Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA20635 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:01:57 +0100 From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Thoughts and Perceptions Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:56:39 -0400 Message-ID: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAOEIPCOAA.debivort@umd5.umd.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 In-Reply-To: <LAW2-F91mIvijyoLTsT00009480@hotmail.com> Importance: Normal Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
I'm with Wade on this one, Grant, and will also agree that it hinges in
one's defintion of 'fact.' So I went to the dictionary and found that -- you
may be right. Harrumpffff.
It says: Fact: 1. Something known with certainty. 2. Something asserted as
certain. 3. Soemthing that has been objectievly evrified. 4, Something
having demonstrable existence.
Each of these deifintions posits an observer or a 'stator.' So, I think
Grant's point is well taken, and stand corrected. I think Wade is using the
term to refer to the "auctual existence" of the thing, regardless of whether
it is observed or stated.
I hope this helps. I learned something.
Lawrence
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Grant Callaghan
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 11:42 AM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Thoughts and Perceptions
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
> >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> >Subject: RE: Thoughts and Perceptions
> >Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:26:00 -0400
> >
> >Good morning,
> >
> >In the light of Grant's recent attempts to trash Muslims, and
> his cheerful
> >assertions about al-Qaida (knowledge that seems even to elude our
> >government), I would have to say that Grant DOES believe that
> "People crete
> >facts." How handy.
> >
> >Lawrence
> >
> A fact is a statement about something. Who else besides people make
> statements? The term "fact" refers to the statement's relative truth or
> falsity. Since many of the statements we call facts are contested in
> scientific journals, there must be some question about them.
>
> So, yes, I do believe that people create facts and that some such
> statements
> are more believable than others. You, on the other hand, may
> define a fact
> differently than I do. You may feel that only statements that are
> uncontestable are facts. But the fact remains that even these statements
> are created by people and the words used to frame them can often be
> contested. Most such statements contain the truth, but not the
> whole truth.
> A bit of the truth can be just as deceiving as none at all. Disproving
> statements of "fact" is a common pastime in our society.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Grant
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 17 2002 - 19:15:52 BST