|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 03/25/2010 : 04:53:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
| "'The sentence - confinement of wild animals constitutes abuse - is not an opinion, it is a statement of alleged fact.'" is a fact claim. |
It may be, but it is not one that I can find or provide any facts or evidence to support; only the reasons why I hold the opinion. I have given those, and if those reasons are satisfactory to you, excellent. If not, what would you like? |
Whether you find the reasons for the fact claim sufficiently supported or not, or can provide evidence for the fact claim at all, is not relevant to whether or not something is a fact claim.
"Dave W's car is red" is a fact claim. I have never seen Dave W's car (I don't even know whether he has one). I do not trust Dave W ( ) and I don't live in Dave W's neighborhood and therefore by my knowledge cannot provide any evidence or facts to support my claim. It is still a fact claim.| Can we now move on from this pointless exercise? |
Maybe. I'm sorry that you find it pointless. I don't. I have loved epistemological arguments ever since college days back in the Dark Ages. My point can be illustrated here: You state that:| "An opinion is a claim" is a fact claim. |
Your statement in itself is also a fact claim. Please give me the evidence (or facts) upon which your fact claim is based. |
Whether a claim is a fact claim or not, is dependent on the structure of the claim, not on whether you can actually give support for it as demonstrated above with my claim about Dave W's car.
The structure of the claims talked about above is that a certain statement can be classified in a certain category of claims, in this case a claim of fact. A claim of fact has earlier been identified as a claim that can in principle be objectively verified.
In this case, whether something is a claim of fact or not can be in principle verified by identifying what a claim of fact is and then verifying whether the claim "statement x is a fact claim" holds.
Our certainty about this further increases since the statement in this case cannot be classified in the other categories that have passed the revue. It is not a statement of value, since we do not state whether we like a fact claim more than other kinds of claims.
It is also not a policy claim, since the statement does not tell us how we should act in regard to fact claims.
If you cannot, or do not want to, that is fine with me, Tomko. I did not really ask you the question, although your answer is certainly welcome. I asked Dude, who posted a number of highly personal allegations about me and my statements and now is completely running away from his own argument, which he stated at the beginning of his thread was a terrible thing for anyone to do.| Otherwise it's just annoying. |
Maybe you could just not read Dude's thread, kind of like turning the TV off when you don't like the programming? |
I did not say that I don't like Dude's thread. What I personally find annoying is the way you seem to have chosen to conduct the discussion. Repeatedy asking Dude "Is statement x that you made a fact claim" does nothing to further the discussion, because it doesn't give any insight in why you would or would not agree with Dude on that, or why you feel that the question is relevant to the discussion of the topic of the thread in the first place. That makes it annoying, in my opinion (this last claim is a value claim by the way, see?).
[Edited to fix quoting - Dave W.] |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
 |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2010 : 06:12:09 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks Dave W. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2010 : 07:28:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Thanks Dave W. |
No sweat.
Stuff you'll probably agree with, but which I mention for the benefit of others:| Whether you find the reasons for the fact claim sufficiently supported or not, or can provide evidence for the fact claim at all, is not relevant to whether or not something is a fact claim. |
How well supported a person thinks a fact claim is will generally determine whether they state it as opinion or fact, but it's still a claim to fact.| That makes it annoying, in my opinion (this last claim is a value claim by the way, see?). |
It's also a fact claim: tomk80 finds bngbuck's tactics in this thread annoying. The empirical evidence supporting the truth of that assertion is your statement that he's being annoying.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2010 : 08:04:02 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| Prove it or shut up! It's not worth crap without evidence! |
Prove that you are capable of understanding basic sentence structure, your claim is worthless without eveidence!
