What is a fact II

From the former thread entitled "what is a fact": My new responses for that post will be in red letter.

Quote:
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"] [HR][/HR] Originally Posted by Creation
Quote:
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"] [HR][/HR] Originally Posted by Incorporeal
If you desire to call the statement 'telling', then I suppose you do have the freedom to do so, but mind you, there are obligations toward proving a claim.






Are you suggesting that the effort would be too difficult for you to accomplish? Or what?
[HR][/HR] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Quote:
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"] [HR][/HR] Originally Posted by Creation
Um ok then, how about the fact that water freezes at 0 degrees. Is that an immutable truth? Or is it subjective?
[HR][/HR] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

As stated before, the freezing point of water is the freezing point of water. The assignment of arbitrary numbers on a scale created by and through the mind of man makes the resulting readings on that scale arbitrary, therefore, because the scale is a product of the mind of man it is subjective.



Quote:
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"] [HR][/HR] Originally Posted by incorporeal
Have you read the definitions that were posted toward the beginning of this thread? If not, you might want to give it a try. If you have, then you might want to take a remedial course in reading comprehension.

Life is a matter of convenience for me.
[HR][/HR] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Quote:
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"] [HR][/HR] Originally Posted by Creation
Yes, Ive read them. So lets be even clearer where in the definition of fact does it let facts be facts to anyone else as long as one person beleives it?

See this UFO? Ive seen one yesterday in the sky. I now believe in them, does that mean UFOs are a real thing in the universe because I told you I seen one and now believe in their existence?
[HR][/HR] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


[HR][/HR] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


If you had read the entirety of the definitions, then you would realize that the very first definition allows for such a notion as you have stated.

As for your perceiving a UFO, Well: Are you a 'real thing' in the universe? If you are a real thing in the universe and you have seen a UFO, then who am I to argue with you? Am I to call you a liar because I did not likewise perceive the UFO? All I would be able to do is perhaps question you in regard to the event.


Thread started at Forum 4 Politics on 04-14-2012 06:59 AM

 

0 degree Celsius is defined as the freezing point of water, so it always freezes at 0 degree C., it never 'subjectively' freezes at any other temperature.

Physics 101.

 

0 degree Celsius was defined to be the freezing point of water at sea level pressure until 1954, when the definition changed to relate to the triple point of water, localized at 0.01 degrees Celsius.

Physics 104.

But yes, the representation of the freezing point relies purely on human definitions. However, "the condition under which water freezes" is a definition that relates to a concept that is independent of the definition. I can call it something else if I wish to, but the concept stays the same. I can't talk about it without using definitions that are subjective, but the concepts I am talking about are unrelated to me talking about them and will stay immutable.

 

Is the water really frozen? The word 'frozen' (a past participle of 'freeze') indicates that the water would be "motionless". The term 'motionless' would imply that there is no movement, yet the electrons which make up a single molecule of the H20 mixture are still in motion (according to scientific theory). So is the water really 'frozen'?

 

I don't know where you got your definition of frozen to be motionless. According to Wikipedia, characteristics of solids are "structural rigidity and resistance to changes of shape or volume". In the special case of ice, which is a crystal, it is characterized by long-range patterns and lattices.

 

It would be the definition #8 below:

"frozen [ˈfrəʊzən]
vb
the past participle of freeze
adj
1. turned into or covered with ice
2. obstructed or blocked by ice
3. killed, injured, or stiffened by extreme cold
4. (Earth Sciences / Physical Geography) (of a region or climate) icy or snowy
5. (Cookery) (of food) preserved by a freezing process
6. (Economics)
a. (of prices, wages, etc.) arbitrarily pegged at a certain level
b. (of business assets) not convertible into cash, as by government direction or business conditions
7. frigid, unfeeling, or disdainful in manner
8. motionless or unyielding he was frozen with horror
frozenly adv
frozenness n

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003"

 

Well, "frozen with horror" might not be the definition applicable to solids.

 

I will offer a very simple fact, this entire thread is the equivalent of watching water freeze!

 

Erm, yes, frozen water is frozen.

 

I think this thread derailed a little.

Here's the summary of the last few posts: Everything we say are words. A great chunk of words represent a phenomena which does not depend on the word. We use words instead of phenomena to communicate since it would be really annoying to try to show everything we want to discuss to one another.

Personally, I would say there are immutable truths. They might not be as many as some rhetoricians make it sound like. Those immutable truths are often not that interesting since everyone agrees with them. Many truths can be presented in ways to get an untrue or unrelated point across (by invoking some fallacy, often correlation/causation).

 

Based on your words of wisdom below, then is it safe for me to assume that (in the colloquial sense of words) that water does freeze (immutable fact) and that the temperature at which water freezes is, say, arbitrarily based on numbers that are used only as a point of reference and is not an absolute?

 

I wouldn't say that, the temperature still exists, at least the concept which we refer to as temperature. Even if there were no humans to observe the ice, it would still have the same temperature. However, without humans, the concept of temperature might be irrelevant, an alien life form might explain heat and cold with other references and other methods, but the concept of the temperature still exists.

