Thanks, Enjoy!

we must stop this if we can a march or out anout war man I deplore this BS all around and no one is moving

Lay 'Em Low, Jan!!! -- j
.

If I get any good video clips of my fighting or jousting, I will send them to you or post a link.

Jan

I would like to see you in action;;; gotta be a treat,
especially if it's a real competition!!! -- j
.

You are not bad with the metaphorical version thereof. Logic cuts more chains than swords do.

Jan

Write it, ML!

Liberal version: "O said it, I believe it. That settles it."
Alternate: "Clinton redefined it. I believe it. Quick, send it to the dry cleaners."
GOP version: "Lincoln said it. Just believe it. Don't even think about it."

hear, hear

I really enjoyed your conversation. thanks!

Hi Broskjold,
Thanks for clarifying. I think now we are on the same page, and I agree with the above statements.

And all without name-calling! I wish other forums could operate that way!

This was really a good social piece, my perception is the guy was pointing to those evil idiots who do not believe in the state religion (which is always "fact based" and who do not comply with their priests and their prescriptios (like stop breathing and adding to CO2 etc). But it could easily be the other side of the coin and be talking about the same self serving idiots who mis-use "facts" to become their "truth". I liked it, good for a laugh.

VG, yes same here. I was also trained as an engineer. I think you are after the facts and I think I understand your point. A is A. Metaphysically given or man made. I also appreciate the precision used in the Fact examples above. After this discussion, I would revise my original comment to be:

Concepts are contextual. A clear example of this is how Rand uses the concept "selfishness". For those who know her philosophy, this equates to "rational self-interest" and an opposition to altruism. People may fail to understand that context is important when defining hierarchical concepts which taken in the appropriate order and sequence provide structure: "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows." That is, reason implies egoism, egoism implies capitalism.

Facts, when properly integrated by a volitional consciousness into concepts, are properly reduced to definitions. Knowledge, or the sum of the properly integrated concepts of an individual, is contextual. Facts remain what they are.

Much appreciated, VG, as an engineer and creator of wealth I must add: "the gold is yours".

Ah, I think I understand better now. I would state it differently perhaps.

The way I consider facts, the Fact would be: "Homosexual marriage was made legal by the SCOTUS in 2015". This fact will not change if the court eventually decides otherwise - there will just be an additional fact. There may then be additional facts that have bearing on the issue, but the fact itself does not become less "factual". In your example, to state "gay marriage is legal" is a fact after the law goes into effect. Before that time, it is not just out of context, it is not factual. As an engineer, I was trained in carefully stating problems, so that appropriate solutions can be obtained. It occurs to me that carefully stating facts may be as important. A "sloppily" stated fact may, in fact, NOT be a fact at all, but an opinion, a projection, or an assumption.

In you blood type example, the Fact is: "type A+ is compatible with type A+". Humans may not have been AWARE of the fact until blood typing and RH factors were discovered, but the compatibility (fact) did not change, only our understanding of the fact.

I don't consider whether facts are "metaphysically given" (naturally occurring) or man made. In both cases I present, there are facts, human in the SCOTUS case, and naturally occurring in the blood type case.

BTW, thanks for the discussion. I'm enjoying it.
VG

"Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics." Thus I must admit I have confused facts and concepts. Facts would pertain to existence. Concepts to existence and consciousness. Concepts then would be contextual, while facts remain independent of the consciousness perceiving them. Thanks for catching that, VetteGuy.

"Any natural phenomenon, i.e., any event which occurs without human participation, is the metaphysically given, and could not have occurred differently or failed to occur; any phenomenon involving human action is the man-made, and could have been different. For example, a flood occurring in an uninhabited land, is the metaphysically given; a dam built to contain the flood water, is the man-made; if the builders miscalculate and the dam breaks, the disaster is metaphysical in its origin, but intensified by man in its consequences. To correct the situation, men must obey nature by studying the causes and potentialities of the flood, then command nature by building better flood controls." Thus, Facts, in your example, would be the metaphysically given. Am I correct? A man-made fact "gay marriage is legal in the United States" is true. If SCOTUS were to reverse its ruling the fact would remain that "gay marriage was legal in the United States from 2015 to 2025", for example. The fact we are referring to remains absolute, you are correct in that. But it remains absolute contextually. Meaning in the scheme mentioned it would be a fact to say "gay marriage is legal in the United States" in 2016 but not in 2026. There is a great example of this regarding blood type. "Blood type A is compatible with blood type A". A fact, contextually, because we didn't know about RH factors. Now we know "Blood type A is compatible with blood type A when the RH factors are matched".

Agreed! I'm one of those engineers, and my definition of a "Fact" is very narrow indeed, and excludes most of what I see on tv, or the internet (except here in the Gulch, of course ;-)

Not sure I understand your explanation of how facts are contextual. The closest thing to a fact I see in your post is "Rand uses the term 'selfishness' to mean 'rational self interest' ". This is a definition of terms, and those are clearly contextual (as the SCOTUS has displayed for us recently). An example of a Fact is: "the earth is roughly spherical". I don't see that as subject to context.

Principles likewise may be subject to context, and indeed vary from person to person (one person may hold to "Christian Principles", another to "Objectivist Principles"). For a society to work smoothly, common ground is necessary, but agreement on ALL principles is impossible. Just look at the discussions in our fairly narrow "Objectivist Community"!

Facts are contextual. A clear example of this is how Rand uses "selfishness". For those who know her philosophy this equates to "rational self-interest" and an opposition to altruism. For those unfamiliar with her definition of egoism, ego can mean all manner of contemptible character traits. People fail to understand that context involves hierarchical concepts which taken in the appropriate order and sequence provide structure: "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows." What is earth without human beings? It would exist, but what value can it hold? It would have no discernible form, no objective law, no structure. Without objective principles to define good or bad, we would have no means to make any claim whatsoever. Fact-resistant humans are, properly speaking, the evaders. And their main evasion is the Marxist belief that human value is a zero sum game. But objective human values are the very foundation of the earth.

They're not "fact" resistant, but BS resistant. Facts require data that is consistent and can be replicated wherever it's applied. BS is nothing more than someone's assertions. The last sentence, suggesting the denial of food, water and air as a "cure" betrays the author's real intent, viz., to impose his assertions as "facts."

Hello, pot. This is the kettle. You're black. (Or is that racist?)

I suggest a rebuttal article titled: "Rationalists: Mankind Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Scientists"

And right along the lines of a bumper sticker I saw years ago (probably not a liberal driving though): "God said it, I believe it, That settles it".

I learned this in a liberal state college in the late 60's, before discovering AR and switching to a (relatively) better private university: I would guarantee that one of the primary guiding principles of virtually all of these types is: "The end justifies the means." It was implied, if not explicitly stated, in so many courses I took taught by liberals...