Leaderboard

I would say that scientists (e.g, physicists, biologists, chemists) have one definition of fact, being whatever can be established within a certain degree of certainty by application of the scientific method (which involves statistical analysis and other mathematical analysis). The U.S. legal system has a different definition of fact that can be looked up in legal dictionaries. The various systems of philosophy have their own definitions of fact. For example, I imagine that experts in Aristotelian philosophy can describe how Aristotle defined facts and how he arrived at facts.

Thank you for your reply. In your prior post you stated "Integration is essential for truth in Rand’s theory. Fact is interconnected and multilayered in Rand's picture." From my personal experience, the essence of that "interconnected", there is always a subject item and a comparative item(s). The comparative items are normally subconscious but affect the fact or perception. As Binswanger has said "consciousness is a difference detector". A ) change the subject item and you change the truth or perception B ) change the comparative item and you change the truth or perception. Yet people usually only take the end result as the fact ignoring the elements in the equation i.e. the context. Example: Stephen invites a friend over and around the kitchen table a discussion regarding the front faucet outside the picture window comes up. Stephen makes the statement "righty tighty lefty loosy" regarding turning off or on the faucet, that's a fact he says! His wife says oh no! It's lefty tighty, righty loosy! At this point, the friend says " Well one of you is wrong! (After all a fact can't be contradictory). They head out to see who is right, both Stephen and his wife convinced the other is wrong. While the friend knows one of them is wrong. As Stephen gets outside and turns the knob open his wife watches from her normal viewpoint inside the picture window with the friend. Sure enough the friend agrees the wife was correct. Steven agitated with their conclusion pulls them outside to show them his perspective (comparative item). The friend now sees they were both correct in their statements based on using different comparative items. By now they have made so much noise outside, the neighbor has come by and they explain to the neighbor what they have discovered/been discussing, and describing the lefty loosy righty tighty concept. Then the neighbor tells all three of them, oh no it is lefty tighty righty loosy and Stephen, his wife and their friend all think - are you kidding me - this guy is an idiot! A discussion argument goes on for an extended period, frustrations mounting on both sides because everyone is focused on the end result and not the elements of the equation. Both sides are correct. Just using different subject items. Stephen, his wife and friend are referring to the top of the knob while the neighbor is focusing on the bottom of the knob. Facts, truths (concepts), perceptions - always a subject item and a comparative item(s). IMPORTANT

This is crucial. A player who joins and participates in an NFL team is voluntarily agreeing to contests in which limited physical force plays a role. This makes it an example of the trader principle. This is not physical force. The money is obtained, not from the defeated students, but from whoever is funding the scholarships. Any stock market transaction is a voluntary exchange consistent with the trader principle. Outsmarting or outperforming or outlucking someone while operating under mutually agreed-upon rules is not physical force. Politicians obtain their offices from the voters, not from their rivals. They are subject to judgment by the voters for broken promises and other failings. Prize winners get their prizes from whoever is funding them, not from the other competitors. Your concept of "mental force" is nonsense.

Thank you Stephen, So a fact is out there in existence. Truth is our grasp of the fact. Located in different arenas but otherwise essentially equal - referring to the same thing. Therefore based on the law of identity, a true statement and the opposite of a true statement cannot both be true at the same time. Does that make sense? Bullet proof? Also, separately and distinctive, i believe i saw a John Dewey quote in a post of yours that stated "a fact is an idea that is non-contradictory". Any comment on that statement relative to the concept fact? Im thinking you might be good with it if fact was changed to truth?