From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Jan 29 13:18:28 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l0TIIRHG025812 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:18:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l0TIII74010820 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:18:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 5988 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2007 18:18:18 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 29 Jan 2007 18:18:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 12651 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2007 18:18:16 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 29 Jan 2007 18:18:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 14036 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2007 18:18:08 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 29 Jan 2007 18:18:08 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 2971288 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:18:08 -0500 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 3395 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2007 18:18:05 -0000 Received: from mailscan5.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.137) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 29 Jan 2007 18:18:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 11624 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2007 18:18:00 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 29 Jan 2007 18:18:00 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l0TII034025791 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:18:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l0TII02d025790 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:18:00 -0500 (EST) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200701291818.l0TII02d025790@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:18:00 -0500 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: FACTS VS. STATEMENTS To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2500/Mon Jan 29 04:43:16 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1075 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: FACTS VS. STATEMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Jim Perrin Subject: Facts vs statements Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:28:38 -0500 As per our discussion in class today, I would argue that facts must be known in order to qualify as such. 600 years ago, it was fact that the earth was flat. Once someone sailed arounfthe world, it was know the world was round - hence that fact changed. Until that point, it was only theory. As humans, we are limited to only what we can comprehend. At any given point, our comprehension can be flawed due to the restrictions of our nature. Therefore, it is possible, if not likely, that as our comprehension increases, facts will change. Because of this, I maintain that we as humans will never know the truth nature of things, thus we will never have facts as per your description. We only have what we know to be true, and that is why a fact must be known in order to be useful. From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Jan 29 13:47:48 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l0TIlmqv027132 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:47:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l0TIlgQb012722 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:47:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 25309 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2007 18:47:42 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 29 Jan 2007 18:47:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 25292 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2007 18:47:42 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 29 Jan 2007 18:47:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 22253 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2007 18:47:37 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 29 Jan 2007 18:47:37 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 2972310 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:47:37 -0500 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 19891 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2007 18:47:37 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 29 Jan 2007 18:47:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 22279 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2007 18:47:36 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp5.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 29 Jan 2007 18:47:36 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l0TIlagM027116 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:47:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l0TIlaRO027113 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:47:36 -0500 (EST) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200701291847.l0TIlaRO027113@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:47:36 -0500 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Re: FACTS VS. STATEMENTS To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2500/Mon Jan 29 04:43:16 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 4031 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: FACTS VS. STATEMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Perrin wrote: | As per our discussion in class today, I would argue that facts must be | known in order to qualify as such. I think we really need to clarify the meanings of our words before we continue the discussion, so that we aren't talking at cross purposes. I will use the word "fact" to refer to a state of affairs or an event in the world. And I'll use "statement" to refer to a sentence in some language that describes that fact. So, if my car is red, that's a fact, and the sentence "Rapaport's car is red" describes it. If my car is red, then that's a fact, and that sentence is true. As it happens, my car is tan, not red. So there's no such fact. So the statement is false. But that means that there's another fact, a "negative" fact, that my car is not red. And the sentence "Rapaport's car is not red" describes that negative fact, and is true. | 600 years ago, it was fact that the earth was flat. Not the way I'm using the words. What I'd say is that 600 years ago, some people believed that the earth was flat. That is, they believed that it was a fact that the earth is flat, and they believed that "The earth is flat" was a true sentence. But they were wrong. | Once someone | sailed around the world, it was known the world was round - hence that | fact changed. Until that point, it was only theory. Facts can't change. (Well, they can in the sense that I can paint my tan car red, and then we have a new fact. But what I mean is that it will always be true that up to a certain time, my car was tan, and that fact will never change. In other words, if you "time stamp" facts, they become "eternal" (This is Quine's terminology.)) So, when Magellan sailed around the world, he discovered that it was round. No facts changed; the world was always round. What changed were our beliefs about the world (and the sentences that we believe to be true also changed). Whether the world is round or flat was and is a theory. Theories are part of the language, not the world, to use the image I introduced in class today. Theories are certain sets of sentences that describe the world. | As humans, we are limited to only what we can comprehend. I think I probably agree with you, but I'm not sure what you mean by "limited". Limited in what respect? Limited in terms of what we believe? So: As humans, we can only believe what we can comprehend? | At any given | point, our comprehension can be flawed due to the restrictions of our | nature. I'll grant that. | Therefore, it is possible, if not likely, that as our | comprehension increases, facts will change. Well, in my terminology, what I'd prefer to say is that as our comprehension increases, our beliefs (and the set of sentences that we believe to be true) will change. But the facts won't change. The world will be what it always was, independently of what we think it is. | Because of this, I | maintain that we as humans will never know the true nature of things, I don't see how that follows: Actually, I think I agree with the claim, but I don't see how it follows from our beliefs increasing in accuracy that we won't ever know the true nature of things. In fact, if our beliefs do increase, then we will certainly at least approach knowing the true nature of things. | thus we will never have facts as per your description. Well, as per my description, no one "has" facts. If you mean that we will never know all the facts, perhaps, but we might approach knowing them. | We only have | what we know to be true, "Have" in what sense? Believe? I.e., we only believe what we know to be true? No: Many people have false beliefs. | and that is why a fact must be known in order | to be useful. This I can agree with. The facts about which we have no knowledge can't help us :-) |