tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post2655724130422851448..comments2024-03-28T16:58:17.705-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: No Wonder It's Hard to Develop Virtuous CitizensGrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-43941965163936705492015-03-26T00:07:47.361-04:002015-03-26T00:07:47.361-04:00Correction: "I prefer to think that God comma...Correction: "I prefer to think that God commands ..." (not "God that commands").Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-82762332622732075792015-03-25T23:51:36.996-04:002015-03-25T23:51:36.996-04:00So, to continue, "love thy neighbor as you lo...So, to continue, "love thy neighbor as you love yourself" is a command, but we can frame it as a moral statement: "You should love your neighbor as yourself." That statement is either true or false, and it's truth or falsehood doesn't depend on our ability to prove it. For many people, if God commands it, that is good enough. However, even that implies that we should obey God, and the statement "We should obey God" is a moral statement that is either true or false.<br /><br />I want to look a bit more at the idea that "God commands it, so it's right." God's commands could be arbitrary, in which case they can't be organized into a coherent moral system from which to reason out proper behavior in new situations. This seems to me to be the result of your claim that there are no moral truths, only commands.<br /><br />I prefer to think God that commands us to do things because they are right. For me, his commands form a coherent system of moral truths that we can use as premises to work out what we should do in situations not detailed by scripture or tradition. I think it's very useful, then, to have moral truths we can reason from.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-46850998713502532632015-03-25T22:29:28.969-04:002015-03-25T22:29:28.969-04:00But I do not think for a moment that I have the in...<i>But I do not think for a moment that I have the indisputable truth.</i><br /><br />I'm not talking about anyone knowing the truth. My point was, truth exists regardless of whether we know it, and regardless of whether it can be proven.<br /><br />Let's take an example: Killing people for fun is wrong.<br /><br />That's either true, or it's not. If it's true, it is a moral truth. Furthermore, if it's true, then it's true whether or not we can prove it. If we can't prove it, then we can't <i>know</i> it's true, but then, truth doesn't depend on our knowing it. It's still true, regardless of our knowing or our ability to prove it.<br /><br />Why might it be important to believe in moral truth if we can't prove it?<br /><br />What we believe to be true changes our behavior. Since you are a believer, I assume that your belief in God changes your behavior in some way. However, I also assume that you can't definitively prove God exists. But you believe it's true, and that changes your behavior, right?<br /><br />Similarly, with moral truth, whether we believe it exists or not can affect our behavior, regardless of whether we can prove it. If someone believes that there are moral truths, even though they're difficult to discern and we can't quite be sure we've found them, then they are more likely to live a moral life. If someone doesn't believe there are moral truths, then they are more likely to live an amoral life.<br /><br />I'm going to pause here to think about what you've written more.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-54580411696664303352015-03-25T13:40:07.755-04:002015-03-25T13:40:07.755-04:00Now, you may well be absolutely right. But I would...<i>Now, you may well be absolutely right. But I would venture to say that most religious believers do actually believe in moral truths, even if they can't prove them to you in a way you would accept, and they would deny that they are subjective value judgments.</i><br /><br />In fact, I am a believer myself. But I do not think for a moment that I have <b>the</b> indisputable truth. How can I? God has not appeared before me and confirmed the things I am right about, or clarified the things I am not so sure of. And while I realize there are some out there who are believers in the inerrancy of their religious texts, I am not one. I believe the Bible to be written by man, inspired by God. But it isn't His word made text. And in fact, much of the Old Testament predates the invention of writing, so is passed down from the oral tradtion. And while works like Beowulf and the Iliad demonstrate that the oral tradition can keep much of the source material alive and relatable, they also prove that the meanings of things can become lost through time.<br /><br />To take a very basic example. In the Iliad, Homer declares that the Greeks ride their chariots up to the battle front so that the heroes can dismount and engage the foe. And yet, historically, this is never how chariots have been used, as some form of battle taxi. But by the time of Homer, no one used them anymore. He knew of them, but had no idea how such a thing would be used in battle.