The actual numbers we use, 0 degrees, 100 degrees, 273 K, whatever in Fahrenheit, will give us numbers that are only relevant in whatever context humanity has decided on, so again, the value of the temperature is based on arbitrary observations (most because humans like to look at water, it is abundant and doesn't fly away), but "temperature", movement of the atoms, still exists.

 

Yes! A temperature would be present even without a human observer. However, what that temperature is, is still unknown, and when a human assigns a temperature to such a condition, then the assignment is subjective as it comes from the mind of man. As arbitrary as the day is long.

Those conditions exist as far as the mind of man can perceive such things: such perception, again rendering the entirety of the interpretation of that perception as subjective.

 

No, the tempearture is not unknown, it remains the same, whether it's meaured in Centigrade, Fahrenheit or according to any other arbitrary scale.
Water will not "subjectively" freeze at a different point.

Are you familiar with unit conversions?

 

Okay, I missed "What is a fact 1", so I'm confused- Why is this thread in the religion catagory? All I've seen is a bunch of semantics about freezing water.

 

I think we're saying the same things, but we have a problem communicating it since we use the same word to describe the concept and the word used to describe the concept. Wordception.

 

It was something along the lines of "All facts are subjective -> my reality is as good as yours -> you can't say my reality is untrue -> I'm correct" if I understood it correctly.

I think it looks like the problem lies in the OP's assertion that you can't question a claim, no matter how unbelievable, if the claimant believes the claim is true.

 

And the OP claim is: "only my God exists, everybody else is wrong" - which is why this sits in the religious section.

 

You do realize the purpose of using quotation marks? Don't you? Now looking back at the OP, I see no such claim as you have stated in the quotation marks.... therefore, your claim regarding the OP is a blatant lie.

 

Well, I will have to agree with you on all points covered in your statement. That is the problem with spoken or written language. If I say "blue", that word does not directly focus on the myriad shades of 'blue' that are available to choose from. Words are inadequate to express what the mind is capable of conceptualizing.

 

Your answer is partially true. The premise that is set forth by the OP and the 2.c. definition of 'fact' is that a "fact" is "something believed to be true or real". I did not coin the definition. The problem seems to exist in the minds of those that cannot accept the socially acceptable definition as printed in that dictionary. To those that hold such a reluctance toward accepting that definition, I would suggest that you petition the publisher of that dictionary, and force that publisher to remove that definition and post a statement as to why the definition as been removed from the listing of definitions of 'fact'.

 

It is also completely acceptable to say things like "I'm now going to use the word 'fridge' to refer to a certain kind of dog", but that means that you leave the accepted definition of a fridge, Ie, your dog being a fridge by the new definition, does not mean that your dog keeps things cool. New debaters entering the discussion should be brought up to speed when they enter to avoid confusion.

However, the problem (or a problem, it might not be the main problem right here) is that people tend to do the above and still hope that the old definition applies. "I will use the word 'energy' to describe a vague concept of life" -fine- "energy is always conserved, by the laws of physics, therefore your soul and your life has to go somewhere" no, you're setting the old and new energy definitions equal.

This method is not relevant that often though.

 

It is expected that one follows the conversation, before spewing accusations:
fithofnovember: Okay, I missed "What is a fact 1", so I'm confused- Why is this thread in the religion catagory? All I've seen is a bunch of semantics about freezing water.
Swensson's summary: "All facts are subjective -> my reality is as good as yours -> you can't say my reality is untrue -> I'm correct"
stroll's summary: "only my God exists, everybody else is wrong"

 

A fact is an assertion whose truth can be objectively proven.

A fact is an absolute. That is, it is 100% true or it is false.

It is NOT a fact that a body of water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. If I raise or lower the atmospheric pressure or increase/decrease the impurities on the water I will impact the freezing point therefore the assertion cannot be proven true or false.

It is a fact that a body of pure water at an average temperature less than 0 Celsius and one atmosphere of pressure will be ice. (That is will have assumed a predominately crystalline state) while the same body at an average temperature greater than 0 Celsius will be liquid.

The assertion that a lake is "frozen" is not a fact since the word "frozen" has no clear meaning. A frozen Margarita is mostly liquid and a deer may be "frozen" in your headlights on the hottest day of the year while the "Frozen tundra of Lambeau Field" was neither frozen nor tundra.

If the point is to claim that "God" exists because you say he does then this is not a fact because its truth cannot be proven. That is, the assertion that "God" is cannot be proven true or false.

 

Of course it is acceptable to say "I'm now going to use the word 'fridge' to refer to a certain kind of dog." However, in doing so, one would violate the rules of English grammar, IE... Capitalization of all proper nouns. Therefore the use of 'fridge' to speak of the dog, would be a mere colloquialism or an informal mode of speech. It is not my responsibility to bring new readers or participants of a thread 'up to speed'. That is there responsibility.

As I have said before, if there is a problem with the 2.c. definition, then you need to throw those concerns before the publishers of the dictionary. I am not the one who coined that definition, though I do accept that definition as being accurate and as you suggest... equal... in the face of other definitions of 'fact'.

No argument on that last statement.