

However, the problem (or a problem, it might not be the main problem right here) is that people tend to do the above and still hope that the old definition applies. "I will use the word 'energy' to describe a vague concept of life" -fine- "energy is always conserved, by the laws of physics, therefore your soul and your life has to go somewhere" no, you're setting the old and new energy definitions equal.

This method is not relevant that often though.

Originally Posted by Incorporeal

You do realize the purpose of using quotation marks? Don't you? Now looking back at the OP, I see no such claim as you have stated in the quotation marks.... therefore, your claim regarding the OP is a blatant lie.

It is expected that one follows the conversation, before spewing accusations:
fithofnovember: Okay, I missed "What is a fact 1", so I'm confused- Why is this thread in the religion catagory? All I've seen is a bunch of semantics about freezing water.
Swensson's summary: "All facts are subjective -> my reality is as good as yours -> you can't say my reality is untrue -> I'm correct"
stroll's summary: "only my God exists, everybody else is wrong"

A fact is an assertion whose truth can be objectively proven.

A fact is an absolute. That is, it is 100% true or it is false.

It is NOT a fact that a body of water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. If I raise or lower the atmospheric pressure or increase/decrease the impurities on the water I will impact the freezing point therefore the assertion cannot be proven true or false.

It is a fact that a body of pure water at an average temperature less than 0 Celsius and one atmosphere of pressure will be ice. (That is will have assumed a predominately crystalline state) while the same body at an average temperature greater than 0 Celsius will be liquid.

The assertion that a lake is "frozen" is not a fact since the word "frozen" has no clear meaning. A frozen Margarita is mostly liquid and a deer may be "frozen" in your headlights on the hottest day of the year while the "Frozen tundra of Lambeau Field" was neither frozen nor tundra.

If the point is to claim that "God" exists because you say he does then this is not a fact because its truth cannot be proven. That is, the assertion that "God" is cannot be proven true or false.

Originally Posted by Swensson

It is also completely acceptable to say things like "I'm now going to use the word 'fridge' to refer to a certain kind of dog", but that means that you leave the accepted definition of a fridge, Ie, your dog being a fridge by the new definition, does not mean that your dog keeps things cool. New debaters entering the discussion should be brought up to speed when they enter to avoid confusion.

Of course it is acceptable to say "I'm now going to use the word 'fridge' to refer to a certain kind of dog." However, in doing so, one would violate the rules of English grammar, IE... Capitalization of all proper nouns. Therefore the use of 'fridge' to speak of the dog, would be a mere colloquialism or an informal mode of speech. It is not my responsibility to bring new readers or participants of a thread 'up to speed'. That is there responsibility.

Originally Posted by Swensson

However, the problem (or a problem, it might not be the main problem right here) is that people tend to do the above and still hope that the old definition applies. "I will use the word 'energy' to describe a vague concept of life" -fine- "energy is always conserved, by the laws of physics, therefore your soul and your life has to go somewhere" no, you're setting the old and new energy definitions equal.

As I have said before, if there is a problem with the 2.c. definition, then you need to throw those concerns before the publishers of the dictionary. I am not the one who coined that definition, though I do accept that definition as being accurate and as you suggest... equal... in the face of other definitions of 'fact'.

Originally Posted by Swensson

This method is not relevant that often though.

No argument on that last statement.

Originally Posted by stroll

It is expected that one follows the conversation, before spewing accusations:
fithofnovember: Okay, I missed "What is a fact 1", so I'm confused- Why is this thread in the religion catagory? All I've seen is a bunch of semantics about freezing water.
Swensson's summary: "All facts are subjective -> my reality is as good as yours -> you can't say my reality is untrue -> I'm correct"
stroll's summary: "only my God exists, everybody else is wrong"

Who made the quotation that I referred to? Well of course it was you. Not Swenson, not fifthofnovember, not even the OP.... just you. Please do abide by the rules concerning quotation marks.

Interesting comments. Now PROVE any part of it.

Originally Posted by dadoalex

A fact is an assertion whose truth can be objectively proven.

A fact is an absolute. That is, it is 100% true or it is false.

It is NOT a fact that a body of water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. If I raise or lower the atmospheric pressure or increase/decrease the impurities on the water I will impact the freezing point therefore the assertion cannot be proven true or false.

