These discussions don't seem to be bound by
realistic constraints which exist in all systems
of fact. (01)
In my experience, courts of law are most
effectively organized to represent facts in a way
that "the great unwashed" (sic) can either accept
or reject. (02)
But arguments based simply on assertions and rules
without proper grounding are at the other extreme,
starting with the ancients who believed the gods
were rigging their lives, through the modern
physicists who posit esoterica based on the poles
and zeros of equations that have never been
observed actually behaving at the precise pole and
zero values. (03)
Courts of law are organized to accept evidence,
with judge, jury and observers choosing to accept
or reject the asserted "facts" as truths or
falsehoods. Findings are still considered
"interpretations" and "judgments" based on judge,
jury and observer opinions of the evidence. But
few true "facts" can even be represented in a
proper court of law. (04)
I suggest we drop the word "fact" and instead use
the word "evidence" in this thread. From the
various viewpoints so far expressed, we are
getting only the assertions without the evidence.
That is, we are getting opinions and
interpretations, or toe counts, not evidence, and
therefore not pure epistemological facts.
Therefore we should not be calling these "facts". (05)
It might be more productive to discuss the number
of evidentiary units rather than the number of
facts. (06)
-Rich (07)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (09)
|