Prove that you do actually understand the concept of a claim, because your claim that you do is worthless without evidence!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2010 : 08:30:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
It's also a fact claim: tomk80 finds bngbuck's tactics in this thread annoying. The empirical evidence supporting the truth of that assertion is your statement that he's being annoying.
|
I'm getting horribly confused here  |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2010 : 11:57:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
I'm getting horribly confused here |
Do you have any evidence to support that fact claim?!
 |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2010 : 15:04:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by tomk80
I'm getting horribly confused here |
Do you have any evidence to support that fact claim?!
|
Do you, Dave_W, have any evidence that his statement is a fact claim?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2010 : 15:09:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by tomk80
I'm getting horribly confused here |
Do you have any evidence to support that fact claim?!
|
Do you, Dave_W, have any evidence that his statement is a fact claim? |
Do you, Dude, have any evidence that that statement was actually his?
Gee, this is fun.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2010 : 15:34:42 [Permalink]
|
Yuh huh!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2010 : 12:13:32 [Permalink]
|
Tomko.....
Thank you for your courteous reply, and particularly for the answer....| "An opinion is a claim" is a fact claim. |
.... that Dude was not capable of answering.| Whether you find the reasons for the fact claim sufficiently supported or not, or you can provide evidence for the fact claim at all, is not relevant to whether or not something is a fact claim. |
I disagree with that statement as written, particularly if there are no facts relevant to the claim, or evidence for the claim is unknown. My reasons for that disagreement follow.| "_____'s car is red" is a fact claim. |
Only if _____'s car exists and is actually red. Otherwise, it is not a claim of any sort, merely a false proposition| A claim of fact has earlier been identified as a claim that can in principle be objectively verified. |
What is the "principle" that identifies "captivity of wild animals is abuse" as a claim of fact?| In this case, whether something is a claim of fact or not can be in principle verified by identifying what a claim of fact is and then verifying whether the claim "statement x is a fact claim" holds. |
OK. I'll try it:
A. A claim of fact is a claim that can be, in principle, objectively verified. "Captivity of wild animals is abuse" has never been verified by rigidly structured scientific investigation. There is no evidence of any studies of the effect of captivity upon wild animals.
B. There are no facts available concerning the effects of captivity upon wild animals. Actually, relatively little is known of animal psychology as compared to human psychology. Therefore, whether or not this type of claim can be verified, in principle, is unknown.
C. There is no evidence of any objective verification of the question "Does captivity constitute abuse of wild animals, or not?"
D. The claim "Captivity of wild animals is abuse" is not a fact claim, as there are no facts on record concerning the subject and it is unknown as to whether or not this type of claim (involving animal psychology) can be objectively verified.Our certainty about this further increases since the statement in this case cannot be classified in the other categories that have passed the revue. It is not a statement of value, since we do not state whether we like a fact claim more than other kinds of claims.
It is also not a policy claim, since the statement does not tell us how we should act in regard to fact claims. |
We have shown that the statement in this case cannot be a claim of fact, as there are no facts for the statement to reference.
Is it your position that there are no other categories of claims other than those of Fact, Value, and Policy? I suspect there are!
What is the "revue" that the categories must pass?
| I did not say that I don't like Dude's thread. What I personally find annoying is the way you seem to have chosen to conduct the discussion |
I am sorry to have annoyed you. The reason that I repeatedly asked Dude the same question is that he repeatedly refused to answer a question that is critical to this discussion, namely is the statement..........itself a claim of fact? If the answer is yes (which you have stated), the next position that a good, loyal, duteous Skeptic must ask is: What is the evidence for your claim to fact?.
If the answer to the original question is no, the Skeptic asks: "What is it, if it is not a fact claim?", or perhaps, "Is it an Opinion?| Repeatedy asking Dude "Is statement x that you made a fact claim" does nothing to further the discussion, because it doesn't give any insight in why you would or would not agree with Dude on that, or why you feel that the question is relevant to the discussion of the topic of the thread in the first place. |
I hope I have satisfactorily addressed these issues in the above sentences.| That makes it annoying, in my opinion (this last claim is a value claim by the way, see?). |
Yes, I see and agree it is.
