> And what precisely is a fact, but an argument about the state of the world being a specific way?
Thankfully not. A "fact" is something that can be measured in such a way that even if you are totally antagonistic to my arguments, we will get the same result.
Now your "argument" may attempt to prove the irrelevancy or inadequacy of my facts, but the facts themselves should be unfudgeable.
The problem is that it is far far too expensive to rigorously verify all the facts one hears. So in practice humans need to rely on the trustworthiness of the person or institution saying them.
If you try to replicate a fact, you'll succeed
If you try to disprove a fact, you'll fail
If you find rebuttles to a fact, they'll be hollow
The only thing in the obvious list that doesn't separate a fact from a non-fact is the arguments in support. Hence why scientists are taught not to care for arguments in support, only research, and then specifically arguments that disprove more than those that prove.
> And what precisely is a fact, but an argument about the state of the world being a specific way?
Thankfully not. A "fact" is something that can be measured in such a way that even if you are totally antagonistic to my arguments, we will get the same result.
Now your "argument" may attempt to prove the irrelevancy or inadequacy of my facts, but the facts themselves should be unfudgeable.
The problem is that it is far far too expensive to rigorously verify all the facts one hears. So in practice humans need to rely on the trustworthiness of the person or institution saying them.
Here is the difference:
If you try to replicate a fact, you'll succeed If you try to disprove a fact, you'll fail If you find rebuttles to a fact, they'll be hollow
The only thing in the obvious list that doesn't separate a fact from a non-fact is the arguments in support. Hence why scientists are taught not to care for arguments in support, only research, and then specifically arguments that disprove more than those that prove.