From: Rafael Anschau (anschau.ez@terra.com.br)
Date: Thu Jun 19 2003 - 17:06:56 MDT
Nice way to define "fact" without ignoring Godel... The only drawback
I notice is that the proposed "fact" will change it's truth value depending
on the group the proposition is presented...
But then again, there are people who will not accept the
epistemological framework of math anyway... So I guess the Popperic "Fact is that which has not
been challenged" seems like the way to go.
[]'s
Rafael
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:32:25 -0600
"Hermit" <hidden@lucifer.com> wrote:
>
> A "fact" is a proposition which, while theoretically falsifiable (i.e. it can be tested), is congruent with other models and facts accepted as valid and where the proposition has been sufficiently verified as probable as to permit one to consent to its use in appropriate ways to develop further analysis based upon it without challenge, It is not necessary to produce support for an introduced "fact" unless a challenge of its truth value or applicability is issued. In otherwords, while the onus always remains on the presenter of a "fact" to be able and prepared to support it, general acceptance of something as a fact will permit its introduction without the concurrent provision of support. Thus I would suggest that recognition of something as "fact" is in fact dependent on the common consent of those where it is deployed that it is a fact, rather than on how it was derived and thus Goedel is not evaded, but only conditionally avoided (after all, anyone may issue an appropriat
e!
> challenge at any time).
>
> Hermit
>
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=28728>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 19 2003 - 16:58:37 MDT