I appreciate your well-thought out analysis of this complex issue that has troubled many psychologists, philosophers, logicians and others, some right here on SFN (such as Kil). I also appreciate your refusal to use false ridicule, personal attack, derogatory invective, and just plain bullshit to make your points. I have been guilty of many of these things in the past, and now, looking at others acting in this childish way, I am embarassed for that behaviour. I greatly appreciate members like you, Tomko. I aspire to reach your level of civility.
Summary of Questions
1. Demonstrate that "____'s car is red is a fact claim if ____'s car does not exist.
2. What is the "principle" that identifies "captivity of wild animals is abuse" as a claim of fact?
3. Is it your position that there are no other categories of claims other than those of Fact, Value, and Policy?
4. What is the "revue" that the various categories of claims must pass?
5. What is the evidence for your "claim to fact" that | "An opinion is a claim" is a fact claim? |
Because of your civil and courteous response to my postings, I do not feel that I am in any way justified in "demanding" answers to these questions. If you choose to answer them, I hope to learn more about this complex subject. If not, that is certainly your perogative. You definitely are not a hypocrite like Dude who opens this thread with:| Also, no actual opinion, on any subject, is immune to challenge. All opinions must be justified when challenged. Having an opinion on a subject should be the start of a debate, not the end of it. |
and then runs away from his own thread with the whining:| I'm uninterested in responding to your stupidity in any substantive way. |
and later:| It isn't that I'm uninterested in responding, rather I'm uninterested in responding to nonsense. |
and finally| Just admit your mistake and move on man. |
Wow! This is SFN! Why not question something for a change?
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2010 : 12:54:08 [Permalink]
|
| lol @ this thread |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2010 : 15:24:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Tomko |
tomk80.| Otherwise, it is not a claim of any sort, merely a false proposition |
Wikipedia fail. Let's look at Wikipedia's disambiguation page for the word 'claim':Claim may refer to:
...
Proposition - a statement which is either true or false... Guess what page the word "Proposition" links to. In context, the words are synonymous.
Oh, and false propositions (claims) are still propositions (claims), even if they are false because an unstated assumption is false.| A claim of fact has earlier been identified as a claim that can in principle be objectively verified. |
What is the "principle" that identifies "captivity of wild animals is abuse" as a claim of fact? |
English parsing fail.| A. A claim of fact is a claim that can be, in principle, objectively verified. "Captivity of wild animals is abuse" has never been verified by rigidly structured scientific investigation. There is no evidence of any studies of the effect of captivity upon wild animals. |
English parsing fail, again.| B. There are no facts available concerning the effects of captivity upon wild animals. Actually, relatively little is known of animal psychology as compared to human psychology. Therefore, whether or not this type of claim can be verified, in principle, is unknown. |
Assumes without evidence that there might be some barrier to an objective answer.| C. There is no evidence of any objective verification of the question "Does captivity constitute abuse of wild animals, or not?" |
Irrelevant.| D. The claim "Captivity of wild animals is abuse" is not a fact claim, as there are no facts on record concerning the subject and it is unknown as to whether or not this type of claim (involving animal psychology) can be objectively verified. |
The same unevidenced assumption as in (B).| We have shown that the statement in this case cannot be a claim of fact, as there are no facts for the statement to reference. |
Assumes that your experiences are not factual. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2010 : 21:11:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Tomko.....
Thank you for your courteous reply, and particularly for the answer....| "An opinion is a claim" is a fact claim. |
.... that Dude was not capable of answering.| Whether you find the reasons for the fact claim sufficiently supported or not, or you can provide evidence for the fact claim at all, is not relevant to whether or not something is a fact claim. |
I disagree with that statement as written, particularly if there are no facts relevant to the claim, or evidence for the claim is unknown. My reasons for that disagreement follow.
