Knowledge, fact or opinion..

[andygardener]

Things in that category are still statements of fact, even if their accuracy is not yet known. They're either true or false.

 

We're not talking about statements of fact, we are talking about facts. A statement of fact accepts the true or false possibility, a fact presupposes true.

[hard2miss]

I knew this topic was going to be one of those topics that would hurt my head.

[HeadingNorth]

That would make a mockery of the word fact.

 

We are not debating the word "fact;" we are debating the phrase "statement of fact." That's exactly the sort of contextual error to which the OP referred, and I mentioned on page one.

[HeadingNorth]

We're not talking about statements of fact, we are talking about facts..

 

Nobody else is. Perhaps that's why we're arguing with each other!

[hard2miss]

We're not talking about statements of fact, we are talking about facts. A statement of fact accepts the true or false possibility, a fact presupposes true.

Truth is relative.

 

 

I have no idea what Im talking about but it sounds good doesn't it

[andygardener]

We are not debating the word "fact;" we are debating the phrase "statement of fact." That's exactly the sort of contextual error to which the OP referred, and I mentioned on page one.

 

Oh, right. Well if any journalists can point to getting off a libel action for presenting an inaccurate "statement of fact" as fact despite it being untrue then this thread will have some vague relevance to the real world.

[hard2miss]

I like it when they come out with the 'some would say' line, so as to be able to talk ****** and drag some unknown into the mix to blame it on.

[andygardener]

I like it when they come out with the 'some would say' line, so as to be able to talk ****** and drag some unknown into the mix to blame it on.

 

Some would say, it could be said, many might ask, the question many may be asking tonight is etc etc.

 

Bunch of aerosols

[six45ive]

But both are provably incorrect since they both fall down under certain conditions. The fact that the physical phenomena should be physically definable is different to saying these methods should be taken as fact!

 

Again you're missing the point of the thread. They are both factually correct and factually incorrect depending on what conditions they are applied to.

 

Sorry I took my time getting back to you, I was watching Big Bang Theory, very funny, not as good as usual, but that's only my opinion, just as is yours and you told me previously that I needed to gain verification, even though I was using an instrument to verify my answer, hmmm.

 

Then use another instument or a different method to find the correct answer. It still doesn't change the fact that the calculator gave a factually incorrect as opposed to a factually correct answer.

 

P.S. The word "equivacating" doesn't exist, "equivocating" does though.

 

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html:hihi:

 

P.P.S. As to whether using the word opinion in a mathematical situation sounds like a lame cop off to me...

 

Funny you should link to that because as you were watching the Big Bang I was actually doing it........fact.

[spooky3]

.....

"Opinion" would be "Beyonce is prettier than Angelina Jolie." There is no correlation to reality there we can demonstrate, it's purely subjective. Some people will like B better than A, some will like A better than B, and nobody is "wrong." THAT'S opinion.'

...

 

I'm not hunting them down, i'll let you do that, but studies in arousal and fame have shown certain characteristics are more attractive than others. e.g. symmetrical faces, eye shape, fuller lips, etc.

 

Some of these studies have biasing to certain geographical or cultural groups, but these groups will find certain character sets more attractive than others, as a whole.

 

It is a fact because by sampling the results of group opinions will yield the same answer.

 

Basically you can make anything fact or opinion!

 

I can't remember which philosopher said it (maybe Derrida), but it was, but I can't find the exact statement, but it basically every statement carries the information to disprove itself, or something like that (It's been at least 10 years since needing or reading it!).

 

 

Derrida

Every discourse, even a poetic or oracular sentence, carries with it a system of rules for producing analogous things and thus an outline of methodology.

 

 

Deconstruction

Deconstruction (or deconstructionism[1]) is an approach, introduced by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, which rigorously pursues the meaning of a text to the point of exposing the supposed contradictions and internal oppositions upon which it is founded - showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible. It is an approach that may be deployed in philosophy, literary analysis, or other fields.

 

Deconstruction generally tries to demonstrate that any text is not a discrete whole but contains several irreconcilable and contradictory meanings; that any text therefore has more than one interpretation; that the text itself links these interpretations inextricably; that the incompatibility of these interpretations is irreducible; and thus that an interpretative reading cannot go beyond a certain point. Derrida refers to this point as an aporia in the text, and terms deconstructive reading "aporetic." J. Hillis Miller has described deconstruction this way: “Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently-solid ground is no rock, but thin air."