Because without facts, what you have is not “truth.” It’s either speculation or bullshit.
Comment on What are the strengths of the scientific method? What are its weaknesses?
protist@mander.xyz 8 months agoTruth in any context will always rely on facts
Why?
dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 8 months ago
protist@mander.xyz 8 months ago
But how do you define “facts?” And how do you define “truth?” And how do you define “is?”
kofe@lemmy.world 8 months ago
We’ll see who cancels who?
humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Thanks, Jordan.
asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I think the point is this is paradoxical. Everything must be proven by facts and we cannot trust any general, abstract statement of its own accord, then how can we prove “everything must be proven by facts and we cannot trust any general, abstract statement of its own accord”? What if that’s a wrong assumption?
Maybe the truth is we don’t always need to rely on observable facts, but we don’t know that because we’re making the aforementioned assumption without having any proof that it’s correct.
auzas_1337@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
axioms have entered the chat
The deeper you go in the why territory, the more abstract and tangental your axioms get.
So yeah. All facts and truths ultimately rest on foundations that are either kinda unobservable or unproven. Doesn’t make them less practical or true (by practical definitions) though.
Dr_Satan@lemm.ee 8 months ago
To get a fact out of an observation requires interpretation and a desire-to-interpret. It’s observation translated into dream.
Beldarofremulak@lemmy.world 8 months ago
We got some 101’s in here beanbag chairin it up.
protist@mander.xyz 8 months ago
Speak for yourself, I’m having this conversation from a papasan chair I found on the side of the road
shootwhatsmyname@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Yeah I’m the one on the beanbag sorry for the confusion guys