| "_____'s car is red" is a fact claim. |
Only if _____'s car exists and is actually red. Otherwise, it is not a claim of any sort, merely a false proposition |
??? Sorry, but is english your first language? How am I not making a claim to a fact if I say that Dave W.'s car is red. If Dave W's car is blue, the claim I made is false, if Dave W. does not own a car the claim I made is false. But a fact claim does not have to be true to be a fact claim. Fact claims can be false, obviously, if they disagree with reality.
| A claim of fact has earlier been identified as a claim that can in principle be objectively verified. |
What is the "principle" that identifies "captivity of wild animals is abuse" as a claim of fact? |
Again, is english your first language? In principle, or synonymously in theory, or synonymously hypothetically. "In principle" does not refer to a principle, it refers to the point that the claim can be tested.
The way the claim is phrased alleges that there is an objective criterium that defines abuse and that this criterium is satisfied for animals in captivity (ie, it is a fact claim). It alleges something about how the animal is affected, not how you are affected by it (ie, it is not a claim of personal preference). And it concerns a state that is in existence, not a preferable course of action (ie, it is not a policy claim).
Unless you have a different category of claims to put it in, it is a fact claim. It is either true or not.
| In this case, whether something is a claim of fact or not can be in principle verified by identifying what a claim of fact is and then verifying whether the claim "statement x is a fact claim" holds. |
OK. I'll try it:
A. A claim of fact is a claim that can be, in principle, objectively verified. "Captivity of wild animals is abuse" has never been verified by rigidly structured scientific investigation. There is no evidence of any studies of the effect of captivity upon wild animals.
B. There are no facts available concerning the effects of captivity upon wild animals. Actually, relatively little is known of animal psychology as compared to human psychology. Therefore, whether or not this type of claim can be verified, in principle, is unknown.
C. There is no evidence of any objective verification of the question "Does captivity constitute abuse of wild animals, or not?"
D. The claim "Captivity of wild animals is abuse" is not a fact claim, as there are no facts on record concerning the subject and it is unknown as to whether or not this type of claim (involving animal psychology) can be objectively verified.Our certainty about this further increases since the statement in this case cannot be classified in the other categories that have passed the revue. It is not a statement of value, since we do not state whether we like a fact claim more than other kinds of claims.
It is also not a policy claim, since the statement does not tell us how we should act in regard to fact claims. |
We have shown that the statement in this case cannot be a claim of fact, as there are no facts for the statement to reference. |
But, as I have shown multiple times, whether something is a fact claim or not is dependent only on whether it can hypothetically be tested, not whether it can be tested now or ever or whether it is true or false.
To take another example, scientific hypotheses are fact claims. They are statements that should hold true if the scientific theory is correct. They are statements that are going to be tested, so we don't know yet whether the fact claim is true or not. The statement is claimed to be a fact. We may find out after testing that the claim of fact was incorrect.
Or take the claim that God exists. We cannot test this claim. But regardless of whether it can be tested, the claim is either true or not. It is a fact claim.
You seem to be thinking that a fact claim can only be such if the claim is a fact, but this is obviously not the case. I can make a claim that is false ("Dave W.'s car is red" if it is in fact blue), it is still a claim that I made and that can be tested in principle. Even if Dave W. somehow vanishes of the face of the earth from now on and I haven't got the opportunity to ask Dave W. whether he has a red car, the claim is either true or false regardless.
| Is it your position that there are no other categories of claims other than those of Fact, Value, and Policy? I suspect there are! |
Doesn't matter, since the categories are not overlapping. So even if you identify a new category, this doesn't somehow move claims to fact to some other category.
| What is the "revue" that the categories must pass? |
It must be non-overlapping with any of the others. So far we have claims to:
1) fact: the claim can hypothetically be tested to be true or false
2) value: the claim states something about your personal preference
3) policy: the claim states something on how we should act
| I did not say that I don't like Dude's thread. What I personally find annoying is the way you seem to have chosen to conduct the discussion |
I am sorry to have annoyed you. The reason that I repeatedly asked Dude the same question is that he repeatedly refused to answer a question that is critical to this discussion, namely is the statement..........itself a claim of fact? If the answer is yes (which you have stated), the next position that a good, loyal, duteous Skeptic must ask is: What is the evidence for your claim to fact?.
