• protist@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          But how do you define “facts?” And how do you define “truth?” And how do you define “is?”

        • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          I think the point is this is paradoxical. Everything must be proven by facts and we cannot trust any general, abstract statement of its own accord, then how can we prove “everything must be proven by facts and we cannot trust any general, abstract statement of its own accord”? What if that’s a wrong assumption?

          Maybe the truth is we don’t always need to rely on observable facts, but we don’t know that because we’re making the aforementioned assumption without having any proof that it’s correct.

          • auzas_1337@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            axioms have entered the chat

            The deeper you go in the why territory, the more abstract and tangental your axioms get.

            So yeah. All facts and truths ultimately rest on foundations that are either kinda unobservable or unproven. Doesn’t make them less practical or true (by practical definitions) though.

      • Dr_Satan@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        To get a fact out of an observation requires interpretation and a desire-to-interpret. It’s observation translated into dreamstuff.