Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA21051 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:31:21 +0100 From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Subject: RE: Thoughts and Perceptions Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:26:05 -0400 Message-ID: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAKEJECOAA.firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" 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: <986CD1DC-523D-11D6-9556-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> Importance: Normal Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
In the way I use the term 'fact', I agree. But my dictionary suggests that
Grant's usage may be more correct. The dictionary suggests a distinction
between 'fact' and, let's say, 'reality.' Thus, I would say, "Gravity
exists whether or not anyone notices it. How does that work. Wade? Grant?
Of course, I'm only looking at my handy-dandy, pandering American Heritage
Dictionary, and the college version at that. This is nudging me to go
upstairs to my OED.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf
> Of Wade T.Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 3:59 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Thoughts and Perceptions
> On Wednesday, April 17, 2002, at 01:56 , Lawrence DeBivort wrote:
> > 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.
> Man is the measure of all things.
> He ain't the maker of what's being measured. (Unless he is, and,
> admittedly, in this little and local corner of the universe, he makes
> quite a bit.)
> And what's being measured is a 'fact'.
> The type of measurement is not. It might even be a concept.
> Yes, gravity is a fact without anyone being about to measure it.
> Grant will fall off that bridge without needing any concept of falling,
> or bridge, or gravity.
> - Wade
> 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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 17 2002 - 21:46:01 BST