• @Beldarofremulak
      link
      1910 months ago

      We got some 101’s in here beanbag chairin it up.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1210 months ago

        Speak for yourself, I’m having this conversation from a papasan chair I found on the side of the road

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️
      link
      510 months ago

      Because without facts, what you have is not “truth.” It’s either speculation or bullshit.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        510 months ago

        But how do you define “facts?” And how do you define “truth?” And how do you define “is?”

        • @kofe
          link
          English
          210 months ago

          We’ll see who cancels who?

      • @asdfasdfasdf
        link
        210 months ago

        I think the point is this is paradoxical. Everything must be proven by facts and we cannot trust any general, abstract statement of its own accord, then how can we prove “everything must be proven by facts and we cannot trust any general, abstract statement of its own accord”? What if that’s a wrong assumption?

        Maybe the truth is we don’t always need to rely on observable facts, but we don’t know that because we’re making the aforementioned assumption without having any proof that it’s correct.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          310 months ago

          axioms have entered the chat

          The deeper you go in the why territory, the more abstract and tangental your axioms get.

          So yeah. All facts and truths ultimately rest on foundations that are either kinda unobservable or unproven. Doesn’t make them less practical or true (by practical definitions) though.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      To get a fact out of an observation requires interpretation and a desire-to-interpret. It’s observation translated into dreamstuff.