<br /><br />Or for an even more modern example, take the depictions of Arthur and his knights. They clearly could not have been feudal knights as understood by Medieval audiences, nor would they have worn "shining" plate armor... none such existed at that time in history. In fact, it's a certainty they did not fight with couched lances, as they did not even have stirrups until the Norman invasion. Much of what is assumed about Arthurian legend is viewed through the lens of the times in which it was written down.<br /><br />Because of this, logic tells me that the Bible must be likewise so. No one (save for the Moslems and Mormons) claim that angels descended and passed along verbatum texts from God with his exact word. Instead, it is the inspired history of the people of Israel (and not 100% factual history at that) in the Old Testament, and the impressions of the four Apostles in the Gospels (plus assorted letters, all written after Christ's death and ascension) and even those do not always agree internally.<br /><br />Please do not misunderstand. I think the universal messages of the Bible are good and positive things, but without knowing the mind of God (so to speak), I can't call them "true". Which parts? The Slaughter of the Innocents (not documented anywhere in Roman or Jewish history, nor in any of the other three Gospels)? The Flood (which appears to be a Jewish adaptation of the Babylonian flood myth from their time in slavery)? The visions of Elijah? Of John in Revelations? Genesis? Which are parable and which are literal? Which are lessons to draw moral lessons from and which are literal history? How are we to tell? "Is there life on other planets?" It is knowable, but we do not currently know. We may never know the truth of it in my lifetime, just as we may never know the truth of which parts of the Bible are literal truths and which are lessons taught through parable.<br /><br />But when you speak of "moral truths" I do not know how you <i>can</i> prove "love thy neighbor as you love yourself" as a true or false thing. It is a command, I agree. But I don't know that I can call it a "universal truth" because there is nothing to test it against. There is no logical construct to place it within. But by the same token, I don't believe it NEEDS to be proven, because it's NOT a statement of truth or falseness. It's a command from God. I don't need laws or commands from God to <b>be</b> truths to accept them. And I'm not sure why anyone else would either. MikeDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08116809134355184859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-8116834846414134462015-03-25T00:37:53.581-04:002015-03-25T00:37:53.581-04:00Also, I seem to have given the wrong impression th...Also, I seem to have given the wrong impression that I want, as Cass put it, "some authority to make a binding ruling."<br /><br />What I really want is for our schools to stop teaching a simplistic and misleading formula for sorting claims. I want, as McBrayer concludes, for our schools to teach children how to really think about these things and come to their own conclusions:<br /><br /><i>Our children deserve a consistent intellectual foundation. Facts are things that are true. Opinions are things we believe. Some of our beliefs are true. Others are not. Some of our beliefs are backed by evidence. Others are not. Value claims are like any other claims: either true or false, evidenced or not. The hard work lies not in recognizing that at least some moral claims are true but in carefully thinking through our evidence for which of the many competing moral claims is correct. That’s a hard thing to do. But we can’t sidestep the responsibilities that come with being human just because it’s hard.</i><br /><br />The educational aspect has always been my first concern in this discussion. We are failing to teach students how to think critically, and our society is suffering for it.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-71318900187696828922015-03-24T22:58:23.665-04:002015-03-24T22:58:23.665-04:00Grim, I think Buddhism may do it without a God, bu...Grim, I think Buddhism may do it without a God, but it does seem to need metaphysics of some sort.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-82303665227533395622015-03-24T22:55:18.445-04:002015-03-24T22:55:18.445-04:00Mike, that's a good point.