It is a fact that a body of pure water at an average temperature less than 0 Celsius and one atmosphere of pressure will be ice. (That is will have assumed a predominately crystalline state) while the same body at an average temperature greater than 0 Celsius will be liquid.

The assertion that a lake is "frozen" is not a fact since the word "frozen" has no clear meaning. A frozen Margarita is mostly liquid and a deer may be "frozen" in your headlights on the hottest day of the year while the "Frozen tundra of Lambeau Field" was neither frozen nor tundra.

If the point is to claim that "God" exists because you say he does then this is not a fact because its truth cannot be proven. That is, the assertion that "God" is cannot be proven true or false.

Originally Posted by dadoalex

A fact is an assertion whose truth can be objectively proven.

A fact is an absolute. That is, it is 100% true or it is false.

It is NOT a fact that a body of water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. If I raise or lower the atmospheric pressure or increase/decrease the impurities on the water I will impact the freezing point therefore the assertion cannot be proven true or false.

It is a fact that a body of pure water at an average temperature less than 0 Celsius and one atmosphere of pressure will be ice. (That is will have assumed a predominately crystalline state) while the same body at an average temperature greater than 0 Celsius will be liquid.

The assertion that a lake is "frozen" is not a fact since the word "frozen" has no clear meaning. A frozen Margarita is mostly liquid and a deer may be "frozen" in your headlights on the hottest day of the year while the "Frozen tundra of Lambeau Field" was neither frozen nor tundra.

If the point is to claim that "God" exists because you say he does then this is not a fact because its truth cannot be proven. That is, the assertion that "God" is cannot be proven true or false.

I have to agree with this. It all comes down to definitions. Certain versions of God, with specific definitions, can be proven or disproven. If I say I have a physical, visible god in this box, and we open the box and find nothing, we have disproven the god in the box. If I am a sun-worshipper, the existence of my god can be proven well and properly.

As long as the gods in question has the ability and will to be hidden (or, since we include non-omnipotent gods, cannot refrain from being hidden), it cannot be proven or disproven. If it does not, it should be easy to prove it.

Originally Posted by Incorporeal

Of course it is acceptable to say "I'm now going to use the word 'fridge' to refer to a certain kind of dog." However, in doing so, one would violate the rules of English grammar, IE... Capitalization of all proper nouns. Therefore the use of 'fridge' to speak of the dog, would be a mere colloquialism or an informal mode of speech. It is not my responsibility to bring new readers or participants of a thread 'up to speed'. That is there responsibility.

I used "kind of dog" rather than "my dog" specifically in order to avoid the problem of capitalisation. I just realized that maybe dog races might be proper nouns. Well, let's say I call black dogs "fridges", no proper noun there. I think.

Indeed, using fridge for a kind of dog would not be a proper way of talking, but it does avoid the problem of meaning. I wouldn't necessarily call it linguistically correct, but logically.

It's not so much that it is your responsibility to make sure that everyone knows everything you said, I'm merely pointing out that it would be dishonest of you to hide the meaning you use in order to make points that actually don't hold together, like people who call the soul "energy" and from that make the assertion that their new version of energy is also conserved.

Originally Posted by Incorporeal

As I have said before, if there is a problem with the 2.c. definition, then you need to throw those concerns before the publishers of the dictionary. I am not the one who coined that definition, though I do accept that definition as being accurate and as you suggest... equal... in the face of other definitions of 'fact'.

I don't know what definition you're talking about. Most dictionaries label their definitions differently, and I can't find a reference to that definition in the text.

Nonetheless, if that is the case, that proves my point. Someone used a rare definition and didn't specify it (at least not to my knowledge). Confusion ensued.

Originally Posted by Incorporeal

Is the water really frozen? The word 'frozen' (a past participle of 'freeze') indicates that the water would be "motionless". The term 'motionless' would imply that there is no movement, yet the electrons which make up a single molecule of the H20 mixture are still in motion (according to scientific theory). So is the water really 'frozen'?

But who uses your weird definition of "frozen" when talking about whether water has turned into ice or not? I mean, if you want to define "frozen" as "motionless" then no, ice isn't frozen. But we should really agree on another word now that "frozen" has been stolen because differentiating between water and ice (motion or not) is useful.