From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Fri Feb 2 11:10:19 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 l12GAJgj027685 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:10:19 -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 l12GA8dA060766 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:10:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 18947 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2007 16:10:08 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Feb 2007 16:10:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 25416 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2007 16:10:08 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Feb 2007 16:10:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 7700 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2007 16:09:55 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Feb 2007 16:09:55 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3083648 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:09:55 -0500 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 14376 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2007 16:09:55 -0000 Received: from mailscan3.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.135) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Feb 2007 16:09:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 20203 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2007 16:09:54 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Feb 2007 16:09:54 -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 l12G9s38027657 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:09:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l12G9rsl027656 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:09:53 -0500 (EST) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200702021609.l12G9rsl027656@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:09:53 -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 1029; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2516/Fri Feb 2 06:09:07 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1610 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: FACTS VS. STATEMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | To: "William J. Rapaport" | Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:22:22 -0500 | From: Jim Perrin | Let's look at the fact "your car is tan", which you agree is a fact | (disregard the language description at this point). If we all agree | that your car is tan in color, then it is a fact. But what if 100 years | from now, we discover that there was something wrong with the atmosphere | (Smog? Global warming?) and that what we thought was tan actually turns | out to be gold. So, we were wrong in concluding the color of your car | as fact. But where does it stop? We could look at it emperically and | say that based on historical accounts, many "facts" change over time | based on our understanding of nature (the evolution of physics, for | example). | | What I am getting at is how can anyone be sure that what we know at this | moment as "fact" is actually acurate? History has shown us that a great | many things change over time. How can you know for sure that we | actually have any "facts" right now? Thus, the only way for the | relative "facts" to be useful is for us to believe them as true now, | regardless of if they actually are or not in the future. | | I got a little off topic in my rambling, but the point was that you have | to "know" a fact for it to be such. Otherwise, Newton may have stopped | his work because he didn't know the actual facts... From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Fri Feb 2 11:19:22 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 l12GJMQ6028131 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:19:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l12GJH02061472 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:19:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 15760 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2007 16:19:17 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Feb 2007 16:19:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 13615 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2007 16:19:05 -0000 Received: from defer.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.58) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Feb 2007 16:19:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 382 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2007 16:18:58 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by defer.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Feb 2007 16:18:58 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3083838 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:18:58 -0500 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 19370 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2007 16:18:50 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Feb 2007 16:18:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 20540 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2007 16:18:47 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp5.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Feb 2007 16:18:47 -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 l12GIlcU028099 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:18:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l12GIlZS028098 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:18:47 -0500 (EST) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200702021618.l12GIlZS028098@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:18:47 -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 1029; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2516/Fri Feb 2 06:09:07 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 3877 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: FACTS VS. STATEMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ jmperrin@buffalo.edu wrote: | Let's look at the fact "your car is tan", which you agree is a fact | (disregard the language description at this point). If we all agree | that your car is tan in color, then it is a fact. Not on my terminology. We might all agree that the earth is flat, but it is not a fact. Again, it's important to distinguish between beliefs or statements that are about the world (on the one hand) and the world itself (which consists of facts, or states of affairs), on the other hand. | But what if 100 years | from now, we discover that there was something wrong with the atmosphere | (Smog? Global warming?) and that what we thought was tan actually turns | out to be gold. So, we were wrong in concluding the color of your car | as fact. I agree that this is possible. | But where does it stop? We could look at it empirically and | say that based on historical accounts, many "facts" change over time | based on our understanding of nature (the evolution of physics, for | example). I would say that our *beliefs* change over time; the facts stay the same (well, except for those facts that change, such as who the current President is). | What I am getting at is how can anyone be sure that what we know at this | moment as "fact" is actually accurate? We can't! I think you and I are in agreement here. What we can hope for is that our scientific investigations will give us really good evidence about the facts. But science isn't deductive, so our conclusions *could* be wrong, again, hopefully wrong with only a very, very low probability. | History has shown us that a great | many things change over time. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Our beliefs can change; the facts (except for ones like whether it's snowing right this minute) can't. | How can you know for sure that we | actually have any "facts" right now? I would say that we can't. | Thus, the only way for the | relative "facts" to be useful is for us to believe them as true now, | regardless of if they actually are or not in the future. Sound about right to me. | | I got a little off topic in my rambling, but the point was that you have | to "know" a fact for it to be such. Otherwise, Newton may have stopped | his work because he didn't know the actual facts... Well, again I'd put the point a bit differently, but I think we agree: I'd say that the facts are what they are whether or not we know or have any beliefs about them. I'd say that to "know a fact", we would have to have a belief, the belief would have to be true--i.e., to correspond to some fact in the world--and we would have to have arrived at the belief as the result of some rational argument (there are weird exceptions to this; see the paper by Gettier on the "What is philosophy" website, but, in general, this seems right). What we believe and what the facts are are independent of each other, but, one hopes, strongly correlated. Here are a few relevant items for readers of this thread to think about: 1. Frank Lloyd Wright, the famous architect, said: "The truth is more important than the facts." http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26987.html 2. Here's a recent article that might be relevant (I haven't read it yet): Elgin, Catherine (2007), "Understanding and the Facts", Philosophical Studies 132(1): 33-42. You can read the abstract and access the full paper at: http://tinyurl.com/ytabo5 3. Here's a recent cognitive-science anthology on a related topic: Noe, Alva (2002), Is the Visual World a Grand Illusion? (Charlottesville, VA: Imprint Academic), isbn 0907845-231; originally a special issue of Journal of Consciousness Studies 9(5-6) (2002).