If the answer to the original question is no, the Skeptic asks: "What is it, if it is not a fact claim?", or perhaps, "Is it an Opinion? |
But as several people have pointed out already, opinion are claims. Claims to fact, value or policy or your as of yet unnamed other categories that you might want to add. Nothing negates opinion from being claims.
| Repeatedy asking Dude "Is statement x that you made a fact claim" does nothing to further the discussion, because it doesn't give any insight in why you would or would not agree with Dude on that, or why you feel that the question is relevant to the discussion of the topic of the thread in the first place. |
I hope I have satisfactorily addressed these issues in the above sentences.| That makes it annoying, in my opinion (this last claim is a value claim by the way, see?). |
Yes, I see and agree it is.
I appreciate your well-thought out analysis of this complex issue that has troubled many psychologists, philosophers, logicians and others, some right here on SFN (such as Kil). I also appreciate your refusal to use false ridicule, personal attack, derogatory invective, and just plain bullshit to make your points. I have been guilty of many of these things in the past, and now, looking at others acting in this childish way, I am embarassed for that behaviour. I greatly appreciate members like you, Tomko. I aspire to reach your level of civility. |
It has troubled many psychologists, philosphers, logicians etc? Methinks you may be using a bit of hyperbole here. As far as I can tell, whether an opinion is in fact a claim is pretty straightforward and these people generally go over harder stuff than that. Perhaps you can point me to where this is discussed by these people?
Summary of Questions
1. Demonstrate that "____'s car is red is a fact claim if ____'s car does not exist. |
I am making two claims that can hypothetically be tested, whether Dave W. has a car and whether this car is red. Hence, fact claim. If Dave W. doesn't have a car, he doesn't have a red car either.
| 2. What is the "principle" that identifies "captivity of wild animals is abuse" as a claim of fact? |
"In principle" does not refer to a principle, it means hypothetically or theoretically (or whichever other synonym you want to apply). Abuse can be defined. It can then hypothetically be tested whether holding animals in captivity satisfies this definition. Perhaps at present we do not have enough information, perhaps we never will. Regardless, you are making a statement that is either true or false.
| 3. Is it your position that there are no other categories of claims other than those of Fact, Value, and Policy? |
I cannot think of any.
| 4. What is the "revue" that the various categories of claims must pass? |
No idea. Make a suggestion.
5. What is the evidence for your "claim to fact" that | "An opinion is a claim" is a fact claim? |
|
Already treated this in my earlier post. I'll repeat it one more time. A claim is a statement about reality, either about how reality is (fact), how you perceive this reality (value) or how you think people should act in this reality (policy (possibly morality would be a better term than policy)). All opinion statements make a statement about reality and hence are claims.
| snipped because post is getting too long already |
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2010 : 12:21:07 [Permalink]
|
Dade......
In my opinion you are vengefully vindictive and discriminatory, so:
1.I'm uninterested in responding to you in any substantive way.
2.There is nothing in your post that warrants a reasoned response. You are well aware of that. It isn't that I'm uninterested in responding, rather I'm uninterested in responding to nonsense.
3.[You should] just admit your mistake and move on, man!
I have pledged to reply to your posts and I will, as time allows. I am pretty busy trying to make money at this time and I intend to finish up with Tomko and then pull out for a while.
This thread will die as soon as I leave, so if it still is accessible when I can return to this pastime, I'll pick up on the last unanswered
post when I can settle at home for a few days.
Enjoy the Ides of March (Gregorian)!
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2010 : 12:28:12 [Permalink]
|
Tomk80.....
Apologies for miscomprehending your stage name.
I am sorry for further interruption, but I am called to Phoenix for a few days so I will be unable to answer your clever response until mid week. Some of your comment does give me Pause! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The ‘opinion’ thread
