thetammyjo
Posts: 6322
Joined: 9/8/2005 Status: offline
|
Please note my use of quotation marks to disguish the difference between facts and "facts" -- I agree there are objective facts but I don't think how human being use them or define them is irrevalent at all. In history we prefer to not even use this word fact and instead use evidence or data because we can see that how information is used varies greatly as well as what survives. I can't use evidence that doesn't exist now even if at one time facts about the question did exist or if we do not have the means to access the facts. Am I making any sense? quote:
ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Well, that's a whole separate discussion, but "facts" and "how we interpret facts" are by no means the same thing. Facts would be facts whether human beings exist or not; how we go about making those facts relevant to our lives is a different matter. Anyway, you can't criticize someone for clinging to his opinions and ignoring "facts," and AT THE SAME time claim that human beings determine facts. I mean, skewer me on one horn of that dilemma or on the other, but not both. Otherwise, the criticism just reduces to "You're not a psychiatrist--at least I don't think you are, although I have to admit that I really don't know who you are--therefore your opinions about psychiatry can't possibly be meaningful." quote:
ORIGINAL: thetammyjo I'd argue that we do indeed determine "facts". Facts and evidence may be objective but what we will take into consideration, how we value it, how we interprete it, is far less objective. We, as the observer or student or judge determine which "facts" to use and which pieces of information are even going to be called "facts".
_____________________________
Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips & Chains, TammyJo Check out my website at http://www.thetammyjo.com Or www.tammyjoeckhart.com And my LJ where I post fiction in progress if you "friend" me at http://thetammyjo.livejournal.com/
|