To me, what's ...Mike, that's a good point.<br /><br />To me, what's provable and what's true are two different things. Instead of alien life, let's look at the past. Due to the historical curiosity and efforts of an aunt and a grandmother, I know a number of facts about my ancestors back to around 1500. However, beyond that is quite a mystery. Now, I firmly believe I had ancestors before that, but I will probably never be able to know their names or deeds; the records become too sparse. So, things really happened in the past that we can never know or prove, but they are true nonetheless.<br /><br />Secondly, and I think this is where our discussion earlier went a bit awry, I come from a very religious background where the existence of moral truth was assumed. When you say, "But 'this is morally right' is not something that can ever be proven true or false. It's a subjective value judgment," you're asserting something I don't believe.<br /><br />Now, you may well be absolutely right. But I would venture to say that most religious believers do actually believe in moral truths, even if they can't prove them to you in a way you would accept, and they would deny that they are subjective value judgments.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-28410413008357796512015-03-24T17:55:38.649-04:002015-03-24T17:55:38.649-04:00The most obvious way (though not the only way) is ...The most obvious way (though not the only way) is if morality is divinely created. Then God knows whether it is right or wrong, even if you aren't sure (or even if you are sure, but are wrong).<br /><br />This is one of the oldest and most important debates in philosophy: Plato attributes the opposing position to Protagoras, who argues essentially as you are that there 'are only value judgments.' (His phrasing: "Man is the measure of all things.") The alternative is called "moral realism," and it usually requires a god to be the measure -- that's how Plato puts it. I think at least some times we can look at things about the world, but Enlightenment figures like Hume dispute that (on what strike me as poor grounds).Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-28810901094316355872015-03-24T10:26:12.977-04:002015-03-24T10:26:12.977-04:00I guess I simply don't understand your point t...I guess I simply don't understand your point then. "For example, it's either true or not that life exists on other planets, but I can't prove it either way." I get this, because it establishes that it is something that is a provable concept. We may not know the truth of it now, but it is either true or false. My <i>belief</i> based upon my knowledge and experience is that it is likely true (given the absolutely astronomical odds, no pun intended, against this one planet being the only one in the entire universe capable of sustaining life), but ultimately my belief is irrelevant to the actual truth of the matter.<br /><br />But then you lose me: "That's the sense of "If there are no universal moral truths ..."<br /><br />So, it's a claim about the universe, not about what we can or can't prove."<br /><br />But "this is morally right" is not something that can <b>ever</b> be proven true or false. It's a subjective value judgment. It is never going to be provable. So how can it be a "truth"?MikeDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08116809134355184859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-29678806537876908072015-03-21T19:45:58.542-04:002015-03-21T19:45:58.542-04:00Just to clarify, when I say "truth," I&#...Just to clarify, when I say "truth," I'm talking about something being true. I'm not talking about being able to prove that it's true. When I say, "If there are no universal moral truths," I'm NOT saying, "If we can't prove universal moral truths ..."<br /><br />For example, it's either true or not that life exists on other planets, but I can't prove it either way. That's the sense of "If there are no universal moral truths ..."<br /><br />So, it's a claim about the universe, not about what we can or can't prove.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-69036353426145948612015-03-21T19:19:04.434-04:002015-03-21T19:19:04.434-04:00It's a false logical statement ...
I think I...<i>It's a false logical statement ... </i><br /><br />I think I need to go back and re-read what you've written about this. I'll come back to it.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-5554618147002578192015-03-21T19:15:36.399-04:002015-03-21T19:15:36.399-04:00I pretty much agree with Grim's comment at 7:0...I pretty much agree with Grim's comment at 7:05 yesterday, and I'd like to highlight this contrast:<br /><br /><i>I do think there are a few questions that can be established definitively -- I've given the example of virtues as objective and definitive moral facts.</i><br /><br />I would be a bit more tentative and say "can probably be established," but, yes.<br /><br /><i>Coming to a hard moral rule that applies universally is thus not likely for most cases. (Here Kant and I disagree sharply!) We can say a few things with enough objective certainty that I think "fact" is the right way to speak about those few things. But there aren't a lot of these; most of the rest of the time, we are feeling our way along.</i>Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-42621092375465456502015-03-21T19:05:51.036-04:002015-03-21T19:05:51.036-04:00Why wouldn't it be just as valid to say that d...<i>Why wouldn't it be just as valid to say that definitively declaring that your moral judgment is universally true (even though a great many people don't agree) is an attempt by group A (those who believe) to dominate group B (those who don't)?</i><br /><br />Sure, Cass, if there is no universal moral truth, ANY use of moral concepts to persuade is an illegitimate appeal to authority.<br /><br /><i>Why you seem to want is some authority to make a binding ruling.</i><br /><br />Really? That puzzles me. What have I written that makes you think that?Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-51867346714499094582015-03-21T19:01:18.495-04:002015-03-21T19:01:18.495-04:00Cass: I believe the attempt to discern objective t...Cass: <i>I believe the attempt to discern objective truth/reality is critically important - we need a balance to the natural filter through which we see reality (emotions, bias, experience, personality). But I'm uncomfortable with the notion that we can or should consider a lot of this stuff to be beyond dispute.</i><br /><br />I'm not sure that's where the idea of moral facts leads us. First of all, we (or I at least) am talking about things we can establish as facts; that's probably not very many things at all. Second, if we can honestly establish them as facts, why not? What's the danger if someone actually does establish as indisputable fact that murder is immoral? Third, you can always dispute a fact; this is America. We do it all the time.<br /><br /><i>When it comes to morality, I'm more comfortable with phrases like "justified belief" than "fact". What people of good faith believe is "justifiable", differs. For some, justified belief is grounded in the Bible, or Aristotle, education, or life experience, or some mix of the above.</i><br /><br />I think that's a good standard as well. Prove the things we can, work along toward justified belief in other things.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-57429922795702145102015-03-21T18:58:07.682-04:002015-03-21T18:58:07.682-04:00If there are no universal moral truths, then the c...<i>If there are no universal moral truths, then the concept of morality is merely a deception; it is just one more way people in group A try to dominate and control people in group B. </i><br /><br />I don't believe that's true.<br /><br />Why wouldn't it be just as valid to say that definitively declaring that your moral judgment is universally true (even though a great many people don't agree) is an attempt by group A (those who believe) to dominate group B (those who don't)?<br /><br />Why you seem to want is some authority to make a binding ruling. Given that there's no universal authority who would be considered universally legitimate, I don't see how anyone can simply declare a moral precept to be universally "true".<br /><br />You can do that only by ignoring the beliefs of people who disagree, or by dismissing them, or by imposing your morals on them by force. Which is what law does, but I don't consider law to settle moral questions. Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-19511592778271174882015-03-21T10:13:42.828-04:002015-03-21T10:13:42.828-04:00Is "China is the capital of France" a tr...<i>Is "China is the capital of France" a true logical statement?</i><br /><br />It's a false logical statement, that is, a statement in a logical language with a truth value ("F").<br /><br />Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-88297782616447161122015-03-21T09:10:54.061-04:002015-03-21T09:10:54.061-04:00The issue for me is that claiming that a moral jud...<i>The issue for me is that claiming that a moral judgement is "truth" or "fact" is assigning it a level of indisputability it does not actually possess.</i><br /><br />But I've been talking about proof. What if a moral judgment could be proven true? Then, it would be a fact. If you are going to deny my premise, then just say "That can't be proven." Then we could have a meaningful discussion about that. But repeatedly accusing me of saying something I've never said isn't helpful.<br /><br /><i>There is no universal "truth" to morals. Only ones that are generally accepted and those that are not.</i><br /><br />If there are no universal moral truths, then the concept of morality is merely a deception; it is just one more way people in group A try to dominate and control people in group B. Nothing more, nothing less. What you accuse me of trying to achieve by 'moral facts,' you achieve bluntly, through force alone. If there are no moral truths, then society has no right to force anyone to act in any particular way. You worry about not being able to argue against a fact? Try arguing against the police officers who've come to arrest you.<br /><br />Or, rather, if there are no moral truths, then nothing is right or wrong, so society can do what it likes, but I wish it would stop being so pretentious about it by going on and on about right, wrong, morals, ethics, etc. None of those things have any real meaning, so stop pretending they do.<br /><br />Unless, of course, you can prove it.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-88475395812841365322015-03-21T08:44:29.205-04:002015-03-21T08:44:29.205-04:00To say that the class of facts and the class of tr...<i>To say that the class of facts and the class of true logical statements are not the same ...</i><br /><br />Is "China is the capital of France" a true logical statement?Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-83668984377839878112015-03-20T19:05:55.434-04:002015-03-20T19:05:55.434-04:00There is no universal "truth" to morals....<i>There is no universal "truth" to morals. </i><br /><br /><i>I think this is an area where Grim and I often disagree. He has suggested in the past that moral questions can be established definitively, and I don't believe that at all.</i><br /><br />I do think there are a few questions that can be established definitively -- I've given the example of virtues as objective and definitive moral facts. <br /><br />Also, as Christians, we do believe that there is a universal moral truth. At least in theory, we expect our individual actions to be judged by the eternal moral law at some point. <br /><br />I do think that there's an epistemelogical problem. Even where we think we've been given revelations from the divine, we have to interpret them. And, as you've heard me belabor many times in the past, I think political and ethical thinking is chiefly analogical, not logical. Thus, your reasoning is bedeviled by the fact that you aren't reasoning from cases that are exactly like the current case, but which are always different in some ways. <br /><br />Coming to a hard moral rule that applies universally is thus not likely for most cases. (Here Kant and I disagree sharply!) We can say a few things with enough objective certainty that I think "fact" is the right way to speak about those few things. But there aren't a lot of these; most of the rest of the time, we are feeling our way along.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-38840679443282079372015-03-20T17:24:22.324-04:002015-03-20T17:24:22.324-04:00I like Mike's framing - that's pretty much...I like Mike's framing - that's pretty much where I am.<br /><br />That moral precepts are generally accepted is one indication of possible truth (probably "necessary, but not sufficient"). Slavery was once generally accepted, so were anti-miscegenation laws. But I don't think slavery was ever morally right, so that can't be the sole test for either science and morality.<br /><br />I believe the attempt to discern objective truth/reality is critically important - we need a balance to the natural filter through which we see reality (emotions, bias, experience, personality). But I'm uncomfortable with the notion that we can or should consider a lot of this stuff to be beyond dispute.<br /><br />What's the term, Grim - epistemology? How do we know, what we know? When it comes to morality, I'm more comfortable with phrases like "justified belief" than "fact". What people of good faith believe is "justifiable", differs. For some, justified belief is grounded in the Bible, or Aristotle, education, or life experience, or some mix of the above.<br /><br />That's been at the heart of some of our best discussions :)<br />Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-80430302532376012792015-03-20T16:52:47.449-04:002015-03-20T16:52:47.449-04:00I think this is an area where Grim and I often dis...I think this is an area where Grim and I often disagree. He has suggested in the past that moral questions can be established definitively, and I don't believe that at all.<br /><br />What I believe is that sound moral arguments can be used to persuade a critical mass of people of their worth. They create consensus, which is valuable (it's how we make laws and arrive at societal rules for human interaction) but not sufficient to definitively settle moral questions for all time. <br /><br />Now one could argue that science works similarly (sound evidence builds consensus, but consensus < > truth, as in "the world is flat"), but we've also seen this defeated by the human tendency to go with the herd, cherry pick evidence, be deceived by inaccurate feedback/evidence, etc. Global warming's a great example, or pretty much any pediatric "fact" (really, fad): whole milk will make your child fat, salt in moderation is still bad for you, the best way to lose weight is to eliminate fat from your diet, etc.<br /><br />If you don't like today's scientific consensus, wait a few years - it'll change :pCassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-30308150967494404812015-03-20T16:01:07.122-04:002015-03-20T16:01:07.122-04:00No, I'm saying it's odd that you are fine ...<i>No, I'm saying it's odd that you are fine with an argument from authority in one circumstance, but not another. That you don't see the contradiction is strange to me.</i><br /><br />I see. The issue for me is that claiming that a moral judgement is "truth" or "fact" is assigning it a level of indisputability it does not actually possess. There is no universal "truth" to morals. Only ones that are generally accepted and those that are not. There is no logical proof that "it is better to be kind", or "you shouldn't hurt people for no reason". Those aren't statements that we can prove or disprove. But they are things that a society can be based upon. The lack of ability to prove or disprove it doesn't make it invalid for society to base rules upon it.