addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupsimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

"New York Philosophy" Message Board › What's your favorite philosophy?

What's your favorite philosophy?

Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 968
So it is not surprising that I think you are overly simplifying these concepts, taking it for granted that of course what you believe currently is the right thing to believe, and that anyone believing differently is just being difficult.

I have thought about and written about these issues for many years, and I cannot come to the same conclusions as you have. But I don't believe the issues are simple.

Philosophy involves looking at issues in depth, in order to get a clearer understanding.

I find the term "fact" to be very problematic. At one time it was considered a fact that the sun revolved around the earth, but now it is a fact that the reverse is true. So why would not "fact" mean a belief that the vast majority of people hold at the time the term is used?

I actually don't find the term useful. It seems primarily to be a conversation-stopper.
William C.
IDBC
New York, NY
Post #: 2
Howdy

What I find problematic is trying to figure out when I am just trying to simplify a concept and when I am OVERsimplfying a concept.

What I find interesting is when I am referring to what another person does as "believing" but what I do as "thinking".

I do agree that what I think or believe is right.
Of course that is really stating the obivious.

I think being "right" is sometimes at least more important to a person than anything else, including surivial.

Let me ask you this. Have you ever changed you thinking or beliefs about a concept?

What was it that changed your thinking or beliefs?

I once thought that the claim that Thomas Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemmings to be a false. I thought that is was an attempt to slander Thomas Jefferson and for people to try and claim a relation to great man.


However the DNA evidence has changed my thinking. I do think that it is probable that he did father children with Sally Hemmings.

I do agree that one of the functions, if not the main function of philosphy is for us to get clearer understanding.

What is problematic to me is a clearer understanding of what?

A clearer understanding of the physical-material universe?

A clearer understanding to the physical-material AND the metaphysical universe?

Is there a dualism between physics and metaphysics?


If you think that a fact is a statement of truth the cannot be changed under any circumstances and despite any new evidence then a fact will be problematic.

As I understand it a fact is a statement of truth that is a theory that is supported by evidence.

In ancient Greece there were two different theories about the relationship of the sun and the earth.
Heliocentrism and Geocentrisism.

http://en.wikipedia.o...­

"The first person known to have proposed a heliocentric system, however, was Aristarchus of Samos (c. 270 BC). Like Eratosthenes, Aristarchus calculated the size of the Earth, and measured the size and distance of the Moon and Sun, in a treatise which has survived. "

http://en.wikipedia.o...­

I do not find facts to be problematic. Facts are truth statements made about theories that are supported by the evidence that is currently available.

Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You



A former member
Post #: 368
So it is not surprising that I think you are overly simplifying these concepts,

There's nothing overly simplified here. You're just overly complicating it, and over thinking the issue. A fact is simply a fact, and an opinion is an opinion. You look up the definitions, you can see a clear difference.

People can ignore the facts, and try to distort them. But there still facts. Like somebody can believe that the sky is red. But the fact is that it's still blue. Somebody can think that the Ocean is green, but it's still blue. And that's a fact.


I have thought about and written about these issues for many years, and I cannot come to the same conclusions as you have. But I don't believe the issues are simple.

I see why it's taken you many years! Lol! j/k

Philosophy involves looking at issues in depth, in order to get a clearer understanding.

I understand that. Philosophy use to be my standard of living, and my foundation. But some things need to be look at logically, and with a sense of reality. Trying to pretend that facts are somehow connected to the definition of an opinion or a belief, is an attempt to over-complicate the definition of a fact. It goes nowhere, and it doesn't sound logical. I just don't see the logic in this discussion.

I find the term "fact" to be very problematic.

LOL!

At one time it was considered a fact that the sun revolved around the earth, but now it is a fact that the reverse is true. So why would not "fact" mean a belief that the vast majority of people hold at the time the term is used?

Some scientific discoveries are more complicated then others, and different discoveries will be revealed. Science moves around like philosophy in the sense that things change over time, either based on peoples perceptions or the technology that we use.

But when something is established as a fact, then it's just a fact. I don't think there is any need to overly complicate it.

I actually don't find the term useful. It seems primarily to be a conversation-stopper.

That's why the term is useful. Because it should stop conversations between two people who are arguing over whether the Sky is blue or not. Lol!
A former member
Post #: 369
I do not find facts to be problematic. Facts are truth statements made about theories that are supported by the evidence that is currently available.

I agree. smile
Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 970
So a particular truth statement may at one time be a "fact" and at a later time no longer be a "fact"?

Of what use is the term "fact"?
A former member
Post #: 373
So a particular truth statement may at one time be a "fact" and at a later time no longer be a "fact"?

Of what use is the term "fact"?

I'm done with this discussion. You seem to like ignoring facts, and pretend that their subjective. This is a never ending discussion that has gone on for far too long, and it is pointless. I think you're overly analyzing things and might be arguing, for the sake of arguing. So I'm done, since this discussion isn't going anywhere.

You can have the last word. smile
William C.
IDBC
New York, NY
Post #: 4
So it is not surprising that I think you are overly simplifying these concepts, taking it for granted that of course what you believe currently is the right thing to believe, and that anyone believing differently is just being difficult.

You made a claim that I am overly simplifying these(?) concepts. You made the claim then you should support that claim. If you want to call that being "difficult" then so be it.

I "believe" that if you make a claim then it is up to you to give reasons and evidence to support your claim.

"I have thought about and written about these issues for many years, and I cannot come to the same conclusions as you have. But I don't believe the issues are simple."

What conclusions are you referencing?

What specific issues are you referencing?


"Philosophy involves looking at issues in depth, in order to get a clearer understanding."

Philosophy involves the search for truth. The question of depth is problematic. How much depth is required to answer specific issues? Do different issues require the same degree of depth to get a clear understanding?

"I find the term "fact" to be very problematic. At one time it was considered a fact that the sun revolved around the earth, but now it is a fact that the reverse is true. So why would not "fact" mean a belief that the vast majority of people hold at the time the term is used?

I actually don't find the term useful. It seems primarily to be a conversation-stopper.

You leave out one crucial factor. It is not mere belief alone that determines wether something is a fact.

Why was it that people used to accept the "fact" the sun moving around the earth is what caused night and day?

Why is it that people no longer accept the "fact" that the sun moving does not cause night and day?

Is it possible that in the future it will be believed that the sun moving around the earth is what causes night and day?

Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy