Michael Sylvester wrote:
> is there a distinction between truth and fact?
Quite a bit.
Example:
Fact: The Earth is approximately 24,000 miles in diameter at the
Equator.
Truth: The Earth is a big place.
In the former case, the statement is both testable and
verifiable; in the latter case it is subject to interpretation--what is
"big" to one person may not be so to another.
> I would imagine if a schizophrenic sees a pink elephant
> that would be a fact,
The _statement_ that "a schizophrenic stated s/he saw a pink
elephant" would be a fact, but not the statement that s/he saw one. That
statement may be "truth," but clearly it is not a fact.
> but no pink elephants exist in nature.
This is the reason the previous statement is NOT a fact. If,
instead, the schizophrenic DID see an elephant (at a zoo) that had been
painted pink for a special event, then it _would_ be a fact since it
could be independently verified.
Consider a fact to be analogous with a (true) empirical
statement; it can be demonstrated and tested. Consider truth to be
analogous with a (true) normative statement; it cannot be "proven"
scientifically.
Rick
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
". . . and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the
love you leave behind when you're gone." --Fred Small
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