<br /><br />But to claim that "it's wrong to cheat" has been near universally accepted in the society in which we live, so we have made rules based upon that value judgement is a statement of fact, not an appeal to authority. Now if you made the argument that "we make rules against cheating because experts say we should" then you are making an appeal to authority. And if you say "it is a moral truth that cheating is wrong", that's trying to elevate the moral judgment of the rightness or wrongness of cheating to be an unassailable opinion, because you're arguing that it's universally true and to disagree with that premise is non-factual.<br /><br />So at the root, I'm saying that the way society makes rules based upon moral choices we (for the most part) agree with is fine. But it is not fine to attempt to justify those choices as beyond question by trying to accord them the status of "fact".MikeDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08116809134355184859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-50873475045986476842015-03-20T15:49:24.237-04:002015-03-20T15:49:24.237-04:00...but why should we call that kind of statement a...<i>...but why should we call that kind of statement a 'fact'? After all, what we're arguing about is the definition of a term.</i><br /><br />You tell me you want facts to be about truth. Logical statements have truth values. The whole point of logic is to ensure that forms are used that preserve truth. <br /><br />To say that the class of facts and the class of true logical statements are not the same means that you have to say that there is a difference between these two statements:<br /><br />1) "Beijing is the capital of China."<br /><br />2) "Beijing is the capital of China."<br /><br />Statement (1) is a fact, but statement (2) is a true statement in logic. However, if we make this division, I can only apply logic to statements like (2). Thus, logic cannot be applied to facts.<br /><br />Is that a happy conclusion? :)Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-78371246803952530172015-03-20T15:31:57.241-04:002015-03-20T15:31:57.241-04:00But I like that we recognize that many moral views...<i>But I like that we recognize that many moral views are opinions, and therefore need a more complete justification before we accept the dictates of whatever authority is proclaiming them.</i><br /><br />Absolutely.<br /><br /><i>But basically, your statement that it is an appeal to authority is kind of strange. Not because it's untrue, but because you're saying that there's something odd about the fact that a rule is in place because that's what society has agreed upon.</i><br /><br />No, I'm saying it's odd that you are fine with an argument from authority in one circumstance, but not another. That you don't see the contradiction is strange to me.<br /><br /><i>When I say that trying to call a moral issue a "fact" is an attempt to stifle debate as "an appeal to authority", I'm saying that it's attempting to use language to claim a false authority that it does not deserve. By calling it a "fact", you're not actually changing the validity of the moral judgment, you're just trying to deny anyone the ability to argue against it by giving it authority it does not actually possess.</i><br /><br />And as I've repeatedly said, I'm not relying on moral judgments; facts must be proven, and if they are proven, then it does change them from mere judgments. I am NOT arguing that we simply change what we call them, and I never did. That would be ridiculous.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-81888551100396735232015-03-20T15:07:31.801-04:002015-03-20T15:07:31.801-04:00Grim, you're right (or at least, having never ...Grim, you're right (or at least, having never studied formal logic, I assume you're right) as far as you go, but why should we call that kind of statement a 'fact'? After all, what we're arguing about is the definition of a term.<br /><br />I see clear advantages to my definition of the word 'fact': it's close enough to common usage that it would be useful in public debate, it's easy to explain to my students, and it's simple enough that my students could easily use it in developing arguments for their essays.<br /><br />Your definition is notably different from the common meaning, meaning it seems to require a lot more explanation and funny symbols before it can be used in public debate or my classroom, and it's more complicated for my students to use when they are writing argumentative essays.<br /><br />That's what interests me here. I really, really wish I had taken a minor, or even majored, in philosophy, but I was stupid(er?) in my 20s and I don't have the time to seriously study it now, and without doing that, I have difficulty seeing how your definition is better.<br /><br />What do you think? What definition should I teach my students, and why?Tomnoreply@blogger.com